The Instigator
BaconLover
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thyanchor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should We Re-Evaluate/Reallocate Aid Given to Pakistan?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 11/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 41439
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

BaconLover

Con

I do not think we should take away the aid we recently promised to Pakistan. If we do this, all of our other allies will immediately become wary and take any and all aid we give or aid they give to us with a grain of salt. It will make our connections shaky with everyone else. How can you trust somebody if they broke a promise?
Thyanchor

Pro

While I do agree with my opponent's love for bacon (reference to his user name), the entire idea of negating this question is not only wrong, but broad in its questioning.

Before I begin, I would like to offer the following observations:
Observation 1: Amounts of Money
Considering the the question nor the author actually gives a specific amount of money for reallocation or re-evaluation, this money can be left up to the user of the argument. However, this must be used within reasonable standards such as saying "We will reallocate $1/$9,999,999,999" (That's a dollar less than 10 billion dollars for those of you who don't want to count the nines) and leave the rest of the budget in Afghanistan. Therefore, the purpose of this contention is to not only prevent either side of abusing the amount of money allocated, but also stem some new arguments on the table. For the sake of this debate, I will use a realistic amount of money. Considering that the amount of money spent on the Afghanistan War is about to reach 700 billion dollars by the summer of 2014 (or earlier), I will say that we will be reallocating around 300 - 400 billion dollars in the process.

Contention 1: Terrorism, specifically of the nuclear variety, is not a real threat to the United States anymore.
Much of the talk that surrounds going into the Afghanistan and/or funding Afghanistan war is surrounded by the idea of terrorism being an actual threat to United States national security. However, this could not be more untrue. States will be deterred from giving nuclear weapons to terrorist groups because the U.S. will know which states proliferated the weapons to terrorists. According to Keir Lieber, he explains that states or terrorist groups cannot remain anonymous. "Neither a terror group nor a state sponsor would remain anonymous after a nuclear terror attack. Tracing culpability from a guilty terrorist group back to its state sponsor is not likely to be difficult. Passing weapons to terrorists would not offer countries an escape from the constraints of deterrence." But, I know what you're going to say. You're going to ask, "What about the bombs being stolen?!". Well, simple logic will back up this answer. In the past few years, due to many attempts at stealing nuclear material, the IAEA has begun to secure many nuclear sites in the Middle Eastern region. And even if we do reduce funding on Afghanistan overall, we will have the budget to keep these nuclear facilities safe.

Contention 2: We have not failed to democratize Afghanistan, therefore not causing harms to our national security. (The Job Is Done) *Get ready for a spewing out of information and evidence
Democracy in the Middle East has been created by America and will last. Moreover, Afghanistan is more secure and the Afghan security forces are stronger. "By contrast, despite the lack of a dramatic impact on the ground of the president's troop build up, the president's Afghanistan strategy is making some progress. The Afghan security forces are now more than 300,000 strong, well along the way to the goal of some 350,000, and perhaps half the units are performing acceptably in the field, even if they still typically need NATO help in key enabling areas such as air power, logistics, route, clearance technology and intelligence. In some ways, the violence in Afghanistan has receded, with NATO reporting 25 percent fewer enemy-initiated attacks nationwide in the latter part of 2011, compared with the same period in 2010" Moreover, the Associated Press reports, "Afghans are living longer, fewer infants are dying and more women are surviving childbirth because health care has dramatically improved around the country in the past decade, according to a national survey. It indicates that increased access to health care, more hospitals, clinics and doctors have significantly contributed to an overall improvement in the health of most Afghans. "There have been many changes in the health sector and that is why we have so many positive changes," said Bashir Noormal, director general of the Afghan Public Health Institute. Conducted by the Afghan health ministry in 2010, the survey was sponsored and funded by international organisations such as Unicef, the World Health Organisation, the US government and the British Department for International Development. It was the most comprehensive to date in Afghanistan, despite the exclusion of some rural areas in the south where international forces are fighting insurgents. It showed that estimated life expectancy is up to between 62 and 64 years for both men and women. That compares with previous studies showing life expectancy from 47 to 50 – the latter figure reported by the WHO in 2009. The survey also showed infant mortality had been cut in half in recent years, down to 97 deaths per 1,000 live births. It said one in 10 children in Afghanistan dies before they are five years old while previous surveys, carried out about five years ago, showed that one child in five died before reaching that age. The 2009 WHO study reported 199 deaths per 1,000 live births” With this, we can conclude that decreased poverty leads to decreased terrorism. Yanhong Jin explains in his Agricultural Economics journal at Texas A&M University, "Per capita income has a nonlinear effect on participation in transnational terrorism. Extreme poverty may preclude the opportunities to participate in terrorism acts and relative alleviation of poverty levels may provide marginal resources to participate in terrorism acts and materialize accumulated hatred...Though preventative options like economic development and improving education levels could in the long run deter the tendency of participation in terrorism activities, careful planning is needed for implementation of such policies in the short run because of possible risk of increased tendencies for participation in transnational terrorism.”

Brief Explanation:
1. Because there is no real threat of terrorism, we can reallocate money.
2. We have already done our job in Afghanistan, so we can reallocate money.
3. Using the appropriate amount I suggested and after looking at my two points, there would be no real reason not to reallocate money.

Therefore, please vote for the PRO.
---
Thank you,
~Thyanchor
Debate Round No. 1
BaconLover

Con

However long and quite intelligent your argument, there is one fatal flaw- we are not speaking of the same country. I was referring to Pakistan, and how we recently promised them 1.6 billion dollars, not Afghanistan. :) I'll present another argument to keep it moving.

If we reallocate the aid promised to Pakistan, not only will our other allies feel threatened, but it puts Pakistan in danger as well. Leaving them without the money means their situation could get worse. Without any help from us, who will help them?

I urge you to vote Con.
Thyanchor

Pro

Huh. Thought it said Afghanistan. Well, whatever. I'll still try to regain some ground.

Response to Con's First Argument: Allies
Considering that allies lead to hegemony and influence, I will weigh them as such. However, the flaw with this argument is that it simply untrue. Any and all policies in the Middle East have not led to a loss of hegemony and influence. America will keep its hegemonic power, regardless of relations. No other country has the ability to become the new hegemonic power. According to Noam Chomsky, "The possible hegemons are poor countries with severe internal problems. The world is surely becoming more diverse, but despite America's decline, in the foreseeable future there is no competitor for global hegemonic power" While opposers might comment, saying "BUT CHINA?!" There is a simple response, courtesy of Daniel W. Drezner, "The widespread misperception that China is catching up to the United States stems from a number of analytical flaws, the most common of which is the tendency to draw conclusions about the U.S.-China power balance from data that compare China only to its former self. For example, many studies note that the growth rates of China’s per capita income, value added in high technology industries, and military spending exceed those of the United States and then conclude that China is catching up. This focus on growth rates, however, obscures China’s decline relative to the United States in all of these categories. China’s growth rates are high because its starting point was low. China is rising, but it is not catching up" Therefore, you can drop my opponent's entire argument on allies because not only does he not give sufficient evidence or backing for his claim, but because it is also simply wrong.

Response to Con's Second Argument: Pakistan in Danger
To this argument, I have multiple responses:

(1) Pakistan provides sanctuary for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which ultimately will harm our soldiers. According to Peter Brookes from the Heritage Foundation, "It’s time to draw the line with Pakistan, whose intelligence service is reportedly colluding with the insurgent Haqqani network, an al Qaeda ally that’s been on the rampage against us in Afghanistan. In testimony, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen dropped a bombshell, saying the highly dangerous network 'acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.' First, the billions in yearly US aid to Pakistan must go on the chopping block. We can’t send taxpayer dollars to a foreign government involved in doing serious harm to Americans and US interests" The Haqqani network has been behind a large number of the attacks on U.S. and NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan, and which U.S. officials have long pushed Pakistan's leaders to target more aggressively.
By this logic, we will be funding Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani network.

(2) Pakistan's nuclear security does not need support from the United States. According to Malou Innocent of the CATO Institute, "Given the number of physical security measures in place, the army's robust command and control operations, and Islamabad's commitment to having a nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis India, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal appears to be relatively safe, at least for the time being. Gradual, covert transfer of nuclear secrets, rather than a sudden and dramatic proliferation, is the more likely danger -- and the one policymakers should watch for. Finally, the scenario of citizens electing radical Islamist parties that might be tempted to give nuclear technology or materials to terrorist groups remains unlikely for the foreseeable future."

(3) Pakistan does not want assistance. According to Paul Kerr of the Congressional Research Service, "More recently, a Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson, responding to a report detailing alleged U.S.-Pakistani discussions regarding contingency plans for U.S. forces to help secure Islamabad’s nuclear weapons, stated November 8, 2009, that Pakistan 'does not require any foreign assistance in this regard.' Pakistan will never 'allow any country to have direct or indirect access to its nuclear and strategic facilities,' the spokesperson said, adding that, 'no talks have ever taken place on the issue of the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal with US officials'"

(4) America has already helped Pakistan to secure its weapons in the past. According to Mehlaqa Samdani from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "an agreement of sorts had taken place between Pakistani and American military officials whereby ‘specially trained American units provided added security for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis. Pakistan is training 8,000 additional people to protect the country's nuclear arsenal."

My Observations:
1. Money is later defined in the round.
2. Aid is not defined in the round AND can no longer be defined, seeing as it is too late for my opponent to do such.

My Contentions: (The Afghanistan Issue)
1. Terrorism, specifically of the nuclear variety, is not a real threat to the United States anymore.
The claim is very broad and does not only apply to Afghanistan, but the entire Middle East, including specific parts on Pakistan. If you were to look at any of my evidence from the first point, you can see that it remains broad in reference to the Middle East as they are ideas that expand over the entire region. You can keep this point in the round because you will be seeing that we won't be accomplishing any of Pakistan's problems by continuing the funding. Even more than this, you can look to logic. With a modern, technological world, we can see that nuclear safety is of the greatest importance which is why the IAEA is continuing to secure all nuclear facilities. Nuclear terrorism is not a problem in Pakistan. We cannot fund something that is not a problem.

2. We have not failed to democratize Afghanistan, therefore not causing harms to our national security.
You can drop this point. I gladly will allow you to do such. Sorry for referencing to Afghanistan.

Brief Explanation:
1. You can drop CON's argument about the allies because our hegemony (the impact) will not actually be affected in the process.
2. You can drop CON's argument about Pakistan being in danger because of (1) the lives we would be putting at risk, (2) the lack of need for it, (3) the unwillingness for it, and (4) the job already being done.
3. Money has been defined.
4. Aid has not been defined. Therefore, it can be any type of aid.
5. PRO's first argument still stand as it applies to the entire Middle East as a whole, not just Afghanistan.
6. PRO's second argument is dropped.
7. Sorry for messing up Afghanistan with Pakistan.

---
Thank you,
~Thyanchor
Debate Round No. 2
BaconLover

Con

No problem about Afghanistan v. Pakistan, everybody makes mistakes.

Yes, Pakistan is home to Al Qaeda. But that's my next point- they clearly still need help! We solved one problem there (securing the weapons) but breaking a promise and abandoning them in their time of need should never be acceptable! Al Qaeda has proven to be very violent and dangerous to civilians there, and by promising aid, we want to help them get rid of Al Qaeda.

Finally, if we take away our aid, Pakistan will then have no support to help the innocent civilians against Al Qaeda. I feel our allies would reflect on that and possibly reconsider their relationship with us- leaving a country in need high and dry isn't exactly a quality you want in an ally.

I urge you to vote Con.
Thyanchor

Pro

I thank my opponent for a great debate and wish him or her luck in future.

To begin, I will be going over (1) what's happened, (2) why my contentions still matter, (3) why my opponent's contentions don't, and (4) some issues and impacts in this round.

1. What's Happened?

Round 1:
CON:
(A) "Allies will immediately become wary" = "Connections shaky with everyone else"
PRO:
(A) Terrorism is not a real threat to the United States. (B) Messed-up on Afghanistan Argument

Round 2:
CON:
(A) "Puts Pakistan in danger"/"Leaving them without the money"
(REF) Pakistan, not Afghanistan
PRO:
(REF) (a) Allies: No harm to our hegemony. (b) Pakistan: Al Qaeda, No need, No want, Already helped.
(O) Aid is not defined.
(RES) Terrorism is still not a real threat.

Round 3:
CON:
(A) They need help. (B) Result with reconsideration of relationship
PRO:
Well, here we are folks.

2. PRO's Contentions
1. Terrorism, specifically of the nuclear variety, is not a real threat to the United States anymore.
The claim is very broad and does not only apply to Afghanistan, but the entire Middle East, including specific parts on Pakistan. If you were to look at any of my evidence from the first point, you can see that it remains broad in reference to the Middle East as they are ideas that expand over the entire region. You can keep this point in the round because you will be seeing that we won't be accomplishing any of Pakistan's problems by continuing the funding. Even more than this, you can look to logic. With a modern, technological world, we can see that nuclear safety is of the greatest importance which is why the IAEA is continuing to secure all nuclear facilities. Nuclear terrorism is not a problem in Pakistan. We cannot fund something that is not a problem.

2. We have not failed to democratize Afghanistan, therefore not causing harms to our national security.
You can drop this point. I gladly will allow you to do such. Sorry for referencing to Afghanistan.
(Copied and pasted because there was no refutation against it.)

Main Point: The IMPACTS
If we are funding something that is not a problem, we will have economic impacts as well as societal impacts.
Economic: Wasting Money
Societal: Loss of Lives / Further Disparities in Wealth

3. CON's Contentions
My responses to CON's Contentions barely go refuted. My opponent tries to turn my response in his last speech, but he fails to do so.
He explains that,

"Yes, Pakistan is home to Al Qaeda. But that's my next point- they clearly still need help! We solved one problem there (securing the weapons) but breaking a promise and abandoning them in their time of need should never be acceptable!"

The flaw with this response is that NUCLEAR WEAPONS is the biggest problem in the region. Since we have secured that problem, we do have more security, and can cut back on our aid. To continue funding is to continue funding Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani network.

But, even if you don't want to look to that, you can look to my other three responses to his "Pakistan needs help" arguments.
I will gladly repost them down here for reference.

(2) Pakistan's nuclear security does not need support from the United States. According to Malou Innocent of the CATO Institute, "Given the number of physical security measures in place, the army's robust command and control operations, and Islamabad's commitment to having a nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis India, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal appears to be relatively safe, at least for the time being. Gradual, covert transfer of nuclear secrets, rather than a sudden and dramatic proliferation, is the more likely danger -- and the one policymakers should watch for. Finally, the scenario of citizens electing radical Islamist parties that might be tempted to give nuclear technology or materials to terrorist groups remains unlikely for the foreseeable future."

(3) Pakistan does not want assistance. According to Paul Kerr of the Congressional Research Service, "More recently, a Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson, responding to a report detailing alleged U.S.-Pakistani discussions regarding contingency plans for U.S. forces to help secure Islamabad’s nuclear weapons, stated November 8, 2009, that Pakistan 'does not require any foreign assistance in this regard.' Pakistan will never 'allow any country to have direct or indirect access to its nuclear and strategic facilities,' the spokesperson said, adding that, 'no talks have ever taken place on the issue of the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal with US officials'"

(4) America has already helped Pakistan to secure its weapons in the past. According to Mehlaqa Samdani from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "an agreement of sorts had taken place between Pakistani and American military officials whereby ‘specially trained American units provided added security for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis. Pakistan is training 8,000 additional people to protect the country's nuclear arsenal."

Furthermore, he drops his own contention about allies in the 2nd round. He doesn't refute against my response to it (below). The biggest impact that he is trying to get is the loss of hegemony (I'm assuming), however he cannot gain access to this because it simply doesn't happen. Hegemony is not affected.

"Considering that allies lead to hegemony and influence, I will weigh them as such. However, the flaw with this argument is that it simply untrue. Any and all policies in the Middle East have not led to a loss of hegemony and influence. America will keep its hegemonic power, regardless of relations. No other country has the ability to become the new hegemonic power. According to Noam Chomsky, "The possible hegemons are poor countries with severe internal problems. The world is surely becoming more diverse, but despite America's decline, in the foreseeable future there is no competitor for global hegemonic power" While opposers might comment, saying "BUT CHINA?!" There is a simple response, courtesy of Daniel W. Drezner, "The widespread misperception that China is catching up to the United States stems from a number of analytical flaws, the most common of which is the tendency to draw conclusions about the U.S.-China power balance from data that compare China only to its former self. For example, many studies note that the growth rates of China’s per capita income, value added in high technology industries, and military spending exceed those of the United States and then conclude that China is catching up. This focus on growth rates, however, obscures China’s decline relative to the United States in all of these categories. China’s growth rates are high because its starting point was low. China is rising, but it is not catching up" Therefore, you can drop my opponent's entire argument on allies because not only does he not give sufficient evidence or backing for his claim, but because it is also simply wrong."

4. Issues and Impacts

1. My opponent does not refute any of my contentions adequately.
2. My opponent did not provide any backing or evidence for his claims.
3. I refuted most of his claims, with evidence and logical backing.
4. I was left with my 1 contention and responses at the end of the round, while my opponent was not.

1. Impact: Lives
I will be winning this debate on "Who will be saving the more lives?". If we were to reallocate our funding, we would be able to work on our own domestic problems because we have dealt with the foreign nuclear security threats (which could potentially take more lives).

2. Impact: Economy
I will be winning this debate on "Who will be saving the most money?". I think this is pretty self-explanatory. If we were to reallocate our funding, we could work on our own domestic problems, having dealt with foreign threats.

5. Conclusion
When looking at the resolution, we need to understand that not all aid will be cut. Only some will be reallocated. We won't be ending ALL aid to Pakistan. We see that we will be saving a profit and be able to save lives in the long run
Thank you,
~ThyAnchor


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