The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points


Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,704 times Debate No: 12487
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

South Korea - South Korea can be likened to Viet Nam in that it is a small Asian nation that offers little military value to the United States. The very distance from North Korea to California offers enough response time to prepare for an attack. While it would be advantageous to have an FOB in the Pacific threatre should we have encounters with China, South Korea would likely be overrrun. therefore, it makes little sense to keep forces there.

Japan - Japan is a low threat to the United States, and maintains good relations with the United States. There is no need to maintain a military presence there.

Afghanistan - Afghanistan can also be likened to Viet Nam in that we have enemies that we cannot always recognize. We are paying the bill to help people who were by and large content.
Afghanistan offers training facilities for terrorists who seek to damage / destroy the United States and her allies. Without playing the semantics game, the conflict in Afghanistan is a seemingly unwinnable conflict. It is a war of attrition. For every roach that is stepped on, there are many more in hiding.

Suppose we captured Osama bin Laden, then pounded all of the Taliban and al Qaida camps. Would that expedite the end? Or would it continue? Whatever the answer, we must: 1) define success, 2) have a reasonable plan, 3) execute the plan, 4) determine if success has been achieved. Regardless, we cannot continue with business as usual.

Kuwait & Iraq: We basically adopted Kuwait as a kid brother during Operation Desert Shield. Then, President Bush, made it our business to remove the bad apples in Iraq, replace them with puppets, and make Iraq our friend. It is now necessary to maintain a force in Iraq due to the threats from Iran. Most of Iraq's conflicts ended in stalemate. They can obviously defend themselves against the competition in the Middle East, therefore, the U.S. could slowly reduce it's military presence.

Turkey - Turkey is a Muslim nation that is intelligent enough to maintain relations with both the United States and Israel. Whiel we do not have a substantial number of troops in Turkey, I feel it prudent to maintain secure air bases with emergency lodging. Turkey's geographic location is ideal for our interests in the Middle East.

Given the above, I feel that Turkey is the only location in which the U.S. should not seek to substantially reduce it's military presence. Thanks


I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Finding this debate very interesting i gladly took this up and I am looking forward for a great debate to come.


The United States remains to be one of the worlds super powers, with the responsibility of being one of the worlds super powers, comes many duties. One of the many duties of the USA,as you mentioned in you opening argument is being the global police. The US does this for many reasons, they obviously dont just randomly put their finger on a map and say " right,lets put a huge amount of troops their for no reason". The United States place the soldiers and the number of troops to the over sea locations as it reduces conflict and possibility of war.

South Korea: The South Korean and North Korean conflict is one that doesnt just endanger the South Koreans, but one that can endanger the world. The US presence is vital in South Korea as its possibly the only thing preventing the break of war between the 2 nations with fragile relations. My opponent states that "The very distance from North Korea to California offers enough response time to prepare for an attack." wouldnt South Korea be even closer to stop the attack before its even given time to be carried out?. What my opponent doesnt realize is that,once North Korea launch a Nuclear missile, its over, therefore the amount of troops stationed in South Korea at the moment is keeping the North Koreans from doing anything stupid.

Japan: "the United States is obliged to defend Japan in close cooperation with the Japan Self-Defense Forces for maritime defense, ballistic missile defense, domestic air control, communications security (COMSEC) and disaster response operations." USFJ. After WW2 the United States took away the Japanese Armed Forces and took over the military in Japan saying that the US would protect Japan. After the Korean war ( North Korea are a threat towards Japan) the US forces started increasing its manpower in Japan to assist Japanese reserve forces ( which were set up after the Korean war) with for maritime defense, ballistic missile defense, domestic air control, communications security (COMSEC) and disaster response operations. Therefore it is crucial that the US forces stationed in Japan do not leave as it is a matter of Protection. Nuclear Protection

Afghanistan: After the 9/11 attacks. 2,976 people lost their lives after planes crashed into the Pentagon and the twin towers. The terrorist operation was organized put together by Al-Qaeda. A terrorist wing organization set up In Afghanistan and The SWAT valley of Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks,the United States Forces ( with the permission of the Afghan government) entered Afghanistan with the coalition forces with one mission. Find the terrorists and end the terror. The question in the amount of troops needed for such an operation is debate able, however, huge amounts of man power is needed in order to find and capture the ones and the rest of them, which are responsible for killing innocent civilians in old blood. CNN reported an Interview with soldiers from different nationsall saying along the lines that pulling them out of combat in Afghanistan would be a sign that we gave up on our mission to find the ones responsible for 9/11. The benefits of having such a big man power in Afghanistan is that we can secure a Nation that has been troubled for a long time, at the same time provide jobs in the military for young Afghans and Women ( for the first time). You have to remember that the nation of Afghanistan is one that is very hard to control due to the terrain and surface. Therefore, the man power needed in Afghanistan is a lot inorder to control the region, finish the job, and go back home to their families.

Iraq: It is vital that The US Forces maintain presence in Iraq. After the Invasion of Baghdad and the hanging of Saddam, once dead, all the National police and military institutions crumbled leaving the country without any security forces, leaving the country in COMPLETE chaos, with suicide bombings, militia attacks so on so forth. Therefore, if the US and Coalition forces want to leave the Nation of Iraq to let it handle itself, the US Forces need to Establish a better version of what they had destroyed in order to leave. Iraq needs to be left secure, and not in chaos,as this would not be completing the job, it would be half done. The heavy man power in Iraq is vital as, Military and police institutions are corrupt for the moment, therefore must rely on US Forces and Coalition forces to secure the Nation whilst it under go's Internal reparation

I thank my opponent for a Interesting debate and wish it to be very fun. Gods speed.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to my opponent!
My opponent offered a very good response, especially regarding our defense of Japan.

Japan/South Korea:
I can see due to their close proximity, how Japan and South Korea could be mutually beneficial in both defense as well as deterrence. We have approximately 35,000 troops in Korea and approximately 41,000 in Japan. Of course many of those numbers include support troops along with combat troops, yet 71,000 could constitute the equivalent of 3 divisions.

I wonder how long America will have to protect Japan? Indefinitely? After some 70 years have passed, can we not trust Japan to form their own military for their own defense? Did we not trust both Germany and Italy to rebuild their military? South Korea is capable of defending itself, and should the need arise, America has Rapid Deployment Forces that could come to their aid within hours if requested. How much does it cost the taxpayer to maintain forces that aren't really necessary? Indulge me in this example. During Operation Desert Storm, I was a member of the 101st Airborne Division. Let's assume for simplicity that we had 20,000 soldiers. For simplicity, let's assume that an MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) costs $3, and each soldier got 2 MREs per day. $6 times 20,000 soldiers equals $120,000 per day just to feed the soldiers! That's a lot of money! Now add in all of the other costs, that's a lot of money!

Afghanistan: America will be trapped in this quagmire as long as it wishes, but their will not be a definitive conclusion. This is a perpetual conflict as I illustrated with the roaches. Who has the stronger resolve? What will that resolve cost in terms of lives, property, and money? Will it ever really be over? Will we ever kill all of the terrorists? No, we won't.

IRAQ/Kuwait: I agree with my opponent that we can't leave Iraq high and dry. However; what Americans cannot fathom is our intrusion in Islamic nations. The last thing they want is infidels who are used to total freedom coming in and totally disrespecting and disrupting their way of life. Islam is not just a religion, it is who they are. Further, as soon as possible, the Shi'ites and Sunni's would like to resume their own conflict, just as soon as they can get rid of the stinkin' Americans. Folks we won't transform Iraqis into "Arab Americans", it just doesn't work that way. If "W" was trying to help out his Haliburton buddies, or if we are trying to keep a thumb on the oil, it sure hasn't shown any improvement at the pump for the average American consumer. We should seriously train their military and police forces and va-moose! Regardless of "opinion poll results" THEY DO NOT WANT US THERE.

As stated, I do feel that it is beneficial to maintain resources in these areas, but not to the extent that we presently have. It is vital to both our interests, and to a lesser extent that of our allies, to maintain a limited presence especially in Turkey. Ezekiel 38 probably isn't that far off!


Given the above, we should adjust our policy accordingly, and reduce the number of troops in the areas herewith.



Many thanks to my opponenet for responding to the debate and maintaing such a high level of arguments as in his previous round

Japan\South Korea:
Before I respond with with my arguments, I would like to point out a few things..
" Did we not trust both Germany and Italy to rebuild their military?" - indeed we did, but after WW2, the Germans and Italians where at no threat like the one coming from North Korea to Japan and South Korea
When my opponents speaks of high costs, I completly agree with him, however the cost of maintaning troops over seas has always had high costs. (whether or not this money should be spent like that is completly up to debate)

The problem with taking down the amount of troops in South Korea or Japan, is not the fact that we dont trust these Nations to defend themselves, its that they probably COULD NOT defend themselves when fighting against the Noth Koreans. One has to remember that North Korea Military interms of man power and strength is possibly one of the strongest and feared. So having 71,000 troops positioned in Japan and South Korea, is a smart thing considering what a fragie situation this is. Sure the costs are high to keep our boys over seas, but imagine the costs of not having them there... we could probably be facing a VERY dangerous war with both Korean States. Having a high military presence in Korea in Japan isnt just incase of war to have a reserve or well trained American troops, but also phycologically sending a message to North Korea, saying, if you wage war to Japan or South Korea, you go to war with us too..

Whether or not one agrees with the War in Afghanistan is up to them, the thing is its happened and as my opponent has said. Who knows how long they will be there for. I stick with my previous argument on the topic of Iraq and Afghanistan. The more men we put in, the faster we can eliminate and take out the opposition adn control Afghanistan, the faster our boys can all go home.

Iraq\Kuwait: What the Islamic states dont remember is that they were the ones that asked the west for aid when they were at War. Iraq, The Iraqi people were dying for American and coalition forces to take out Saddam, and with my previous argument know go knows when we will be able to leave. The Islamic people cant just wish us there and wish us out when the job is done because thats not how it works. Whether these people are educated enough to be able to make the comparrison is another story..

Thanks once again to my opponenet
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for a good discussion, this is a definite asset for me.

On Japan/South Korea
While it may be classified information to some extent, it may not be as bad if both actually paid the United States for their defense. Somehow, I do not believe that they are. We are placing our sons and daughters in harms way, for another country, and paying the bill? What benefit do we as Americans glean from this? In other words, is this smart policy? I would have to say no. We are only bound by our own self imposed shackles. We could just as easily give them a date and opt out. Would it leave them hanging? To some extent it would, yet it would also give them adequate time to prepare their own defense, or negotiate it with another country. It really isn't our problem.

On Afghanistan
As we learned (or didnt learn) in Viet Nam, we cannot win a war of attrition. It is too costly in all respects, American lives and money notwithstanding. The public will not stomach this situation forever, and more troops will not guarantee success, but it will guarantee more death.

On Iraq/Kuwait
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did ask for help once upon a time. Previous administrations have even helped both sides in the past. It makes sense to begin a slow and methodical withdrawl as the situation permits.

In his farewell address, George Washington warned against meddling in unhealthy aliances and unprofitable foreign affairs. As with most of his sound & timeless foresight, American leaders have ignored it for the worse.

I thank my opponent for this debate, best of luck to you uin the future. Thomas


I completly agree with my opponenets arguments, but unfortunatly has side tracked form the point, the point of the debate was about the amount of troops stationed in different countries. : "Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey."

My opponents last round has gone into talking about costs and previous administrations.

Therefore i can not post a proper argument in reply to his, as it would be out of context although I fully agree with his reasoning interms of price and ETC.

What I can Answer, as I mentioned in my opening argument, with being the worlds super power, comes duties, the Unites States Armed Forces are stationed abroad not because they want to but because they have to. In terms of costs, that is up to a different debate.

I would like to thank my opponent for this GREAT debate in which I had a great time debating!

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
@Chuck Henry, this is next year's NFL policy topic. I wanted to get some feedback before I started my pro & con strategies. I am gonna try to run it without Ks and see what's happening.
Posted by ChuckHenryII 7 years ago
Why don't you come up with an original topic?
Posted by twsurber 7 years ago
There are no restrictions, it should let anyone accept.
Posted by Valtarov 7 years ago
Awww! It won't let me accept! Lame.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by twsurber 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50