Barack Obamas Foreign Policy is Horrible

Thanks to Pro for this debate! I will rebut his points and then discuss some positive points of Obama's foreign policy.REBUTTALS(a) BenghaziI have several rebuttals to make here:1. Pro commits an ipse dixit fallacy. In other words, he makes a series of unsupported assertions about how Benghazi is this huge scandal that represents the failures of the Obama administration. But he offers no evidence or analysis to support these claims, and thus they cannot be seen as credible.2. The House Panel on Benghazi came to conclusions contrary to Pro's assertions: "After a nearly two-year investigation, the final report by the House Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA 'ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi and...bravely assisted the State Department' on Sept. 11, 2012, during a deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Libya." [1] The Report further concluded that there were no intelligence failures preceding Benghazi. [1, 2] The conclusion is that the Obama administration was not negligent in its efforts to secure the embassy.3. The House Panel also "found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi." [1] I might also note that this panel was Republican-led.4. Even if Benghazi was the fault of Obama, it is more likely an isolated mistake than evidence of a failed foreign policy. Foreign policy involves many decisions and actions; it is a complex web. One cherry-picked example would not be sufficient to prove the whole web is foul.(b) Libya1. Cross-apply 4a here, too.2. Furthermore, at the time that Obama made the decision to engage in airstrikes, it seemed like the best option. Had Obama not acted, there is no evidence that Libya wouldn't be just as bad as it is today. There is no reason to believe that Qaddafi and anti-Qaddafi factions couldn't have spiraled into a long-term conflict that would tear up the nation. By overthrowing the dictator, Obama removed a leader that was oppressive and unpredictable, and given the information he had at the time, this appears to be the best choice he could've made. (c) Iranian Nuclear DealPro claims that Iran is giving up nothing of consequence in this deal, but that's just false: "Iran will reduce its installed enrichment centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,000, only 5,000 of which will be spinning. All of them will be first-generation centrifuges: none of its more advanced models can be used for at least 10 years, and R&D into more efficient designs will have to be based on a plan submitted to the IAEA. Fordow, Iran’s second enrichment facility...which is buried deep within a mountain and thought to be impregnable to conventional air strikes, will cease all enrichment and be turned into a physics research centre. It will not produce or house any fissile material for at least 15 years...Iran has said it will reduce its LEU stockpile from 10,000kg to 300kg for the next 15 years--probably sending fresh stocks to Russia for reprocessing. Iran’s alternative plutonium path to a bomb also appears to have been satisfactorily dealt with. The heavy-water reactor at Arak will be redesigned and its original core, which would have produced significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be removed and destroyed. No other heavy-water reactor will be built for 15 years." [3] All of these measure will be enforced through highly intrusive inspection regimes. This has created a fairly significant accomplishment: Iran's break out capacity (the speed at which it can acquire a bomb), will be reduced from a few months to a year under this deal, and this lengthened capacity will be maintained for a decade or more. Those are hefty concessions from Iran. Moreover, sanctions relief will be phased out to ensure Iranian compliance. It's not like Iran is getting everything it wants up front.(d) Bowe Bergdahl1. Cross-apply 4a here, too.2. Pro makes it sound as if the Taliban 5 were just handed their freedom on a plate. In fact, that isn't true. They are confined to the city limits of Doha, in Qatar, where they can pose little (if any) significant threat to the United States or its allies. [4]3. Pro makes no connection between ISIS's demands for ransom and Bowe Bergdahl. He asserts that the connection exists, but asking a bunch of rhetorical questions doesn't actually demonstrate that it exists. It's more likely that ISIS asks for ransoms because other countries, like the UK and Japan, have been known to give under-the-table payouts. So, in that case, it wouldn't be Obama's fault.4. And, regarding the Taliban/al-Qaeda, let's not forget who kill bin Laden...(e) ISIS1. Why was pulling out of Iraq necessarily the cause of ISIS? To me, it seems more likely that Maliki's ethnocentric regime was responsible for alienating various groups (which later joined ISIS), and so he bears more of the blame than Obama and the U.S. strategy. Pro makes a ton of assertions in his arguments that Obama did X which led to Y, but he never explains HOW X led to Y, he just assumes it did. His "link stories" are incredibly tenuous, and shouldn't be given much weight.2. Pro seems to have overlooked how Obama's policies have turned ISIS on the defensive. The coalition Obama assembled and led (as well as the Kurdish forces Obama supports) has really turned the tide back in favor of the new Iraqi government. [5, 6, 7] Recently, Iraqi forces took back the city of Tikrit, an important strategic location, from ISIS, as well. [8]3. Pro tries to blame Obama for what he might have done (in terms of supplying Syrian rebels.) This is entirely unfair, because it is all supposition. We can only judge him for what he did. And, he forced Assad to surrender his biochemical weapons, which was a triumph, and would likely not have occurred without Obama's pressuring Assad. [9]POSITIVE ARGUMENTSSince I am running out of characters and time, this list will be brief [9, 10, 11, 12]:- Halved the number of U.S. and Russian Nukes- Helped isolate Russia with sanctions after Moscow's incursions in Ukraine- Struck a deal with Beijing on climate change- Eased relations with Cuba, fixing an out-dated policy- Conclude free trade accords- Weakened al-QaedaSOURCES1 - http://www.npr.org...2 - http://www.bostonglobe.com... 3 - http://www.economist.com...4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...5 - http://rudaw.net...6 - http://news.usni.org...7 - http://www.cnn.com...8 - http://www.newsweek.com...9 - http://www.nytimes.com...10 - http://thinkprogress.org...11 - http://www.newsweek.com...12 - http://www.foreignaffairs.com...Thus, I negate. I turn the floor back over to Pro...