The Instigator
PFcam313
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
skylar4359
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,739 times Debate No: 27020
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

PFcam313

Con

I stand in Nag(Con) That Resolved: Current U.S. foreign Policy in the Middle East undermines our national Security.
1:The US is distrusted by Middle East countries; and that distrust is shared globally.:
2:The Jews and Arabs hate each other; this is a result of thousand of years of fighting each other. There is no one policy that the US can have that will undo thousand of years of history. Also with saying that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to the US.
3: Obama has been successful in engaging Israel and Palestinian authorities to work toward peace.
skylar4359

Pro

Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.
John F. Kennedy

Because my partner and I agree with John F. Kennedy, We affirm the resolution which states Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

To clarify this debate I will offer the following definitions

1) Undermine - to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly (merriam-webster)

2) National security - The safeguarding of anything pertaining to the nation as a whole (us legal)

3) Middle East - "the area from Libya to Afghanistan" (Dictionary.com)

Contention #3: Our current, "Leading from behind" policy, makes America look weak, and undermines or influence

In a recent speech, GOP candidate Mitt Romney said that Obama"s policy in the Middle east was leading "from behind". This term has since been widely used to describe current policy, which is to let the Middle Eastern countries like Israel lead, while supporting them "from behind". When we do this, we lose two important things: credibility, and influence. Obama promised to try and end Middle Eastern conflict, and, by not taking the lead on his promise, undermining our credibility, and therefore is causing us to lose our influence in the Middle East. This also makes us look weak. to Middle Eastern countries, who want to look up to us, and most importantly, weak to terrorTsts. Ted Carpenter, senior fellow at CATO said,

"Washington"s military leverage ...is less secure than it has been in many decades. Its political-diplomatic position is in jeopardy...the foundation of Washington"s policy throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia relied on partnerships with friendly autocrats. That foundation is crumbling, as one by one America"s partners lose their grip on power."

In this he states that recent events and our policy is causing us to lose our "military leverage" and that our partner nations are losing their power. Returning to our comment earlier about looking weak in the eyes of others,such as terrorists, see our lack of commitment as weakness, and, makes it more likely for them to attack. This only gets worseas when we take into consideration recent drone attacks, which only adds an incentive on top of this. This weakens our national security, making attacks like 9/11 more likely.

Contention #2: Our Policy is unnecessary.

One may ask, "What's holding us back? What's preventing us from taking a lead?" The fact is, nothing is holding us back but Obama"s policies. In 2011 America"s tax revenue was APX 2.3Trillion dollars. (http://www.heritage.org...) Of these 2.5 Trillion dollars, we spent 711 billion on defense. (http://nationalpriorities.org...) This is higher defense spending than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. China, the 2nd biggest defense spender, spent only 143 billion dollars. With this level of annual spending there is no good reason for why we can"t take the lead in the Middle East.

Contention #3: Middle East Policy is harming our economy

What is, "National Security"? Earlier we defined it as the safeguarding of anything pertaining to the nation as a whole, using what Uslegal.com (A leading site in legal definition) said on it, which specifically stated economic security fell under it.

Oil is a BIG part of our nation, and no one can deny that. Our policy has allowed recent events in the Middle East to happen, which has made the exportation of oil harder, and has raised our gas prices. Recently, barrels of oil rose to 85.690$ per barrel. This can be seen when one looks at our gas prices, which are at an average of $3.746(11/2/2012 Idahogasprices.com) while some may say there is more to the economy than gas prices, a LOT of the economy is affected by gas prices. When gas prices go up, the cost of shipping goes up. Grocery stores or any other store receive products are raised. Ross DeVol, chief research officer at the Milken, stated in the Atlantic Business 9/23/2012 "Escalating oil prices also feed into the economy through higher input costs for energy-intensive firms. Supply chains spread the cost throughout the economy as businesses that consume lots of oil attempt to raise their prices in an effort to maintain profit margins. For example, higher oil prices increase the production cost of fertilizers and food processing and are passed on to consumers as higher prices at the grocery store. As these cost increases ripple across multiple supply chains...
Thus if there is a situation in the Middle East we will not only be affected militarily, but also economically.
Debate Round No. 1
PFcam313

Con

We believe thta the following resolution is false: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East threatens our national security. The US currently fasces many naitonal security threats form the MIddle East, however, none of these are caused by currentl US foreign policy. They are caused by U.S. foeign policy in teh Middle East for the several decades' of support for Israel. As a result, the inherent distrust and hate that Islamic Middle East countries are not cause by current policies, adn nothing we can do can change the way that they feel. This is especially true because the media sources in other countries arfe biased toward the U.S. and the U.S. cannot combat this. Threfore, we do face many national security threats, but the Pro side will be unable to link them to current U.S. foreign policy or show that U.S. foreign policy could be changed to solve the national security threats.
1: The US is distrusted by Middle East countries; and that distrust is shred globally(Julian Borger and Tom Clark of the Guardian write on September 11, 2012.):
American influence on the world stage is being sapped by widespread distrust of US intentions, not just in the Middle East and south Asia but also among traditional European allies, according to a survey of global opinions. Suspicion of America outweighed faith in its good intentions by large margins in the Arab world and Pakistan, and even its heavyweight European ally Germany was more sceptical than trusting, a YouGov survey found. British and French opinion was more positive but still deeply divided. Negative Arab and Pakistani perceptions of America as overweening and untrustworthy clearly pose a daunting foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration. The fact that 78% of Pakistanis questioned by YouGov said they did not trust America to act responsibly underlines Washington's serious lack of soft power in the region as it attempts to extricate itself form Afghanistan.
2a: The Jews and Arabs hate each other; this is a result of thousands of years of fighting each other. There is noone policy taht the US can have that will undo thousands of years of history:
Zvi Bar'el, writes an article poignantly remarks on the current attitude of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East in his article entitled "A good Jew hates Arabs" from August 2012 states:
Israeli " literature" promoting hate of Arabs predates the occupation. The children's book series "Danidin" by Shraga Gafni is full of expressions and illustrations that laid excellent infrastucture for Arab-hatred. The "Mikraot Yisreal" (Isreali Readers) series, which helped educate hundreds of thousand of Israeli children, is striking in terms of the "incitememtn" concealed within it. Similar books published in the Palestinian Authority keep those who monitor Palestintian incitement very busy. But ther isn't really a need to list all the recipes for Arab-hatred that have been fed to us, and which we developed on our own, in order to come up with a defense for those criminals in Juerusalem, whose " only crime" was to do what Israeli pedagogy and the "Death-to-Arabs" ethos directed them to do. This is an ethos that will continue to be an integral part of the Israeli-Jewish national identity, even if the occupation were to end tomorrow. Because "Deathe to the Arabs" isn't an exspression of "routine" hatred of those who are different, or the loathsome slogan of some "price tag" gang. It does not resemble the xenophobia or the fear of Muslims that chracterizes European racism. Hatred of Arabs is part of the test of loyalty and identity that the state gives its Jewish citizens. A good JEw hates Arabs. A loyal Israeli will leave an Arab to die, because "He's and Arab." And someone who isn't like that, as we know, "sleeps with Arabs."
3:The Israel- Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to the US.:(Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, argue in an article entitled Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy COuncil, on January 20, 2011:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to America. Indeed, American lives are being lost today because of th eperpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace argreement is a, if not the, key to achieving most of our goals in the greater Middle East. It is not the solution to everything; it is not a panacea. But that is an unrealistic standar. "Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict won't solve every problem between Morocco and Bangladesh" is, frankly, a not so smart reason not to try to move ahead and sovle it. This is a false issue, a red herring, if I've ever seen one. The reasons why this conflict is a threat tto the United States are multiple. I'll start with a very simple one. If you believe that Isreal is antional secruitly interest of the United States and an ally and partner of America, as every American president since Harry Truman has affirmed, then a conflit that threatens Israelis every day must be a threat to the national security intersts of the United States as well.

Because the US cannot solve the underlying source of hatred between Jews and Arabs in the MIddle East, current US foreign Policy is not a responsible for undermining our naitonal security. Therefore, the resolution is false.
skylar4359

Pro

Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.
John F. Kennedy

Because my partner and I agree with John F. Kennedy, We affirm the resolution which states Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

To clarify this debate I will offer the following definitions

1) Undermine - to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly (merriam-webster)

2) National security - The safeguarding of anything pertaining to the nation as a whole (us legal)

3) Middle East - "the area from Libya to Afghanistan" (Dictionary.com)

Contention #3: Our current, "Leading from behind" policy, makes America look weak, and undermines or influence

In a recent speech, GOP candidate Mitt Romney said that Obama"s policy in the Middle east was leading "from behind". This term has since been widely used to describe current policy, which is to let the Middle Eastern countries like Israel lead, while supporting them "from behind". When we do this, we lose two important things: credibility, and influence. Obama promised to try and end Middle Eastern conflict, and, by not taking the lead on his promise, undermining our credibility, and therefore is causing us to lose our influence in the Middle East. This also makes us look weak. to Middle Eastern countries, who want to look up to us, and most importantly, weak to terrorTsts. Ted Carpenter, senior fellow at CATO said,

"Washington"s military leverage ...is less secure than it has been in many decades. Its political-diplomatic position is in jeopardy...the foundation of Washington"s policy throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia relied on partnerships with friendly autocrats. That foundation is crumbling, as one by one America"s partners lose their grip on power."

In this he states that recent events and our policy is causing us to lose our "military leverage" and that our partner nations are losing their power. Returning to our comment earlier about looking weak in the eyes of others,such as terrorists, see our lack of commitment as weakness, and, makes it more likely for them to attack. This only gets worseas when we take into consideration recent drone attacks, which only adds an incentive on top of this. This weakens our national security, making attacks like 9/11 more likely.

Contention #2: Our Policy is unnecessary.

One may ask, "What's holding us back? What's preventing us from taking a lead?" The fact is, nothing is holding us back but Obama"s policies. In 2011 America"s tax revenue was APX 2.3Trillion dollars. (http://www.heritage.org...) Of these 2.5 Trillion dollars, we spent 711 billion on defense. (http://nationalpriorities.org...) This is higher defense spending than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. China, the 2nd biggest defense spender, spent only 143 billion dollars. With this level of annual spending there is no good reason for why we can"t take the lead in the Middle East.

Contention #3: Middle East Policy is harming our economy

What is, "National Security"? Earlier we defined it as the safeguarding of anything pertaining to the nation as a whole, using what Uslegal.com (A leading site in legal definition) said on it, which specifically stated economic security fell under it.

Oil is a BIG part of our nation, and no one can deny that. Our policy has allowed recent events in the Middle East to happen, which has made the exportation of oil harder, and has raised our gas prices. Recently, barrels of oil rose to 85.690$ per barrel. This can be seen when one looks at our gas prices, which are at an average of $3.746(11/2/2012 Idahogasprices.com) while some may say there is more to the economy than gas prices, a LOT of the economy is affected by gas prices. When gas prices go up, the cost of shipping goes up. Grocery stores or any other store receive products are raised. Ross DeVol, chief research officer at the Milken, stated in the Atlantic Business 9/23/2012 "Escalating oil prices also feed into the economy through higher input costs for energy-intensive firms. Supply chains spread the cost throughout the economy as businesses that consume lots of oil attempt to raise their prices in an effort to maintain profit margins. For example, higher oil prices increase the production cost of fertilizers and food processing and are passed on to consumers as higher prices at the grocery store. As these cost increases ripple across multiple supply chains...
Thus if there is a situation in the Middle East we will not only be affected militarily, but also economically.
Debate Round No. 2
PFcam313

Con

Current U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East threatens our national security. The current Israeli-Palestine conflict threatens national security. Obama is the key negotiator in teh provess and he has been successful at opening lines of communication to help promote peace.

1: Failing to secure the Israel-Palestine conflict wil thereaten US national security.(Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, argue in an article entitled Isreali-Palestinian peace: What is the US national security interest? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, on Janurary 20, 2011

Failure to find a secure, just and fair peace means that extremism and anger iwll fester and spread further, producing more and momre threats to American national security and ultimately to American citizens. To underscorethis point, let me give you one more example: Mumbai 2008, the most significant terroist attack since 9/11 anywhere in the world. Ten Pakistani terriosts, young men form the Punjab leb by Lashkar-e-Taiba, struck key targets in the largest city in INdia. What was at the very top of their target list that day in November 2008? A Jewish Chabad house in Mumbai. Mumbai is a big place; you have to look hard to find a Chabad house. They had looked hard. An American citizen, David Headley,, had helped them look for it for months and months. It was at th etop of their list because for them, it symbolized the Zionist-Hindu-Crusader alliance. I submit to you that when 10 PUnjabi kids have decided that killing American Jews in Chabad houses in Mumbai is a holy cause, we have come to a situation in which the Israeli-Palestinina conflict is a national sercurity thereat to th eUnited Staes of America.

2: Only Obama can solve the current Israel-Palestine conflict.(Riedel, Anderson, Wilcox, and Katulis continue:

President Obamba may take seriouldy his own admonition that this issue matter to American strategic interests. That would translate into U.S. leadership in shaping a breakthrough, preferably with EU and Quartet support, creating real choices and deploying new incentives and disincentives with the parties, notably Isael. Ultimately, for all the noise and speculaiton regarding their resumption, Israeli-Palestinian negotionations are likely to prove rather inconsequential. Success or failure in achieving deoccupation in two states will depend primarily on the conversation between Obama and Netanyahu, their political calculations, priorities and persistence.

3: Obama has been successful in engaging Israel and Palestinian authorities to work toward peace.(Riedel, Anderson, Wilcox, and Katulis conclude:

The administration's statements have steadily moved toward that sort of engagement and away form the sterile and discredited claim that we have to accept waht the parties are going to work out for themselves. And it's not just this administration. Let's review some history. It was during the Carter administration that we first heard an official mention of the Palestinian nation. During the Clinton administration, it was the president's wife, not the president, who first spoke of a Palestinian state. The George W. Bush administration's road map, however little he did to follow it, was the first official mention of two states as a solution. The current administration, in a remearkable advance in rhetoric, has declared that it will end the occupaiton. President Obama said that it will end what began in 1967. The secretary of state recently declared, "We will not be passive." She has demanded that both sides present their specific visions for settlements, detailing positoins on borders, security arangements, Jerusalem and refugees. I think we'll wait a long time for these two sides to present those visions. They'll only be presented when we accept that the only way forward is the United States to present its oulines and ot declare its determinaiton to reach them.

Therefore, Obama and his current US foreign policy in the Middle East has promoted, not undermined our national security. Therefore, the resolution is false.
Thank you for your time.
skylar4359

Pro

skylar4359 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.