The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

I will begin by defending my first contention, on Pakistani support for terrorist networks.My opponent begins by stating that there is no concrete evidence of the Pakistani state supporting terrorism.First, let's look again at the NATO Report: State of the Taliban, which I cited in my first contention. The full quote was not included, as I felt it was unneccesary.“ISI is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel. The Haqqani family, for example, resides immediately west of the ISI office at the airfield in Miram Shah. The ISI office in Thal is located on a bluff overlooking the headquarters of another Taliban organization, the Mansur Group. Senior Taliban representatives, such as Nasiruddin Haqqani, maintain residences in the immediate vicinity of ISI headquarters in Islamabad.”This is most definitely conrete evidence that Pakistan is unwilling to take action against the Taliban.Then, remember the quote from the UPI on sharing intelligence with Pakistan. We give the ISI intelligence pertaining to the location of numerous militant sites within Pakistan. In two weeks, every single site is found abandoned. Once again, concrete evidence that Pakistan's ISI tipped off the extremists.Next, take a look at some more quotes from The Ally from Hell article, cited in contention one. "The ISI also helps foment anti-Americanism inside Pakistan. American and Pakistani sources allege thatthe ISI pays journalists in the Pakistani press, most of which is moderately to virulently anti-American,to write articles hostile to the United States."It's fairly clear that the ISI does not have American interests in mind."In a series of interviews, several Pakistani officials told The Atlantic thatinvestigators believe the militants had help inside the base." (After militants raided a base to destroy U.S. given surveillance planes)Again, concrete evidence that part of the Pakistani government is supporting terrorism. Finally, a quote from a past ISI chief, adressed to Prime Minister Sharif: “We have been covering our tracks so far and will cover them even better in the future.”All of this evidence proves Pakistan's involvement with terrorist networks. Even if Con claims that it's not 100% certain, it is certainly damning enough to warrant a suspension of aid.Next, on my opponents rebuttal of "No clear objectives":Two reasons why the Afghan military and the Haqqani network are not remotely comparable:1) We recognize the failures when they occure, and are currently trying to fix them. That's why we're in Afghanistan in the first place: to institute a government that does not do what my opponent claims. We're still trying to reach that goal.2) None of the occurences my opponent cited (illegal raids, land grabs, abductions) amount to what the Haqqani network has done by murdering, in cold blood, thousands of innocent civilians for the purpose of spreading terror.My opponent then claims that abandoning Pakistan would increase anti-American and anti-Indian sentiment.First, on anti-U.S. sentiment:Note the entirety of my case for "Trade not aid." I have shown that the United States can suspend assistance to Pakistan without becoming an enemy. I will also show, near the end of this speech, another possibility for maintaining a good relationship with Pakistan.My opponent then mentions, within this point, the current conditions of anti-American sentiment. This does not show that anti-U.S. sentiment will increase if we suspend aid. Note that anti-American sentiment has not gone down since we reintroduced aid. Pakistan hates us as much now as they did when we suspended all aid and placed massive sanctions on them. The situation can't get much worse than it already is.Then, on anti-Indian sentiment:Pakistani-Indian tensions are currently at an all time low. The two countries have already agreed to normalize trade relations (http://online.wsj.com...) and Pakistan has recently moved 100,000 troops away from the Indian border. (http://www.deccanherald.com...) (Before con mentions that this contradicts my terrorism point, note that the Afghan Taliban and the Tehrik-i-Taliban are not the same. Pakistan has never supported the Tehrik-I-Taliban within the FATA)I also fail to see how suspending aid would cause anti-Indian sentiment to increase, and ask for my opponent to clarify this within the next round.My opponent also briefly mentions that the U.S. needs to set a clear set of objectives and use better oversight of implementation, rather than suspend aid. I will be adressing this at the end of this posting.In response to my second contention, my opponent mentions that the current failings of the system are a cause for reform, not suspension. I will be adressing this later.In response to my third contention, my opponent concedes thats corruption exists. However, she claims that this should be solved by reforming the aid, rather than suspending it. Once again, this will be adressed later.My opponent also mentions that Pakistan needs the aid. Look to a quote from my rebuttals, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies."The process of building schools and opening health clinics is unlikely to produce development in any broad sense…Although a few residents may benefit from the assistance, the money may not alleviate poverty in the tribal areas in any meaningful way."Even if we can reform the aid, it still won't be effective. The amount of aid we're giving to Pakistan is unable to fix the problems. From http://csis.org..."Money alone is no guarantee of success, particularly when entrenched corruptions and inefficiencies in thebureaucratic system provide diminishing returns to investments... Simplybuilding schools in the tribal regions for example, has no bearing on the number of educated graduates if theschools lack capable teachers, better curriculums and more relevance to the labor market...Only Pakistan can save Pakistan..."I then ask that my opponent clarify her second rebuttal in the next round, on suspending aid would be detrimental to global politics. On the moral front of her rebuttal: I agree that suspending aid would be morally reprehensible, but only if it was currently working. Since the vast majority of aid is propping up a corrupt military complex, I claim it is morally reprehensible to continue aid. Now, onto the most important argument: Why reforms are not a point for the con.Note that, because the resolution states "suspend," pro must only argue for a temporary stopping of aid. During this temporary suspension, we can then reform aid. This is an entirely superior option than to reform aid without suspension, because we won't be wasting billions of dollars and increasing anti-American sentiment during the reform process.My opponent has conceded numerous problems with our aid, including corruption and the creation of anti-American sentiment. She even argued for a change in the way we give aid in response to my first contention, on terrorism. I have just proven, however, that reform is a superior option after we suspend aid. Once reformed, we can reintroduce aid while still affirming the resolution.Therefore, my opponents major argument is, in fact, an argument for the pro.This now negates the majority of my opponents case. We now have two possible options to keep Pakistan stable after aid is suspended.1) Use the "trade not aid" plan. Nearly immune to corruption, benefits the Pakistani civilians more than the government officials, and is far more desired by both the Pakistani government and the lower-class.2) Reform aid, then reintroduce it. This solves the problems I pointed out in my second and third contentions, and greatly diminishes the problems from my first, while preventing Pakistan from becoming a volatile state.Overall, con's major argument only plays into the pro side.