United States should keep a military presence I'm the Middle East.

T0 start off I'd like to say that I actually agree that the U.S should stay in the middle east however under radically different tactics. However there are some gaps in my thinking and I think presenting those will give you a decent debate. Also I saw that you took up the challenge against miles-pro-liberate on his foreign policy debate. You're braver than me and your presentation was very good. I look forward to see you two continue the debate. 1.) A unjust war/presence due to it being immoral That being said I should probably get back to our debate. I think the main issue with the U.S having a large military presence in the middle east is the morality of it. The first question that I think needs to be answered is,"Why is the U.S in the middle east and what is the tangible goal and effect that the U.S hopes to achieve in their intervention and presence"? In your initial presentation you mentioned that one of the reasons the U.S is there is because, "Global markets also require stability in that particular region, and cargo ships should be able to travel freely in those regions". Assuming that you think that this a reason for the U.S presence, I am postulating that the reason for the U.S presence is economic, and that the effect in mind is to stabilize the region in order for the continued trading with the region primarily for oil and other natural resources. I believe that assuming these are the reasons for U.S involvement that according to the principles of a just war as declared by the constitution, the U.S does not meet the requirements. I am using source 1 as my source for the principles. In order for a war to be justified the envisioned war must meet all of the requirements listed in the source. I do not believe that the U.S presence in the middle east (including the wars fought there and the forceful U.S intervention in middle eastern events) does not meet the requirements of, "A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified" and, "A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury". The U.S involvement does not meet the first mentioned requirement because the U.S, "Half assed" the attempts at diplomacy. The U.S attempted negotiations only to check off that requirement of a just war. The U.S used a number of impossible demands to justify their intervention. For example demanding that Pakistan hand over all Taliban and Al Quaeda personnel. Even the UN and all of its power could not find let alone capture all of the radicals. The thought of a government of which is Muslim and has plenty of reasons to hate the U.S and love the radicals is an absurd one. The second principle that the interventions have not met is that there justification of involvement is impure. Going to war to get material gains is not a valid reason to kill thousands and disturb millions which coincides with the principle that the end must justify the mean. My first and main point went on a lot longer than I thought it would have. In the interest of keeping my side of the debate bearable I am going to end my side of round 1 here. I think I have presented enough points to keep the debate strong and give you something good to respond to. In your response or in a comment/message you can let me know if you want me to further develop my argument and I can do so in later rounds which should make reading my side more tangible or you can tell me to keep it short and simple stupid. Regardless I look forward to seeing your response and wish you luck in your foreign policy debate. Sources: Source 1:https://www.mtholyoke.edu...