Resolved: The United States ought to end its provision of arms to foreign insurgents.

== My Case ==My sole contention is that arming insurgents helps fight oppressive regimes. Since the objective of foreign policy should be striking a balance between advancing a country's own interests and benefiting people in general, vote Con. (1) Insurgents funded by the U.S. fight oppressive regimesThe US tends to prioritize insurgencies that would assist the U.S. in its goal toward democracy promotion. Shannon Lindsay Blanton explains, "During the latter years of the Cold War, military-strategic factors determined U.S. arms transfers. In the post-Cold War period, U.S. arms transfers reflect the rising prominence of idealist goals in U.S. foreign policy." [1] This foreign policy trend has continued, because the U.S. sets out these idealistic goals and public opinion overwhelmingly favors them. There are multiple examples of this, with Syrian insurgent groups getting American funding to combat the oppressive regime that currently exists in Syria, and to combat terrorist organizations such as ISIL. [2](2) Increased likelihood of successArming of insurgents assists democracy promotion and combating oppressive regimes abroad. These insurgent groups are likely to be successful if supplied with arms, for three reasons. First, this arming bolsters legitimacy. According to the government's guide to the analysis of insurgency, "External aid bolsters the recipient's legitimacy rather than causing it to be portrayed as a puppet to foreign interests." [3] It means it's more likely that people will take the insurgency seriously, and often will create positive opinions about the insurgency. Second, arming insurgents gives them firepower, massively increasing the chance of success. This has been the case since the Cold War. Christopher Dickey explains, "With the exception of the Bay of Pigs, the agency has succeeded repeatedly, sometimes spectacularly. In Afghanistan in the 1980s, the CIA arms for the mujahedin won the final and decisive battle of the Cold War, liberating Eastern Europe and destroying the USSR." [4] Third, U.S. presence in general is favorable for democracy when the U.S. intends to cause democracy. According to an analysis by James Meernik, when the U.S. actually intends to cause democracy, U.S. presence tends to be successful in achieving that objective. [5] Moreover, the U.S. has massive influence over other countries in general, which means other countries tend to align with American interests. [6](3) Benefits of overthrowing oppressive regimesFirst, these regimes are oppressive, and often cause widespread harm to their civilians. For instance, the Syrian government engages in "disproportionate bombardment and shelling" against civilians. [7] In certain instances, it even used chemical weapons against its own populace. [8] Insurgents have a right to tackle this direct oppression and the effects of granting them high chances of success are massively positive, in that they combat brutal governments. Second, oppressive regimes are likely to be replaced with democracy given the likely objectives of insurgents, as demonstrated by source [1]. Democracy is overwhelmingly beneficial to global stability. For instance, democratization prevents repression by the state. Oppressive regimes suck. Political scientists Christian Davenport and Benjamin Appel found that democracy is likely to reduce the rates of state repression. [9] Third, given that these regimes suck, giving the people a right to self determination is just. In a situation where these people are deprived of essential rights, there's a moral obligation to give them the right to control what happens to them. Conclusion: Arming insurgents increases the likelihood of overthrowing oppressive regimes, which are typically targeted by the U.S. This advances American interests and the interests of people who live in these states. Arming insurgents is better than using the U.S. military because of (1) the massive cost of doing so, (2) the likely international backlash, (3) the creation of anti-Western sentiments among the people, creating instability, and (4) the right to self determination which exists in the hands of the locals. == Rebuttal ==Pro's C1: TerrorismPro says arming insurgents perpetuates terrorist actions. I have a few responses. First, the harm caused by oppressive regimes is much larger. The Syrian Armed Forces and ISIL have caused a larger number of civilian casualties in Syira than the insurgencies supported by the U.S., e.g. the Syrian Democratic Forces. Second, once a democratic framework is achieved, terrorism is far less likely. Shadi Hamid and Steven Brooke explain, "What democracy can do . . . is prevent those most susceptible to extremist recruitment -- tens of millions of frustrated Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle East -- from turning to political violence, by giving them alternative outlets for peaceful political expression." [10] This means terrorism in the long term is far less likely. This argument brings me an offensive impact: reduced terrorism in the long term. Third, the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports are less likely to engage in the magnitude of terrorism that Pro envisions. As I've shown through my source [1], these insurgencies are those that fight oppressive regimes, as opposed to an insurgency like the Taliban which is more likely to engage in direct terrorist action, without regard for minimizing civilian casualties. Moreover, these groups actively fight terrorism, in many cases. For instance, the Syrian Democratic Forces, and the Free Syrian Army, actively fight ISIL. [11] [12] Both of these are insurgent groups backed by the U.S. in fighting ISIL.Pro's C2: Misuse of weaponsFirst, the alternative is really simple: if there's a high risk of corruption, don't give weapons. Pro's own source says that the U.S. knows the high risk of misuse. Since this is a "should" resolution, I have the ability to do that. Moreover, Pro's first example is of a military, which does not describe insurgents. Second, not giving weapons to Kurd forces is worse because it leaves them defenseless against ISIL. Arming Kurd forces is key to fighting ISIL. According to researcher Barak Barfi, the People's Protection Units, a Kurdish paramilitary group, has captured 17,000 square miles from ISIL. [13] Even with the risk of ISIL gaining weapons, arming Kurdish forces would result in substantially better outcomes. Third, Pro's second example is a lie. She blatantly misrepresents her source. In that specific example, ISIL *claimed* to have gained the arms, but her own source says that the Kurdish authorities confirmed that they received the arms, and concedes that "every indication . . . is that the vast majority of bundles have been successfully delivered to the Kurdish forces." [14] This is a massive hit to Pro's credibility. Conclusion: Arming insurgent groups fights terrorism in both the short and the long term, the misuse of weapons is highly unlikely and a solvable problem, and all of my impacts from democracy promotion far outweigh. Pro has also lost credibility in terms of her representation of sources. For all the above reasons, vote Con. [1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...[2] http://www.reuters.com... [3] https://www.hsdl.org... [4 ] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [5] http://www3.nccu.edu.tw... [6] http://www.belfercenter.org... [7] http://www.ohchr.org... [8] http://www.thenational.ae... [9] https://papers.ssrn.com... [10] http://www.hoover.org... [11] http://www.bbc.com... [12] http://www.reuters.com... [13] http://www.washingtoninstitute.org... [14] Pro's source [6] from Rd. 2