The United States should conquer Africa

Thesis: When colonialism was at its peak, the traditional lifestyle of Africans was shaken to its core by vast European contact. Europe’s goal of “civilizing” (IE Westernizing) the Africans was partially completed, before it was abandoned entirely following the post WWII wave of white guilt. Since then, Africa has become a continent of despair, the confusing clash of cultures leading to genocides, economic depression, corruption, and war. Africa is not returning to its traditional heritage, it is just making a false and dangerous imitation of the West; any western involvement is advantageous at this point. Specifications The age of imperialism, in a traditional sense, is over. No longer do nations openly engage in petty squabbles over territory or resources; indeed in the age of inter-dependence such open wars are pragmatically impossible! The resolution however, is clearly referring to the present tense. This leads us to an impasse: if colonialism is a thing of the past, then how do we go about conquering anything? The answer lies in current U.S. policy. Chalmers Johnson argues[1] that the United States version of a colony is a military base. This seems problematic, in that it is too broad, surely no one believes the U.K. or Germany or Cuba to be U.S. colonies, despite all of these nations containing U.S. bases. What then, is meant by conquering? The closest thing seems to be the “nation building” mission advocated by the Bush & Obama administrations. Indeed, despite claiming to be a nation promoting democracy, the U.S. has overthrown democratic regimes to achieve its objectives, and propped up autocratic ones [2][3]. Imperialism in today’s world is much more sinister than that of the past, while the U.S. might not have made Iraq an official “colony”, it certainly benefitted from the nations resources after the war [4], and certainly brought the nation under its wing. Using the information above, we can best conclude that current U.S. policy indicates conquest to be a military intervention intended to preserve U.S. hegemony abroad. That is what we will consider to be “conquering” in this round.Further, to bring Africa under its hegemony the U.S. need not conquer ALL of it, just enough. The U.S. did not have to conquer all of the Middle East to bring it under it's hegemony, just Afghanistan and Iraq. The same principle should be applied to Africa. Also, I offer the observation that all effective governments are inherently expansionist because they are obligated to act in the best interests of their citizens, even if that comes at the expense of the citizens of other nations. If conquest is helpful to both the citzens of the conquerer, and the conquered (as a U.S. conquest of Africa would be) than there is simply no reason NOT to do so. C1: Human rights There are at least 2 major genocides occurring currently in Africa[5][6]. Around half of the African continent is currently submerged in warfare of some kind [7]. Every single day 2500 innocent children die because of a lack of clean drinking water, and hundreds more die of starvation[8]. Of the 50 least developed countries, 34 of them are in Africa[9]. I could go further, but I think these empirics, combined with the common knowledge we all have, show how the continent of Africa is in a desperate situation. Let us now compare the situation of Africa to the situation of the two third world countries the U.S. has most recently invaded ad rebuilt, Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan was previously in a state of civil war (which was swiftly ended by U.S. involvement) and since the U.S. invasion the nation has improved greatly, the GDP has risen massively[10] and there now exists gender equality and a democratic government. Iraq can tell a similar story, GDP has increased here as well, as have all Human Rights [11]. Thus you can see that U.S. involvement has been successful in the past, so bringing Africa under our hegemony will be advantageous to those living there. Human Cost The entire war on terror has cost an estimated ~1-1.5 million lives [12]. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had (comparatively) modern militaries, insurgents, and suicide bombers with no qualms about murdering civilians. Africa as a rule has none of these things, so the death projections can be much lighter. Consider also that over 10 million innocent children die every year by starvation [13] many of these in Africa. Clearly the military casualties are outweighed. Further, there is no viable alternative to conquest, we can see quite clearly that foreign aid and charity do not work other-wise Africa would not be suffering as much. C2: Hegemony Short and sweet. Africa is a pretty strategic location, allowing for power projection into the Middle East and Asia, both potential hot spots. U.S. hegemony deters nuclear war. C3: Resource exploitation For such a poor continent, Africa actually has a lot of resources. Take for example the Congo, one of the poorest nations in Africa. This country has an estimated 24 TRILLION USD worth of untapped resources, and enough river to provide hydroelectric power to the entire continent[14]. As it stands, these treasures are just going to waste; stuck in a country that will not stop fighting itself long enough to develop them. As I previously mentioned, the U.S. benefitted from Iraqs resources (oil) once it brought the nation under its hegemony. Same thing will logically happen with Africa. Further, the benefit is two-fold the trade and economic ties with the World’s sole superpower will be advantageous for the Africans as well (they would certainly be better off engaging in trade with the U.S. than killing each other over minor ethnic differences). C4: Historical precedent and current events Previous interventions in Africa have been successful. As recently as 2011 western intervention in Africa has converted a dictatorship to a democracy[15]. Looking at the most developed nation in Africa (South Africa), it is also the most westernized. Indeed, until the 90’s the only people allowed to run the country were westerners[16]! This is not to imply that Western society is superior to African culture, it merely supposes that Western society is preferable to the confusing (and violent) clash of cultures that is ongoing in Africa currently, and there is no reason to believe that most Africans will return to their traditional, nomadic, and primitive (although extremely sustainable) way of life. Those skills have been forgotten. WWII marks a turning point in history, the end of traditional colonialism. By the 1960’s, the colonies were almost all gone, and despite booming in the 1950’s (last decade of western involvement), the economies of Africa have crashed and never recovered since the West departed [17]. Consider the following image: http://www.debate.org... you can see that those Nations that are closest geographically to Europe also have generally higher GDP’s, with the exception of the westernized South Africa and the nations in close proximity to it. This tells us what we all know, that closer ties with the nations in power (IE the U.S. and its NATO allies) leads to economic success. If you're considered an ally, puppet state, colony, or economic interest to the United States it will use its massive military and economic power to help you, not harm you. Currently, no nation in Africa is considered any of these things to the United States (with the exception of a few oil producers, and look at how the U.S. aided them in their time of need [Libya]). Consequently, if any threat is perceived by the U.S., they will not hesitate to destroy the nation in question. It is better for Africa to align itself with the U.S. as soon as possible. Africa is now a depressed continent of starvation, infant mortality, warfare, genocide, and squander. These are the results of the departure of western society. Sources:1. http://www.debate.org...