The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

ArgumentsContention one: Pakistan actively supports terrorist networks. Pakistan’s ISI, or Inter-Services Intelligence, supports numerous militant groups which it deems beneficial to its own interests. The Center of Strategic and International Studies notes that “as senior US officials and officers have made all too clear – along with some Pakistani experts and their Afghan counterparts – some elements of the Pakistani governance and forces are supporting groups that are actively at war with the United States and Afghanistan.” Admiral Mike Mullen, during his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, reported that “the Haqqani network, for one, acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency. With ISI support, Haqqani operatives plan and conducted that [September 13] truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy. We also have credible evidence they were behind the June 28th attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations....” A large portion of the aid to Pakistan is given with the intent of fighting terror. Consequently, continuing to fund a government that is working against our interests is both self-defeating and morally unacceptable. With billions of dollars being funneled into a such a government, the U.S. now has itself to blame for the death of thousands of soldiers and civilians.Contention two: Aid to Pakistan breeds anti-U.S. sentiment. Subpoint A: Drone Strikes: The United States pursues an aggressive drone strike program within Pakistan. This, alongside other factors, contributes greatly to the recent rise of anti-Americanism within Pakistan. CNN reports that “despite the massive U.S. aid program, a poll by the Pew Research Center last June found that 68% of Pakistanis saw the United States as an enemy, while only 6% considered it a friend.” Numbers for drone strike civilian casualties vary, with studies by Dawn and the Pakistani government finding over 700 civilian casualties in the space of twelve months, and the New America Foundation finding between 293 and 471 militants killed in the program’s entirety. A study from the Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy, surveying 550 professional people living in the areas hardest hit by drone strikes, found that roughly 4 in 10 said they did not damage militant organizations, roughly half said they were not accurate, and 4 in 10 said they increased Anti-Americanism. A similar poll done by Al Jazeera among 2,500 men and women, found that only 9% favor the drone strikes, while 67% oppose. These deaths contribute to the Belfer Center finding that “far from having reduced, Islamist extremism in Pakistan has risen.”Subpoint B: Economic aid: Rather than improve the image of the United States, recent focus on economic and development aid has damaged it. From the Belfer Center, on current conditions: “In some parts, the United States is unpopular. Some aid agencies have found it counterproductive to reveal that the development programs are funded by the United States. In these cases, they are administered anonymously.” As will be discussed later, most aid to Pakistan is subject to corruption, and is never actually delivered. This leads to a general sense of distrust among the Pakistani civilians when they never receive their promised assistance. The New York Times reports that “instead of polishing the tarnished image of America with a suspicious, even hostile, Pakistan public and government, the plan has resulted in bitterness and a sense of broken promises.” Even when small amounts of aid make it through, the result is the same. “Pakistanis see the aid as a crude attempt to buy friendship and an effort to alleviate antipathy toward United States drone attacks against militants in the tribal areas.”Subpoint C: The War on Terror: Our attempts to coerce the Pakistani government into fighting terrorism have backfired. In the small occasions where they give into our demands, the backlash upon civilians causes more harm than good. The Belfer Center notes that “Pakistani deaths from terrorist violence have skyrocketed. There we 189 in 2003, 648 in 2005, and 3,599 in 2007.” Not only are thousands of innocent civilians dying every year, but they’re dying for a cause that they don’t believe in. “A poll in 2008 found that over half of Pakistanis hold the United States responsible for recent violence in Pakistan, and most Pakistanis—74 percent— do not support action against Taliban and al Qaeda militants.” While our aid may be intended to help win the hearts and minds of Pakistan, it is, in reality, harming the positive image of the United States. Contention three: Aid money is poorly managed.Extensive evidence of corruption is shown through the findings of the Belfer Center: “The Pakistani military did not use most of the funds for the agreed objective of fighting terror. Pakistan bought much conventional military equipment. Examples include F-16s, aircraft-mounted armaments, anti-ship and antimissile defense systems, and an air defense radar system costing $200 million, despite the fact that the terrorists in the FATA have no air attack capability… The great majority of the Coalition Support Funds given by the United States to reimburse Pakistan for counterterrorism operations was reportedly diverted to the Ministry of Finance, with only $300 million reaching the Army in the financial year ending 2008. This is evidence of corruption at the highest level. The result is that, after eight years of funding, many Pakistani troops in the FATA lack basic equipment such as sufficient ammunition, armored vests, and shoes.” The New York Times notes that, even after recent reform bills, “only $179.5 million of the first $1.5 billion of the five-year program had been disbursed by last December.” Impacts of this contention will be discussed later in the debate.Given the sheer size of my opponent's case and the character limit, refuting all of his arguments within this round is simply not feasible. As my opponent did not mention anything regarding round structure, I will be refuting his arguments and defending my own case in the final round.