Resolved: Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Undermines Our National Security
Debate Rounds (4)
I accept the terms of the debate.
Current: presently elapsing
Foreign Policy: the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states
Middle East: The Middle East (or West Asia) sits where Africa, Asia and Europe meet. The countries of the Middle East are all part of Asia, but for clarity reasons we geographically show them here as a separate landmass.
Undermines: to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly
National Security: Measures adopted by the government of a nation in order to assure the safety of its citizens, guard against attack, and prevent disclosure of sensitive or classified information which might threaten or embarrass said nation.
Point 1: Terrorism
Since the 9/11 attacks the United States has been particularly interested in terrorism abroad. We have invested a decade of time and billions of dollars in the War on Terror, and yielded few results. But before we move to disect our attacks upon terrorism we need to understand it. International terrorism, as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. Since the 9/11 attacks we have done little to be an effective force against the strong enemy of terrorism. Our foreign policies have varied between countries to fit to each situation, however, we are seeing that not having the same rules to play by have led to an uprise in terrorism in what we thought were stable countries. We have recently seen a threat to the stability of Pakistan, Israel, and other countries we thought we have liberated and now had as a foothold.
Point 2: Iran
We have all been widely aware of Iran"s first nuclear program which began in the 1960s under the shah. It made little progress, and was abandoned after the 1979 revolution, which brought to power the hard-line Islamic regime. In the mid-1990s, a new effort began, raising suspicions in Washington and elsewhere. Iran insisted that it was living up to its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but in 2002, an exile group obtained documents revealing a clandestine program. Faced with the likelihood of international sanctions, the government of Mohammad Khatami agreed in 2003 to suspend work on uranium enrichment and allow a stepped-up level of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency while continuing negotiations with Britain, France and Germany. Looking at recent investigations taken every 2-4 years we are seeing peaked interest from the Iranian government in what they say, "its goal in developing a nuclear program is to generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply." We have seen however, "And while the agency"s statistics show that Iran has, since February, nearly doubled its stockpile of fuel enriched to 20 percent purity." Not to mention that since Iran is one of the key influences in the Middle East other countries are bound to follow.
Point 3: Our Foreign Policy with Middle Eastern Allies and the Public Opinion
Sub-Point A: Every year the United States focuses billions of dollars on our connections with most of our middle-eastern allies. We can especially see this in the struggling country of Syria. In the strongly weakened nation is wanting more weapons and ammunition that we can, but won"t provide them. If we do then our policies will crumble no matter who wins. If the Free Syrian Army wins they will not be satisfied, because we didn"t provide sufficient support, but if the Syrian Government wins then they will be hostile at the fact that we supported the opposition. With either side having risk there is not a choice the United States can support with a positive state of mind that their followers will win. When it comes to the resolution and the issue to whether or not this threatens our national security it is an obvious yes. If we do not support one side or the other then who will their anger be directed towards us later. The ongoing revolution is doubled edged, as the world has most vividly seen since the riots and attacks that occurred on American diplomatic facilities last month. The region is driven by tensions, and Iran and Islamist extremists are seeking to influence events and expand their control. The future of democratic institutions in the region, and the security of the United States and its allies, hangs in the balance.
Sub-Point B: Public Opinion
One of the most important parts of our job in the Middle East is to win the hearts, minds, and souls of the people. If the public doesn"t like our presence they will continue to make it a miserable one. The public has proved time and time again that they do not think that terrorism is a large problem. When asked in a over all survey on what threatens the nation more a majority would say that terrorism is not major problem in the United States. If you want precise details around 12% of the people in the U.S. believe that terrorism is a major problem and 45% believe it to be somewhat a problem. This shows that todays society is not informed of the problem. If the people were informed on this problem then there is a large possibility that people would support the United States and therefore inforce our national security.
It is for these reasons and many more that we respectfully ask for an affirmative ballot in today"s debate.
Contention 1: Our National Security is as strong as ever and prepared for anything.
Sub point A: Active Personnel defense.
With 1.5 Million active troops, the 2nd most in the world , We are prepared for personnel from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and Syria as we have more troops then the 4 of them combined, Thus we will be prepared for Land warfare. However, people know that isn"t the only terrorism method in the modern world, which brings me to my second subpoint.
With cyber squads in each of the 56 field offices of the FBI , with more than 1,000 specially trained agents, Cyberterriorism defense systems are online and working. The system has worked so well that to date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack.  By defending and discouraging cyber-terrorism, we have made our country safer and better.
This uptrend has not been only applied to direct terrorist-combatics, which brings me to my second point:
Contention 2: The commerce chokehold on Iran is getting tighter and better each day.
Sub point A: Energy Dependence
According to a spectator.org article dated 12/14/2012, "America is the faster-growing producer of oil and natural gas in the world" . With more then 30 billion barrels of oil accessible in the U.S, our energy independence is growing each day, meaning less money to Iran and the Arab Spring. With less dependence on foreign oil, this means Iraq won"t get key materials with the money, which brings me to my second subpoint.
Sub point B: Uranium Sanctions
A recent Report by the Carnegie Endowment for International peace fount that the chemical and biological weapons capabilities of Iraq were "Overestimated" and "systematically misrepresented". With The uranium sanctions in effect, Iraq"s weapons program is getting weaker and weaker by the day which in turn brings me to my next contention.
Contention 3 Violence is Decreasing, not increasing.
Subpoint A: A democratic approach is supported and endorsed.
Studies show that 1.2 the world and climbing is turning to democracy  . The Iranian Green revolution, a radical following, failed, showing that the public is becoming more educated against radical regimes. With more and more countries turning to Democracy, the middle east situation is turning for the better. As for the violent elements, this brings me to my next and final subpoint
Subpoint B: Key people and figures of the radical regimes are being eliminated.
In an article on November 8th , The Commander and troops of those responsible to the US embassy strike in Sana were killed. With other key people dying, like Osama Bin Laden, Fahd Al Quso, Mohammed Saeed al Umda, and Abdul Mun"im Salim, the U.S is getting safer from these regimes, proving the con side of : Resolved: Current U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East Undermines Our National Security.
I urge a con ballot in today"s debate.
The first thing I would like to address is my opponent"s first point. He stated that our national security is stronger than ever. This is obviously. A military physiologist at Harvard University has stated," We as Americans are not prepared. The highest state of alertness we have ever been at is right after 9/11. We boosted our troops and we were ready to fight. Now we are winding down a war. This means our security will now be at an all time low." As you can see the security is not, as my opponent stated "high" but instead low. We may have the troops but we do not have the will. The combined force of all of the Middle Eastern armies is just under that of our own military. Thus rendering his evidence useless.
Next I move into his second point. He states, "The commerce chokehold on Iran is getting tighter and better each day." This is clearly not true. As you can see from the Missouri State Debate Paradigm on the Iranian Nuclear Program page, it clearly states that Iran is enriching its Uranium instead of being restricted it is being enriched. If you follow the Paradigm then his evidence is invalid. This is why i urge a pro ballot in the debate.
My opponent"s argument is clearly invalid because of these points and I would encourage an affirmative ballot in today"s debate. I would now like to switch over to a more important topic, continuing to build up my case. A new point as arisen showing that our Middle East policies are slowly destroying our security.
Drone attacks on the Middle East are killing terrorist. Now my thought were "Hey, this is a good thing, why bring it up in the pro case." Well it is also killing civilians. In fact it is hilling 60% Iran civilians, 18% terrorist 2% American Civilians. As you saw in my last speech, winning the hearts and mind of civilians is one of our main priorities. Killing them only causes support for the opposition. It is because of these points and many more that I urge a pro ballot in today"s debate.
Point 1 Terrorism
Now, as I cite later in the round, we should have an accuracy rating of 0.001% of hitting a terrorist, or 1 in 937. However our rate is over 200* what it should be. Why? Because Our policy on terrorism is working. He says we are not being an effective force, but we are incredibly efficient at killing terrorist wen comparing the odds.
Point 2: Iran
This point is meant to show that Iran is progressing in it's nuclear program. Now, how much is 20% prity? My opponet does not cite the purity needed for nuclear weapons, which is 90%.  This clearly shows that their research is very slow and our foreign policy is working if the highest grade they have is still 70% less then needed for nuclear capabilities, not including the technology to deploy these, such as nuclear submarine and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Point 3: Middle eastern Allies/ Public opinion.
Subpoint-A: My opponet says a key that unlocks the "non sequiter" in his argument.
"If we do" then our policies will crumble no matter who wins.
At this current time we are not, therefore our current policy is not undermining our national security. Since we are not involved in the conflict, this premise is invalid unless our opponet can prove otherwise.
Subpoint-B: Public Opinion
Now, my opponet says that our job in the middle east is to win the minds of the people, yet he switches to the U.S instead of the people that live in the middle east. Why? Because the Middle east LIKES us.
In a Arab opinion poll 2 times as many Iraqis believed the region was better off then worse off. In that same poll, Political freedom, Economic development and employment, Education Healthcare, Personal safety and security, Relations with neighboring countries, Government, Women"s rights, Religious freedom were all on a positive uptrend. 
Defending my own case:
The first thing I would like to address is my opponent"s first point. He says that "The morale of our troops is weakened."
This does not affect our foreign policy, and so is a strawman. Also, morale =/= Militaristic capabilities.
Extend arguments on Cyber-terrorism.
Extend Arguments on energy Dependance.
Now my opponet says we are hitting "60% Iran civilians, 18% terrorist 2% American Civilians."
Even if he did, let us assume that.
There are 74,798,599 citizens in Iran. (For percentage purposes, we will round up to 75,000,000.) 
There are around 80,000 terrorists. 
Doing some simple math, we get a total of A 1 in 937 chance of hitting a terrorist.
Rounding up 18% to 20% and doing the math, we get an accuracy rate of over 95% on hitting terrorists , as in our methods are working, thus invalidating my opponent's point.
Now to make some of my own new arguments:
1. The spread of democracy (Which my opponet did not contend) Has dealt a huge blow to Middle east Extremists
With the spread of democracy and other American principles as I have said, Peace in the middle east is one step closer with the introduction of a better government. In the words of Paul R. Pillar, Professor of Security Studies at Georgetown and former National Intelligence Officer:
"The opening of democratic channels for the expression of political demands will further weaken the appeal of Islamist radicalism."
With the hold of Radicals Being broken, the middle east is getting better, thus showing our foreign policy is working.
2. Terrorists have failed many times trying to do terrorists acts.
Whenever something bad happens, you see it on the news. What you don't always see are the failed assassination attempts behind the scenes.
Like you must of heard about the deadly Spokane Bombing plot! 
Or the Dearborn Plot in Michigan! 
Or the Biological weapons outbreak in Georgia! 
Or The Car Bomber in Portland! 
Point is, our national security is as strong as ever, catching these criminals before they get us and cause tragedies to happen.
3. Osama Bin Laden Himself wrote about the American's successful Drone Attacks.
"Bin Laden wrote a 48-page memo to a deputy in October 2010 that surveyed the state of his organization. He was particularly concerned that al Qaeda's longtime sanctuary in Waziristan in Pakistan's tribal areas was now too dangerous because of the campaign of American drone strikes there that had picked off many of his key lieutenants." The campaign of drone strikes was said to work by OSAMA BIN LADEN HIMSELF! If they strike fear into the hearts of one of one of the most ruthless terrorists of all time, it must be working.
4.. Libyan citizens like our foreign policy
According to US State Department in 2011, 100% efforts at the UN to respond to calls of help from the Libyans were answered by the United States. These people like us now because Our foreign policy has helped the region 
thedebatekid forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit and sources
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.