Resolved: The US Federal Government should remove military presence and economic aid from S. Korea

Rebuttal 1: Comparative analysis My opponent asks for the two countries in question, South Korea and North Korea, to be compared. I will do this. First, we need to understand what my opponent has conceded in the last round. “Then he talks about how North Korea has rocked the boat with China. This is also going to be really important for my side. I'll concede that this has happened, and as the Week reports, North Korea has threatened war with China (http://theweek.com.......)” He has ultimately admitted that North Korean relations with China have been deteriorating and has cited evidence to prove this. Thus, North Korea loses a major ally in a potential war with South Korea. However, China is in support of another country as well. That country is South Korea. “China-ROK coordination on DPRK denuclearization within the Six-Party Talks framework included meetings between chief envoys Wu Dawei and Hwang Joon-kook on Sept. 1 and Nov. 24, and between deputy envoys Xiao Qian and Kim Gunn on Sept. 7. In an apparent dismissal of efforts to resume dialogue, however, DPRK representatives reportedly did not attend a forum on the Six-Party Talks hosted by China Institute of International Studies in September, which First Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan and chief nuclear envoy Ri Yong Ho had attended in the past.” http://csis.org... China is willing to work with South Korea on attempting to stop the proliferation of North Korean nuclear weapons. This change in policy shows the inherent need for both countries to notice the North Korean threat. It is quite likely that China would ally themselves with South Korea as shown with this policy change. Not only this, but my opponent’s argument relating to South Korea being not capable of fighting North Korea without a military ally would mean that the lasting cooperation in the event of a war between China and South Korea would mean victory. The possibility of war exists, however, my opponent has stated that the possibility of war and the loss of lives outweigh all other impacts in today’s debate. This leads to my second rebuttal. Rebuttal 2: Military presence will not deter violence My opponent has proffered a Rice University study as evidence. However, let us observe one of the opening paragraphs of said study. “While some claim that the careful use of military alliances to create countervailing coalitions will deter aggressors and prevent war (e.g., Gulick, 1955; Morgenthau 1967; Waltz 1979), others claim that alliance commitments can serve to provoke and to expand war (e.g., Christensen and Snyder 1990; Siverson and Starr 1991; Vasquez 1993). Large N empirical tests of the relationships between alliances and war have not clarified the debate, as they have failed to produce clear and consistent findings.” http://atop.rice.edu... Regardless of the actual source, we need to realize that since there are multiple sources that produce different results. This has led many scholars to believe that there are no actual results from keeping a standing military presence on an allied nation’s ground. Thus we need to look at this example in its individual context. For instance, we need to see the ground troops presence here than any other military presence elsewhere. Also, my opponent states stability will be achieved because of the standing military presence. This can be dropped as the Rice University study states that there is no empirical data showing once-and-for-all that there is a huge implication with a standing military alliance on the ground of an allied nation. Remember, Kin Jong Un is an irrational actor, and may not take into account the alliance to an extent due to overall hostility toward Western powers blinding him. This also means that the problem is more nuanced, so a take over as seen from China when it took over the Philippines is unlikely. However, if my opponent is still unconvinced, we can see an example of how military presence in alliance nations has proven ineffective. Even with our military presence in both Japan and South Korea, we still see scrimmages between China and other nations, such as the one with Vietnam as described in the Time Magazine in 2014. http://time.com... Not only this, but China still knows that we are allies with South Korea and other places in the South China Sea regardless of a standing military force within the region. Rebuttal 3: Potential alliance issues A recent Congressional Research Service study in April 2016 has shown the following: “Despite the strengths of the alliance, tensions periodically arise in the partnership. Some of these involve typical alliance conflicts over burden sharing and cost overruns of ongoing realignment initiatives. Others reflect sensitive sovereignty issues involving Seoul’s control over its own military forces and desire to develop its own defense industry without dependence on American equipment. And although the United States and South Korea share a common interest in repelling any North Korea attack, views on the overall security landscape in Northeast Asia differ. Seoul resists adopting positions that threaten or offend China, and often expresses misgivings about Japan’s efforts to expand its military capabilities.” https://www.fas.org... Again, there are clear signs of strained relations between South Korea and the United States because of the United States presence there. Of course, I previously mentioned that this resulted in protests and anger from the South Korean people, which has been dismissed by my opponent as not representative of anything. This is clearly not true. Not only does this show the dislike of the military base in the United States, this also shows a mistrust of the American people stationed there. This is a problem as we realize that when the United States government isn’t seen as a trustworthy ally, we lose our leverage and influence in a region, especially when we directly affect the people’s livelihood in the region with murder, rape, and other crimes against the people. In the end, we have to ask ourselves, do we really want to lose influence in Asia during the South China Sea Conflict? No, so we must affirm. Rebuttal 4: Troops elsewhere What needs to be realized is this. I must win this argument due to the fact that I have shown the problems with the lack of military in the Middle East. Regardless of stirring up hate within the Middle East, it isn’t going to be a large impact given the fact that the problems my opponent has shown are not going to get better with inaction, and that a we cannot just have an air force, other types of military are necessary as well to defeat the ISIS menace. My opponent has not shown why a US ground force can’t solve the problem, just that it will stir up radicalization and hatred against America within that region. But, let us weigh impacts, the possible harm against the Middle Eastern people resulting in more anti-American sentiment and possibly a few more terrorists to fight, or the possible destruction of ISIS and the affiliates of said group through an organized force that can most certainly seek out the terrorists. Also, notice the fact that my opponent has not effectively refuted my Russian proliferation argument. My opponent has stated that Russia has been in Syria for forty years and has also fought ISIS which is good. However, this is bad for US interests. With Russia having raised influence in the Middle East, we see the spread of an enemy’s allies, which would not be good and would result in Russia producing more weapons at a possible offensive against the US with the help of the Middle East at a worst case scenario. Not only this, if we were to move our troops to the Middle East, we would guarantee that at the very least we have some sort of leverage within the region, meaning Russia has less. National interest of the US outweighs weakened relations with an already anti-American region, so we do not look at this impact with as much importance as mine about US goals in this region. Rebuttal 5: Impact from economic aid My opponent has stated that there is no impact from getting rid of economic aid. This is untrue. If we were to continue funding South Korea, we would see countless amount of dollars that could be spent on a more useful purpose such as other countries that are developing and American people’s needs. This ultimately becomes important as we see problems in infrastructure, the economy etc. I will ask my opponent to show why the South Korean economy is important to the US and why the country can’t independently act in regards to economy as I have already proven they have a strong economy and have enacted smart financial reforms as shown by my Heritage Foundation evidence in the first contention of my constructive case. http://www.heritage.org... Thanks, I await your response.