Calling Out Libertarians on Foreign Policy

I negate: Ron Paul's View of Foreign Policy Should Be Adopted by the US==Framework==1. Governments, and thus the US government, must adhere to consequentialisma) This is the only sound poli-ethical stance on the fact that governments are bound to serve the interests of the polity. However, it is not possible for states to fulfill all possible interests for every possible person. Thus, the government must maximize those interests and benefits as a way to best meet its meta-obligation. b) Moreover, governments must weigh all probable case scenarios in terms of international relation theory and external State action. This is true because a government would not be adhering to basic consequential notions of weighing the magnitude of the harm with the probability of that harm occurring.2. Burden. The burden is reciprocal. My opponent has the obligation to independently prove that the US has an obligation (under the standard of consequentialism) to adopt Ron Pauls view of foreign policy. My burden as well is to independently show why the US should not. ==Case==C1: Assumptions of non-interventionismI) Reciprocal non-interventionism. This assumption basically says that if X nation is non-interventionist, the relations towards it will be non-interventionist and non-protagonist as well. This is wrong fundamentally on two levels. First, it ignores globalization. Globalization is basically the international phenomenon where states become interlocked and interdependent, e.g. through trade and technology. At this point, interests do not only exist inter-lap, but they become increasingly complicated and tied into a web of competing interests. This can be seen with US relations with India due to an increase of technological dependence and worker dependence, like the H1-B visa. Therefore, the notion that a foreign policy of non-interventionism will deter competing interest claims is false because the nature of the system makes those competing interest claims inevitable. Second, it assumes a rational decision calculus. To be more specific reciprocal non-interventionism assumes countries basically have the same cost-benefit analysis as each other, and as such will come to the same conclusion of non-interventionism. This is a damning assumption to make because states rely first on geopolitical considerations and identity principles. Meaning states depending on their identity have different ways of calculating a cost-benefit. For example, the Taliban thought it was better to keep Al Qaeda in their borders regardless of the Bush ultimatum, whereas Saudi Arabia hedged their bets with the US after the invasion of Iraq. And this shows even minor geopolitical considerations drastically alter a states decision calculus. II) Interventionism is the root cause of the US’ problems. This assumption basically argues that the problems we fight now are due to past interventionist policy. This is also wrong on two fundamental levelsFirst, it is a historicist view of foreign policy. Historicism is the poli-philosophical stance that states history can tell us the future result of state actions. Now historicism is wrong because it can only tell us macro-stories as opposed to micro-stories. Meaning historicism claims a large worldview of an issue and disregards variables in independent cases. Karl Popper tells us that this is a horrible poli-philosophical stance to take because it creates a narrow-decision calculus by which politicians would take, thus antithetical to the notion of consequential decision making. Second, it cannot resolve anomalies within the international realm. Basically the claim interventionism creates future problems cannot answer issues that have come up from minimal to no past interventionism. For example, non-interventionists claim that terrorism is a result of US foreign policy, and they cite US giving arms to the Taliban. However, this ignores the link between Al Qaeda and Taliban and terrorist attacks against the US. Rubin analyzes this claim, and says it is fundamentally false. Terrorists are guided by an identity issue and not for actual interventionism. If it were true (1) AL Qaeda would have first attacked Europe for its colonizing roots in the Middle East and (2) terrorist attacks would decrease at times when the US is withdrawing from the Middle East. Rubin tells us these are both false. Elaborating on #2 is important however; for example, when the US was pushing for a Palestinian State and was looking to withdraw its presence from the Middle, particularly Saudi Arabia, thats when Al Qaeda bombed the US embassies. Thus, we can conclude that the foreign policy narrative non-interventionists weave is one that has historical fact, but in-correct and insufficient analysis and regardless of the amount of intervention we will be the targets of terror until AQAM is dismantled. [1][1] Rubin. The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism C2: Independent Scenario Analysis [2] I) Afghanistan. Ron Paul calls for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. This is highly problematic on the fact that withdrawing from Afghanistan will have 2 major impact: (1) Al Qaeda and the Taliban would once again plunge Afghanistan into a civil war which will harbor and promote jihadism, radicalism and terrorism - making it possible to become the aggressor and not the defender anymore. (2) It will empower global jihadist groups, e.g. in Pakistan, because it shows that the US can be defeated via insurgency tactics. All they would have to do is outwait the US. II) Pakistan. Ron Paul wants non-intervention with Pakistan. This is problematic because the US has 2 key vital interests in that area: (1) to help counter terrorism in the Pakistani region and (2) be stabilized so its nuclear arsenal would not become an open target for terrorist groups. Pakistan is at the brink level, meaning it is not destabilized enough to be a threat, but is right on the edge of going into the hands of jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. US intervention is the biggest stabilizer because we are drawing those groups to the FATA region to maintain a defensive and we are strengthening the current government to crackdown on jihadists in that area. III) Iran. Ron Paul wants to lift most sanctions on Iran and will not use military force as a mechanism or a deterrent. He has argued that if the US has nuclear weapons then Iran should be able to as well. However, this is a flawed way of thinking. (1) He is making the assumption of rational decision calculus's on both sides - but it is hard to say that is accurate from a guy who lets homosexual be stoned to death and who believes Europe purposely keeps the clouds away from Iran to make a drought. (2) He is ignoring the different regulatory standards on the US’ arsenal and the Iranians. (3) He is assuming that appeasing the Iranians is enough - looked how WW2 started. Thus I will highlight two potential harms:First, Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the Middle East. He has called for the destruction of the West and of Israel. This knowing of intent is enough to give probable cause for the US to try and prevent proliferation.Second, Iran gaining a nuclear weapons throws off the balance of power between US/Saudi Arabia and Iran. Basic international relations theory tells us, especially in light of Ron Paul’s strategy for Saudi Arabia, is that Saudi Arabia will be forced to counter-balance and thus start proliferating itself. This will create heavy tensions in the Middle East, create an environment where terrorists could easily gain a nuclear weapon, the potential for Iran to manipulate the oil markets, and/or Iran to try and preempt Saudia Arabia’s build up. IV) Yemen. Ron Paul hs called against drone strikes in Yemen. This is problematic because Yemen is the 2nd Sanctuary for Al Qaeda. Intervneing there is necessary to contain Al Qaeda in the FATA region. [2] Barno. Responsible Transition: Securing US Interests in Afghanistan