The USFG should pursue a foreign policy of Military Isolationism

Introduction Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. I'd like to clarify that we are actually discussing isolationism vs. interventonism. Isolationism is not only being against foreign war entanglements, but also being against immigration, trade and other things that have to do with outside countries. I do not support isolationism but rather non-interventionism, which is not getting involved in other country's politics (specifically with military engagements) unless unavoidable; i.e. they are an aggressive threat to us. Keep in mind however, that as a libertarian I am not opposed to individuals voluntarily taking up arms against oppressive regimes if they see fit. But I am against the USFG pursuing a foreign policy of military interventionism. Re: Why Global Stability MattersFirst and foremost, there is no consensus on whether or not objective morality exists. Furthermore, Con has not proven that helping those in need is necessarily a moral imperative. Some people have different standards for morality. For example, libertarians utilize the Non Aggression Principle as their singular moral criteria, and this does not call for helping others as a moral imperative. Moreover, even people with the same values can disagree on the best methods to achieve their goals. Con implies that those who do not agree with his moral standards are sociopaths, but this is a manipulative fallacy. There is no such thing as "American values" because we all have individual values. Con will not be able to argue for a universal standard of American morals. Indeed many Americans disagree on what is righteous all the time. We have no reason to assume that helping others (even when we can) is in fact an American virtue. After all, the U.S. is one of the richest countries in the world, yet almost 47 million Americans live in poverty [1]. Many Americans vehemently believe it is not theirs or other people's moral obligation to care for the poor. Similarly many Americans cheerfully reject refugees of war (they were banned in the majority of states) who are desperately in need of our safe haven [2]. So no, we have no reason to believe that helping those in need is an American priority -- even when their lives are on the line. Re: Hegemony Preserves Global Stability Con writes, "When a single country's military & economic power dominates that of every other country... everybody enjoys the benefits of international peace and economic prosperity." Even if this were true, this does not prove why America has to be the country responsible for maintaining global stability. In fact Con's very own arguments and examples suggest it is NOT necessarily America's responsibility. For instance he talks about Pax Romana which refers the Roman Empire, but the U.S. was not even a country until the 1700s. Today many analysts consider China to be at the top of the world in terms of militaristic and economic strength [3]. Indeed the U.S. is indebted to China. Con must explain why the U.S. is responsible for global stability today. The U.S. has only held alleged hegemonic privileges between 1945 and 1971, yet the world has continued turning (and the U.S. has been successful) both before and since then.1. Interventions Are Generally Beneficial I will be responding to these contentions slightly out of order. Con notes that interventions bring conflicts to end, thereby saving millions of lives and (allegedly) billions of dollars worldwide. He specifically references Pax Americana and the U.S. military endeavors of the 1990s. However I will use these examples to negate Con's 2nd point...2. U.S. Hegemony Deters War and Promotes DiplomacyAccording to Con, the "vast majority" of conflicts don't turn into wars -- he says this is primarily because the U.S. enforces international standards of conduct, and encourages countries to resolve conflicts peacefully. But that's a warped description of reality, and may be a blatant lie. Let's look at the so-called period of Pax Romana that Con describes. After the Cold War, the United States emerged as the victorious and undisputed global superpower. However that didn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait, completely ignoring the new world order imposed by the dominant U.S. authority. The U.S. had to help its allies in the Persian Gulf, and followed the first Gulf War with a "dual containment" strategy that deployed troops in Iraq and Iran... and yet this military force did very little to stop another bad guy, Serbia's Slobodan Milošević, from challenging the U.S. militarily during the Yugoslavian civil war directly thereafter. Thus the U.S. had to use force in the Balkans against the Serbs. With all of its military prowess, the U.S. failed to establish peace in the Middle East, it failed to reduce Saddam Hussein's power, and it failed to reduce the Ayatollah power in Tehran. Moreover, the U.S. military prowess couldn't even prevent the rise to power of new adversaries like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez in the U.S.’s geographical backyard."Eventually the terrorist attacks of 9/11 demonstrated that, contrary to the prevailing axiom, American military supremacy not only failed to maintain global stability, but it helped ignite new threats to its own security at home and abroad, and required the U.S. to go to war once again in long and expensive military conflicts in Afghanistan and later Iraq" [4]. Indeed the U.S. has found itself in a seemingly endless series of wars over the past two decades. Worse, the Department of Defense admits that our aggressive foreign policy has specifically worsened our position [5, 6] which existed even before 9/11 [7]. With that said, I am directly challenging Con's supposition that interventions are generally beneficial. They haven't been."We were told that the U.S. had to intervene to overthrow Gaddafi so that democracy and human rights could flourish, yet five years after the US-led intervention no one would argue that the country is better off. Instead of bringing Libya democracy, US intervention brought Libya ISIS. So now the US has to go back and bomb Libya some more to take care of ISIS. Will this work? No. Logic tells us you cannot do more of what caused a problem and expect it to fix the problem. As Middle East analyst Hillary Mann Leverett observed after the US attack on Libya, 'the problem is, for each one of these targeted killings, what we have seen in the data that at least two more people sign up to join” [8]. Furthermore, let's consider the economic impact of the military industrial complex. Con says that war saves us money, but that's patently false. War is incredibly expensive! U.S. tax payers are paying over 8.7 MILLION DOLLARS PER HOUR on military conflicts [9] which is absurd. Considering our insurmountable debt; the number of (American) lives lost in battle; the fact that our national security is worse and not better off; and the fact that continuous conflict and militaristic engagements have ensued despite our interventionism, thus far Con has completely failed to prove that interventionism = beneficial diplomacy. 3. U.S. Hegemony Promotes International Trade Con is right that stability is good for the global economy. However he has not proven that trade would not be possible without a hegemonic leader, OR that the leader must be the U.S. "In recent years, scholars have recognized some of the problems concerning the predictions of hegemonic stability theory and the trade practices of states. Whereas it had been believed that following the failure in the early 1970s of the U.S. to support important elements of the international monetary and trade regimes, international trade would soon decline, this has not happened. On the contrary, international trade not only remains strong, but is rising faster than the growth of the world's GNP... the integration of measures of both international and domestic politics appears to be more promising than hegemonic stability theory as avenue of research for explaining the continued rise in international trade" [10]. Not only is this observed in modern times, but has been throughout history [11]. I'd also like to challenge the concept of "American" prosperity vs. individual prosperity. To someone who loses a job to a foreign competitor, would they consider themselves beneficial of international trade? Probably not, because free trade benefits individuals subjectively. But I digress. Re: Con's Conclusion My opponent claims that U.S. military isolationism would result in the rise of another superpower, but fails to explain why this would result in "devastating" multipolarity. Why would all "hell break loose" according to Con? He claims it's because of the availability of WMDs, and the fact that modern warfare tactics tend to incur large numbers of civilian casualties. Yet this explanation is confusing -- why is Con worried about WMDs and methods of modern warfare, when he is specifically encouraging the U.S. to get involved in modern warfare? >> General Re-Cap and Overview of Pro's Arguments << 1. The military is responsible first and foremost for protecting our national security. Studies show aggressive foreign policy makes us LESS safe via blowback.2. Wars have cost us trillions of dollars over the last decade and we are not arguably any safer. We cannot afford this debt.3. The USFG is responsible for protecting the lives of its soldiers, and not subjecting them to fight to the death unless necessary. 4. War has unpredictable consequences that can escalate. In addition to the creation of new terrorist groups and hostile retaliation, military action may threaten tempermental global alliances that put us at risk. 5. U.S. citizens have no inherent obligation to help foreign citizens. 6. If U.S. citizens have a moral obligation to help others, perhaps we should start domestically. 7. We do not necessarily have a right to interfere in foreign politics. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...