The USFG should substantially increase its military capability in Southeast Asia

We will offer our own case by providing background on the region and assigning our own conditions for the resolution. As we are constructing our own case, we reserve the right to rebut PRO's arguments later in the debate. Please do not count them as dropped points, thank you. Introduction - SEAHistory and HeritagePRO has forwarded a case about Southeast Asia without discussing Southeast Asia. We will frame the discussion around the region in question, and demonstrate that both the US AND China are unwelcome, foreign intruders into this region. Southeast Asia (hereafter SEA) is comprised of peninsular Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Vietnam, and archipelago nations Brunei, Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Philippines, and Singapore. The peninsular section of SEA has a long, established, and unified political and cultural history, and the archipelago region is primarily bound together by Islam. In the peninsular area, for several hundred years, the Angkor-based Khmer Empire achieved political unity in what is currently Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and southern Vietnam, achieving its zenith around 1200AD:. http://www.debate.org...During King Naresuan's reign around 1600AD, the Ayutthaya Kingdom achieved a greater territorial extent and included parts of Burma:. http://www.debate.org......as did the Chakri Dynasty around 1800AD: . http://www.debate.org...ColonialismDuring the colonial era, the peninsular political unity suffered quite a bit of a disruption:. http://www.debate.org......and especially at the turn of the 20th century, colonialism seeded deep resentment against foreigners stemming from patronizing ideologies such as "the white man's burden" and social Darwinism, which imparted deeply biased racial discrimination against the peoples of the SEA colonies. Only Thailand proper was spared from the colonial yoke. .. all of the other SEA nations had to fight for their independence - Vietnam in particular won independence for itself, Laos, and Cambodia from French Indochina only by fighting and winning three wars over 30 years against France, the US, and China at devastating costs to human life. [1] This iconic picture of a Vietnamese girl fleeing from a US napalm attack during the Vietnam War encapsulates the extent to which the colonized Vietnamese were willing to bear any costs to get rid of foreign influence and claim independence:. http://www.debate.org...Pathway to ModernityFrom the literal ashes of human suffering and indignities resultant from their colonial experiences, SEA has risen to become economically potent and once again a unified entity. Organizations like ASEAN fully reflect SEA's cultural and political heritage pre-colonialism:. http://www.debate.org...Furthermore, there is ample evidence that SEA very much prefers to take care of their own problems internally. When faced with maritime disputes, SEA has had numerous successes implementing Joint Development Authorities (JDAs) in the regional waters like the Gulf of Thailand to divide revenues from sea-based economic activity amongst all claimants. ASEAN aims to extend these successes to the current spates with China in the South China Sea. [2]---The purpose behind this presentation is to demonstrate how this region simply does not care for any foreign military influences. This is the regional paradigm. SEA wants China only when the US misbehaves, and they only want the US when China misbehaves. They will not welcome us with any sort of open arms, will default to not supporting any long-term commitments, and will be wary of any suggestions of base facilities and garrisons within the region, thereby making any substantial increases in US military capability a pipe dream. This is the legacy of colonialism upon the colonized. Conditions for Increased US Military CapabilityBefore WWII, America left the world alone, and made very few overseas ventures. After WWII, America successfully occupied most of Europe and significant countries in Asia. Our experiences taught us one key lesson:There must be a military crisis in order for there to be a military opportunity. We occupied Japan because we were at war with them. We occupied most of Europe as a direct result of the world's deadliest conflict, WWII. We occupied South Korea because they faced an existential threat from North Korea. We occupied Saudi Arabia because they were afraid of Saddam after he invaded Kuwait. Because there was already an ongoing crisis, typically a full-blown war, our presence was seen as a positive. An example of the opposite: there was no crisis in Iraq in 2003, except for the numerous crises we created by occupying them without their permission, from sectarian violence to dramatic increases in terrorist recruiting [3], so they kicked us out. There is simply no current military crisis in SEA, therefore, there is no opportunity for US military deployment into the region. The main issues in the region, China's trade disputes in the South China Sea (hereafter SCS), are peaceful and non-military. Therefore, our military presence will be seen as unwarranted, unwelcome and will be negative, as it was in Iraq. Impact/Prioritization1) SEA Impact - SEA impacts trump other impacts - If SE Asia rejects a US security capability, then their perspective will trump any and all US interests in the region, unless the US is willing to wage total war in SEA like we did in Iraq. Unlike Iraq, such a war in close proximity to China's borders will trigger a Chinese response and may easily escalate to nuclear conflict and mutually assured destruction (MAD). Total war is an unthinkable act in this region. Therefore, short of total war, SEA nations' sovereignty and stability are primary considerations for a US deployment into the region. 2) US Impact - CON is more appropriately advocating for US interests than PRO - PRO's stance is overly aggressive and will actually work against US interests. We need to consider SEA nations' perspectives and adjust our security footprint to compensate, otherwise we may find ourselves in another situation where we deploy troops for a decade only to get kicked out of the country in a humiliating fashion, i. e. Iraq. A US military presence is inherently destabilizing and inherently challenges national sovereignty - in Japan, they dealt with this by stationing US troops far off from the mainland on a tiny island called Okinawa [4], thereby minimizing the destabilizing aspects of a foreign occupation. . http://www.debate.org...In Korea, we have already dramatically cut our troop count, and are continually pestered about removing our presence from their capital. [5] This is because after decades of occupation, even our staunchest allies are growing weary of the burden.3) China Impact - In this region specifically, China is only relevant to this debate to counter US aggression. Yes, that's right, US aggression. .. this resolution advocates an extremely aggressive US strategy, and SEA will seek a counterweight to balance our push into the region. We will demonstrate these impacts in detail when we rebut PRO's case. ---[1] . http://www.history.com...[2]http://cil.nus.edu.sg...[3]http://www.nytimes.com...;[4]http://closethebase.org...[5]http://www.cfr.org...