The Obama foreign policy has been a failure.

Overview My opponent’s case against Obama rests largely on Pro’s foreign policy worldview which touts aggressive intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries. This is the same worldview which embroiled the US in the costly Iraq War that tanked US credibility and global perception of the US. Pro finds Obama to be a failure by relying on a standard of judgment which is backward and wrong. Because Pro’s standard is wrong, so is his conclusion. Obama has refrained from excessive interventionism, judiciously exercising US force to advance US interests while avoiding the pitfalls of an excessively interventionist policy. In this way Obama has been a success. Iran US policy prior to Obama pursued conflict in Iraq at the cost of ignoring Iran and allowing the Iranian program to progress. Any positive change of course from this policy is a success. I have presented evidence that recent changes in government demonstrate that Iran is opening up to the West and is interested in negotiating about its nuclear program. I also explained how the new elected government ran on campaign promises of alleviating the burdens of embargos put in place by the Obama administration, demonstrating that Obama’s policy has been changing public and government opinion. Pro’s only response was that the new government doesn’t represent the will of the true ruler of Iran- the Ayatollah. But I have shown that the Ayatollah endorsed the new government, signifying that recent government changes indicate a reorientation of the Iranian government. Al Qaeda Pro concedes that Obama has a massive hit list of Al Qaeda leaders but insists that this does not signal a weakening of Al Qaeda. As evidence Pro points to a FAILED terrorist attack that happened one year into Obama’s presidency. I presented evidence which explains that Al Qaeda is reorganizing due to loss of leadership and political revolution in the Middle East. These two pressures have worked to reorient Al Qaeda’s priorities- they are focused on local political ambitions- and remove Al Qaeda’s ability to launch large scale terrorist attacks- they no longer have the centralized leadership required to do so. This represents a massive gain for US security. Asia Obama has pushed a very successful Asia policy. First, he has reoriented US military capabilities to reflect the shift geopolitical climate. Obama has initiated joint military exercises with Pacific allies, refuting Pro’s claim that Obama ignores US allies. This reorientation is crucial to protecting US military supremacy and represents a major step forward for US foreign policy strategy. Second, Obama has pushed the TPP agreement, a massive free trade agreement that will cement the US into the Asian economy. Pro tried to refute my argument by claiming Obama has been holding up the TPP to protect his political base. I have shown that Obama has already signed a free trade agreement with Panama and Korea that went against powerful Union lobby groups that support Obama. Empirically Obama has proven he is willing to fight lobbying interests to pursue economically beneficial trade agreements. Russia Pro offers meager evidence for Russia “getting its way” while I put forward the UN consensus on Libya as evidence that the US still marshals international foreign policy. Moreover, Pro’s arguments about Russia’s supposed dominance could all be made about pre-Obama presidents like Bush and Clinton as well. Finally, the START treaty and recent cooperation on Syria prove that Obama is working toward building relations with Russia- a cooperative relationship that must be counted as a success. Libya I presented evidence demonstrating that Obama’s foreign policy team worked hard to ensure the overwhelming international support for the Libya campaign. This alone is a foreign policy success but it also proves that US leadership is strong under Obama. Allies/Eastern Europe/Humanitarian Image My Gallup poll is the only hard evidence in this debate on how the world views Obama’s leadership and it clearly shows that Obama has given a huge boost to foreign perception of the US. Prior to Obama the US had the fourth highest approval rating; Obama brought the US to the #1 rating and held that spot. Even Pro’s arguments show that Obama has supported its allies. His missile shield argument was a move that our allies in France and Germany applauded, and his Libya argument is that we only helped France after they asked us to. Israel Pro offers only squishy talk of Obama “snubbing” Israeli officials, while I offer the hard facts of increased military aid. I have also shown that Obama talks up the Israeli relationship- Obama said they were important for “innovation” in US security and opened up talks for increased aid. Conclusion Pro has failed to show that Obama’s foreign policy is a failure.