The USFG should substantially increase its military capability in Southeast Asia

PRO also exceeded character limits by posting 4075 characters in R#5. ClosingWe thank PRO for engaging with us in debate; we cannot thank PRO for engaging in the resolution:a) PRO would like you to believe that a "military capability in SEA" somehow does not need to be in SEA. We (CON) have reacted in surprise round after round as PRO has done their absolute best to frame this debate about anything EXCEPT SEA. We listed all SEA countries in R#2: South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are not in SEA. .. Guam and Australia aren't even in Asia. None of these countries are relevant to this resolution. PRO has barely even begun to attempt to establish BoP for their position, and BoP is indeed on PRO. b) PRO spent about two sentences talking about only one SEA nation - the Philippines. We demonstrated in R#4 that the colonial framework we outlined in R#2 is supremely relevant here, as the Philippines kicked us out in 1992 due to our bases being perceived as "vestiges of colonialism", i. e. "this region simply does not care for any foreign military influences," and "a US military presence is inherently destabilizing and inherently challenges national sovereignty. "c) PRO has displayed exceptional hubris: "even if SEA unanimously rejected increase [sic] US presence, Con has [sic] provided a shred of evidence that they would do anything about it. " In R#2 we brought up the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, both of which kicked the US out, and both of which clearly prove PRO dead wrong on this account. Both Iraq and Vietnam are evidence that PRO does not understand how any country views a pre-emptive foreign occupation. PRO would like you to believe that we can attempt the same action again in SEA and expect different results. .. this is the definition of insanity, not of any prudent military course of action. d) As discussed in R#4, the "pivot to Asia" is exactly that - to Asia, NOT SEA, is largely irrelevant to this resolution, and is mainly a way for the US to save face and withdraw from the Middle East with some dignity intact. e) What's left of PRO's case hinges on 5 impacts - terrorism, nuclear proliferation, disaster relief, piracy, and US-China dynamics:1) PRO dropped terrorism, as they should. We argued in R#2 that Iraq proved that a US military occupation in a country will do little to quell terrorism and indeed will INCREASE terrorism.2) PRO dropped our R#3 counterpoint that SEA already has a "Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty" that precludes the region from nuking up.3) Disaster relief is almost wholly irrelevant to this resolution. In R#4, we argued that 16-inch guns and fighter aircraft do not provide relief - they provide a means to kill. PRO would like you to believe that transport capability is unique only to the military, a complete non-sequitor argument.4) As discussed in R#3&4, piracy is an internal issue for SEA nations, and does not warrant a US military occupation of SEA.5) China has made no overt military overtures in this region. PRO only brings up possible Chinese naval presence in international waters to somehow substantiate unwarranted aggression. The only real conflict in this region involving China is what we discussed in R#2, i. e. the maritime disputes in the South China Sea, which are non-military, and for which an economic solution (i. e. the JDAs) is already in the works. If we move in militarily, we will be seen as aggressors in the region, not the Chinese. We also demonstrated in R#3 that the US-proposed TPP is responsible for divisiveness in the region, not China. ConclusionA substantial increase in US military capability in Southeast Asia is unwarranted, unwelcome, and unwise. It will create new problems in the region and goes against SEA and US interests.