Development assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa.

Game on Pro! OBSERVATION: I. AGREED: PRESERVING HUMAN LIFE SHOULD BE THE PRIORITY I agree wholeheartedly with Pro on this point, but I disagree with the methods. Pro argues that, because human life is invaluable, nations that give aid to this region should focus on non-military humanitarian aid. However, for any economic growth on a metropolitan, National or Regional scale, there must be stability. Stability comes, ultimately, from power, generally military power. II. MORAL OBLIGATIONS ARE CONSTRUCTS OF OUR OWN SOCIETIES Morals are determined by regional truths, religion and societal norms. If we are to limit our view of morality to Western thought, as I predict Pro wishes to, than we shall. However, it appears to me that different cultures determine their own values, and if providing food is viewed as less moral than providing military aid to a struggling regime that espouses all of a person's other morals, that is their concern. (This is not my personal thought, but those thoughts are not a part of this venue). CONTENTIONS: I. THE GREATEST THREAT TO LIFE IS INSTABILITY A. ECONOMIC GROWTH CANNOT EXIST WITH UNCERTAINTY. Pro is correct that loss of economic viability is one of, if not the greatest threat to lives in the region. However, economic instability is caused often by instability of social order. If soldiering is more profitable than water sanitation, for example, and less dangerous to your health (as all factions fight over water), who will run the sanitation? If you are an international bank being asked to lend money for economic purposes, or to build infrastructure in the region, you are nearly guranteed to see a loss on your investment at this time. Medecins Sans Fronteirs (Sic) offers free clinics to people all over the world, yet, sadly, they are often pawns in the schemes of the powerful. Take the example of doctors in Syria (http://www.nytimes.com...). Though admittedly not the same region or exact same circumstances, in Syria doctors are targets of the military and rebels alike. Without stability, people are unlikely to get basic medical aid, much less regular doctors visits. Food aid is similar. In Somalia, for example, looting of food aid is one of the ways that groups keep and expand their power (such as Somalia in the 1990's, when the events captured in Black Hawk Down happened. See this article for an idea: http://www.nytimes.com...). That same system of theft is continuing today (http://www.nytimes.com...). CONTENTION 2: MILITARY AID CAN END THE FIGHTING WITH A CLEAR VICTOR AND A CLEAR POWER. Though, again, my personal views would prefer to see no wars and no death, I must state that, when wars have a clear victor, life for "everyone else" can begin again. Take examples of brutal dictatorships in 1950's China, 1930's Germany and Soviet Union. Yes, life in all of these places was devoid of freedom, at least to the extent Pro and I enjoy (the evidence of debate on the internet shows at least that.) These systems did not arise from nowhere. People, in desperate situations, will often seek a "strong man" to run the show so that life can continue. As much as freedom of the press is important, the ability to eat is moreso. Military aid to the side viewed as most in line with the morals of freedom and equality can establish a system that fosters that. Or it may not (see Afghanistan aid in the 1980's). But undoubtedly, the best way to save lives is to end the fighting so that individuals and organizations can rebuild infrastructure, trade and receive investment from outside of their region. This cannot happen until the fighting ends. A caveat. Pro may attempt to argue that, without weapons, the fighting will end. Sadly, this is not the case. For one, many armed groups in the region get their weapons illegally, much like drugs and human beings are smuggled. Also, if firearms and heavy weapons are removed, the fighting will often merely turn to more medieval weapons such as machetes. (See this story on 500 killed by machetes in Nigeria https://www.google.com..., this story on Rawandan genocide planning here: http://news.bbc.co.uk...) War is an unfortunate state of being. It is clear that economic, food, water and medical aid cannot take enough effect to ease the suffering until it ends. The fastest and most precise way to end fighting is for one side to win.