Resolved: the U.S. should intervene to promote democracy

Framework:He fails here since I am not arguing “The U.S.’ good interventions are beneficial.” I am saying that we should intervene to promote democracy. You can use this analysis against him, since HE must hold that even “good interventions that are beneficial” should not be done. He has only negated bad interventions (if you assume they are bad) in this debate. There are multiple avenues of intervention and he has to deny all of them. If I win one form of interventionism, that is a way in which the U.S. should intervene, therefore negating his stance that the U.S. should not intervene. Showing Iraq and Afghanistan are bad wars is NOT a warrant for non-interventionism; it’s a warrant for not going into those countries. This is why HE DROPPED the analysis that I gave that says systemic analyses should be preferred over individual examples. Obama did not agree with Iraq. Is he a non-interventionist? No. I can agree Iraq was bad and still advocate for demo promo. Thus, his entire case is premised on TWO EXAMPLES that do not support the claim that we should not intervene. Military Interventions: EXTEND: (1) Analysis that says systemic analyses should be preferred to individual examples and (2) the Peceny evidence. This is the best evidence in the round since (a) it isolates the 1/3 of interventions in which the U.S. went in for the main goal of proliberalization and (b) since its conclusion is that the U.S. is over 70% successful in military interventions. Thus, even if Iraq and Afghanistan are bad, it does not disprove the claim that we should end ALL INTERVENTIONS, since we are net successful. Iraq:Sactions- (1) His new evidence is from 1991, the Iraq Liberation Act was the stated U.S. foreign policy in 1997. His evidence makes no mention of removing Hussein in favor of a democracy, just the removal of Hussein. In fact, William Clark, in his book “Petrodollar War” (he agrees w/ opponent on Iraq) that the U.S. probably would have even initially accepted a Baathist replacement! (2) They were enforced by the U.S., but they were UN sanctions having nothing to do with demo promo. (3) The demo promo that DID exist was the Iraq Lib Act, which GRANTED AID to democratic movements in Iraq. War- I did not drop. I said it at best proves that we should not have gone into Iraq via total war for WMD, it does not prove we should not have intervened in Iraq as we did with the Iraq Liberation Act of 97, which he did not point out was wrong. Remember, Obama was opposed to the war, BUT HE IS AN INTERVENTIONIST. LF is NOT proving his side with this argument. Afghanistan: 1.He concedes we went in there for defense, not necessarily demo promo. This is exactly why you prefer the Peceny (70%) evidence since its ONLY talking about demo promo 2.Revolution: Except he DROPS the evidence where 80+% support the Karzai gov, only 4% the Taliban. So they are struggling for dem and we are helping. The same poll notes that aroun 65% think NATO is doing a good job. 3.Health: Yes, they absolutely can be attributed to the U.S./NATO. He drops the warrant that HEALTH ACCESS has increased from 9% to over 80%, which CAUSED a 25% drop in mortality. His own source shows that overall life expectancy increased by 5 years after stagnation under the Taliban. Plus, my source also says vaccination for polio eradication and TB also exponentially increased. Health has improved, and they prefer now to the Tban. 4. I show decrease in violence for most Afghans since its concentrated which is an indication that we are winning. Remember, Tban control, and he drops this, went from 90% to 4%. We just have to stay until the government is self-sustaining. The people want us too, so its not seen as an occuptation. 5. He DROPS education, because its just true. Now Afghan girls and boys go to school. Basic human rights, probably why they like us. 6. HDI: He cannot cite any HDI for comparison under the Taliban. For all we know it could be significantly higher now than it ever way under the Taliban. Plus, now is what counts: in 2010, from just 2009, Afghanistan jumped 12 placed in HDI, which shows progress. So this TURNS his argument. Collier: Again, extend this. He is not answering my argument. All of his violence arguments at the bottom of his case are about what happens once a country becomes a democracy. Collier IS talking about peacekeeping. That is the point. It proves if we stay in after conflict to maintain the peace, violence reduces by 30%, mitigating his harms which happen WITHOUT further intervention. Plus, a plurality of UN troops are U.S. troops so its still a form of U.S. intervention, especially since he uses the UN in the sanctions argument. Power Differentials: 1.It is analyzing a struggle for democracy, which means the people want it. All of the benefits of dem follow. 2.Actually I did produce evidence U.S. reduced casualties. The source I provided makes it clear that if we did not intervene, Gaddafi would have routed the rebels in Benghazi with his superior arms (tanks). That is the whole point of this argument, which he drops. Without our support, they have a 5% chance. With it, 79% chance. The rebels were NOT getting stronger, they were on the verge of defeat. That is exactly why Obama intervened (lol). They would have been slaughtered because they were using WW2 weapons, we bombed his tank blitz toward the east. Also, Mubarak was ousted peacefully, now he will stand trial so this argument is empirically denied—his people wanted him to be held accountable. Less deaths, vote for me. DPT: He drops the turn I used on autocratic peace argument. The study he cited said similar regimes tend to war less. This is true of dem and aut, the difference is dem is better. Plus, in places where WE intervene to help their democracies, even if DPT fails, they still are more likely to be peaceful with their new allies. Intrastate War: Extend the McFaul evidence: only 16% of new democracies experience this conflict, whereas 84% do not. He says 16% is a lot? So what, 84% democratic peace is better than 100% of autocracy which would be the case otherwise. The violence is probably because of the aggression of threatened surrounding AUTOCRACIES. In any case, Collier works well here: if we stay, we can ensure stability and a decrease in violence. Genocide: Here he confuses what is and what should be. This resolution deals with the latter. Even if the U.S. does not intervene to promote democracy to stop genocide, it should. In any case, he drops my analysis. He concedes (1) working democracies are better (and he drops the 70% evidence, overall less deaths therefore) and (2) if they are better, we should continue to stay until they are stable enough such that they do not revert. So his argument is a reason to intervene further, it’s a reason we should expand intervention to stop genocides, 99% of which come from autocracies. So democracy=less death. Motives: Remember, he drops the analysis. He is talking about what is and this debate is about what should be. I am saying the U.S. should do X. He is saying the U.S. won’t do X. So what? That does not refute that the U.S. should do it! That’s like saying a murderer should not murder because he is not going to stop murdering. AID: He actually does not answer this at all. The evidence I cited is aid that is given WITH CONDITIONS, which is why the democratic change happens. This means leaders must comply or they don’t get the aid. He says “disingenuous reforms” but USAID and the U.S. government deside what is meant by compliance, so they have to enact reforms. His Easterly evidence even says that we should give aid under certain conditions. USAID controls for over 40 variables and is considered to be very reliable. Moreover, the data is independently confirmed by Freedom House and Polity: 5x increase and 33% increase in democratic/freedom change respectively, of which market reforms are included.