2 Aff cases
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
El Paso Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Political Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by SargentSalamanderMaster985
Affirmative:
I affirm the resolution and stand resolved: The United States ought to substantially reduce its military presence in the West Asia-North Africa region.
Value: Morality
The Affirmative upholds morality because it prevents regional instability, counters anti-
American sentiments, and safeguarding vulnerable populations from conflict.
Value Criterion: Utilitarianism
The Affirmative ensures the greatest overall happiness by preventing regional destabilization, addressing security threats, and promoting stability and prosperity.
Contention 1- Harms US Interests
a. US military presence in West Asia-North Africa has more costs than benefits
John Glaser, author at the CATO Institute, 18 July 2017
“Withdrawing from Overseas Bases: Why a Forward
‐
Deployed Military Posture Is Unnecessary, Outdated, and Dangerous,” CATO, https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/withdrawing-overseas-
bases-why-forward-deployed-military-posture-unnecessary
The extensive US military presence in West Asia-North Africa has often contributed to regional instability and generated anti-American sentiments, overshadowing any perceived security benefits.
b. The militarization of West Asia-North Africa has created a huge market for private military mercenaries.
Sean McFate, expert on national security, foreign policy and terrorism, 4 December 2019
“Mercenaries and War: Understanding Private Armies Today,” National Defense University Press, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/article/2031922/mercenaries-and-war-
understanding-private-armies-today/
The militarization of West Asia-North Africa has fueled a substantial demand for private military
mercenaries, leading to an unregulated industry. This raises concerns about accountability, transparency, and the potential for these mercenaries to create conflicts while operating without clear oversight to international norms.
Contention 2- High Costs
a. Significantly reducing US military presence in the region could save 10’s of billions of dollars every year.
Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, 30 September 2020
“The Case for Withdrawing From the Middle East,” Defense Priorities,
https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/the-case-for-withdrawing-from-the-middle-east
The U.S. spends tens of billions of dollars every year trying to manage the region’s politics. In one of the most careful estimates of the cost savings, Eugene Gholz concludes that leaving the Middle East mission would produce savings on the order of $65–70 billion per year. The U.S. also keeps tens of thousands of military personnel on bases in the region.
b. US military presence in the Persian Gulf costs billions of dollars a year for very little benefit.
Tyler McBrien, the managing editor of Lawfare, 16 May 2023
“Why the U.S. Should Close Its Overseas Military Bases,” Foreign Policy,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/16/military-defense-overseas-bases-united-states-force-
posture/
Scientist Neta C. Crawford estimates that the U.S. military presence in the Gulf costs $5 billion to $50 billion a year to maintain. We already are in debt for billions of dollars so if we continue to do this, things will go even worse for the US.
Contention 3- Allies Want US Military Presence.
a. US military presence overseas is unpopular locally and creates more problems for the US than it solves.
Tyler McBrien, the managing editor of Lawfare, 16 May 2023
“Why the U.S. Should Close Its Overseas Military Bases,” Foreign Policy,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/16/military-defense-overseas-bases-united-states-force-
posture
The US military presence overseas has generated widespread local discontent and resistance, exacerbating anti-American sentiments. Rather than effectively solving problems, it frequently contributes to regional tensions and instability, diminishing the overall strategic benefits.
b. There would be a Shift in Global Perception.
How to downsize the US presence in the Middle East | Brookings. (2022, March 9). Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-to-downsize-the-us-presence-in-the-middle-east/
A reduction of the United States' military presence in the West Asia-North Africa region is imperative to mitigate the perception of the U.S. as an interventionist power. This shift in global
perception would enable the U.S. to prioritize diplomatic solutions and enhance its standing in the international community.
Please vote Affirmative to promote regional stability, decrease the risk of conflict escalation, and redirect resources toward diplomatic solutions rather than maintaining an extensive military presence in West Asia-North Africa. I now stand open for Cross Examination.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
“In a world where the US military presence abroad is causing more harm than good, it is time to
scale back our global police force.” I agree with American Professor Richard A. Folf, I Affirm the resolution, Resolved: The United States ought to substantially reduce its military presence in the West Asia-North Africa region.
For Clarification, I provide the definition, Where
Cambridge Dictionary defines "ought" as necessary or good
Merriam-Webster defines “Reduce” as to diminishing in size, amount, or extent.
"Thus, Our responsibility is to advocate for a decrease in military presence in the region because (a) the US Military is exacerbating the issues that were already present in those regions
and (b) we should focus on resolving more pressing global problems rather than focusing on those specific regions."
I Value Global Justice. It emphasizes the fair and just treatment of nations on an international scale and ensures that the actions of one country do not harm the interests or well-being of others. Global Justice seeks to promote fairness, equity, and ethical conduct on an international
level. It emphasizes the responsibility of nations to contribute to a just global order where the actions of one nation do not disproportionately harm others. The U.S. military presence in the West Asia-North African Region is harmful to the well-being of people in those regions and will prevent us from achieving Global Justice. My value criterion is the Preservation of International Stability defined by the RAND Corporation as a condition of international relations in which interstate violence is substantially nonexistent. This criterion aims to evaluate the resolution by asserting that reducing the U.S. military presence in the West Asia-North Africa region is crucial for maintaining and promoting global stability, which aligns with the broader value of global justice.
I offer the following Observation to add clarification to today’s debate
Observation 1: RESOLUTION INTERPRETATION
The resolution's framing requires the AFF to prove that a reduction in the U.S. military's presence in the region is a better general principle than maintaining its presence. Therefore, the negative burden is to demonstrate how the U.S. military's presence offers more advantages and is the preferred general principle.
CONTENTION 1: The United States military presence in the region has not been effective in stabilizing the region
The presence of US troops in the region hasn't improved the situation. On the contrary, it has worsened in many ways. Despite the US military's efforts, it hasn't brought stability, or promoted democracy, nor human rights. Instead, it has led to increased violence, instability,
and anti-American sentiment. A report from the Rand Corporation found that the US military's counterterrorism efforts in the region have had limited success in reducing the threat of terrorism. Furthermore, some experts argue that the US military's presence in the region has increased instability and violence. This is evident in the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. The report also highlights that the number of deaths from terrorism has increased by 6,500% since 2002. Therefore, the military presence is ineffective. Moreover, the US military's presence in the region hasn't helped to promote democracy or human rights. Instead, it has had the opposite effect by supporting authoritarian regimes and engaging in actions that violate international law. This has led to anti-American sentiment among the local population, making it more difficult to achieve stability and security in the region.
CONTENTION 2: The United States military presence in the region has been a major source of tension between the US and other countries
It is widely believed that the presence of US military forces in the region has contributed significantly to tension between other countries. This has led to increased hostility towards the US and has made it difficult for the US to achieve its foreign policy objectives in the region. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2019 found that a majority of people in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, and Turkey held unfavorable views of the US, with many citing the US military presence in the region as a major reason for their negative perception. Additionally, incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the killing of civilians by US troops have further eroded trust and goodwill towards the US in the region. Many countries in the region view the US military presence as a form of imperialism. This has led to strained relations between the US and these countries, making it difficult for the US to achieve its foreign policy objectives in the region. In addition, the US military presence has also led to increased tensions with other major powers, such as Russia and China, who view the US presence as a threat to their own interests in the region.
CONTENTION 3: The United States military presence in the West Asia-North Africa region is extremely expensive.
Logan reported in 2020 that the United States has spent billions of dollars on military presence in the Middle East and Asia over the years. While maintaining a certain level of military presence is important, the current level of spending is excessive and unsustainable. The US could benefit greatly from reducing its military presence in the region and reallocating those funds to other priorities. According to a report by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, the US has spent over $6.4 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001. This amount is staggering and has had a significant impact on the US economy. The report further notes that even if the US were to withdraw its troops from the region, the cost of these wars would continue to rise for many years to come. The US government has been allocating a significant portion of its budget towards military spending, which has resulted in a reduction of funds for other important areas. By redirecting funds from military spending to areas such as providing food and water for low-income countries, ending poverty, and providing aid and health to countries impacted by poor living conditions, we can
ultimately achieve global justice and improve the lives of people around the world. instead of Conflict.
All three contentions show how the U.S. military Presence in the Region has no effect on making things better, and the only option is to reduce the U.S. military Presence in the region. Thus, I Affirm and I stand open for Cross.
ADD IMPACTS
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help