On balance, Obama's foreign policy has done more harm than good

Despite many forfeitures, he was able to carry on efficiently and without fault. Kudos to you. Secondly, I would like to congratulate SolonKR on making it to the final round of this tournament! Hopefully this debate does not descend into chaos but remains on a level of intellectual discourse. May the best debater win! Framework: A “good” foreign policy, or a foreign policy that does “harm” can be interpreted in many ways. My perspective is built on the foundations of outreach in the world community. In contention with my opponent’s views on a “good” foreign policy, I suggest that “good” should mean that countries around the world who have had interactions with the United States should be improved in some way, given chances to alleviate current predicaments in their country, or dealing with enemies of the state in a peaceful yet blunt fashion. When these three things, collectively or individually, are achieved by the foreign policy of the United States, then our foreign policy has done “good” and we can safely say that we are a contributing factor in world affairs. I would ask voters to take into consideration the outlinings of “good” from both sides and weigh them in their logic and applicability to the cases proposed. Iraq: President Bush, created a situation that President Obama inherited which has led some to assume that Obama is the one to blame for circumstances in the Middle East. For instance, the conflict in Iraq. It was Bush’s foreign policy that spearheaded the invasion of Iraq, and it was clearly the act of Obama’s foreign policy that withdrew troops in 2011 (1). In comparison, Bush’s ideal of an adequate foreign policy was to invade other nations to enforce american will, while Obama took a cautious approach and tried not to make the wrong moves, therefore the harms of Bush’s foreign policy outweigh those of Obama’s. For Obama to be blamed wholly for the now ensuing conflict in Iraq would be a misguided accusation; Obama did not cause the situation because it was not on his orders that the U. S. wrongly invaded the nation of Iraq. As the president who inherited this situation, it was his job to resolve it with little to none problems, and he succeeded. At every turn in the Iraq war, the U. S. devoted time, money, and equipment to the Iraqi military forces. In the Bush campaign in Iraq, a total of $26 billion was spent on U. S. aid to Iraq. Some outlets of this donated money include training ($1.32 billion), supplying the Iraqi military with aircraft, boats, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other gear ($3.4 billion), and providing military, logistical, and maintenance support for the Iraqi military ($2.6 billion). After billions spent on training and improving the efficiency and capabilities of the Iraqi military, we accomplished one face of our multi-faceted foreign policy; giving not only chances but the capabilities to alleviate predicaments in Iraq to the military and government (2). Knowing how much money had been spent on military training, equipment, and the war as a whole, Obama did withdraw troops from Iraq. When the U. S. departed from Iraq, we did not leave the country defenseless; we had spent the last eight years spending billions on training and equipment to increase the wartime capabilities of the Iraqi military. In conclusion, when you look at the tangible evidence I have provided, withdrawing troops from Iraq was the reasonable thing to do at the time; the Iraqi military had been armed and trained extensively. It was not an error of the Obama administration, but an error by the Iraqi administration for not having the initiative to expand upon the training and equipment to form a capable fighting force. Obama had seen that they had the tools to utilize in the alleviation of conflict, and made the decision to withdraw. Economic Isolation: A noteworthy aspect of the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been the economic isolation and sanctioning of countries around the world that pose a threat to the U. S. itself and its allies. Instead of invading countries and trying to enact our will by brute force, Obama has greatly impeded the economies of enemies of state, and the economy is the lifeline of a country. A major part of Obama’s foreign policy has been aimed at dealing with Iran. The threat they pose is based off of two things: Their hostilities with Israel, and their ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, which existentially poses a threat to the U. S. (we are allied with Israel). Our reaction to the ambition and hostilities of Iran has been one bearing a cool and calculating manner. What Obama has gotten right is that we cannot approach threats abroad with brute force, but we should instead aim to cripple the essential lifeline they need to run their country, in order to lessen the posed threat. The Council on Foreign Relations (3) states that, “Under the 2011 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), foreign-based financial institutions or subsidiaries that deal with sanctioned banks are barred from conducting deals in the United States or with the U. S. dollar,” and, “Prior to 2012, oil exports provided half the Iranian government's revenue and made up one-fifth of the country's GDP; its exports have been more than halved since. ” The following graph supports evidence of the utter crippling of the oil industry by American sanctions (3): Instead of instigating armed conflict or starting warfare of any sort, Obama has aimed at crippling the economy of Iran so that they are aware of the circumstances that they face and they discontinue their previous acts of attempting to proliferate nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the funding of terrorist organizations abroad. By targeting the oil industry, which before accounted for one-fifth of the country’s GDP, and making Iran an outsider economically in the world community, they were hard pressed for economic growth and could not find anyone to deal with them. Using these methods, the Obama administration coerced the Iranian government into agreeing to a historic deal (4) that leaves little to no room for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, let alone the materials. All things considered, Obama succeeded in performing one crucial facet of the U. S. foreign policy; dealing with enemies of the state in a peaceful yet blunt fashion. Overview: I would ask voters to judge solely upon the cases proposed and their entireties, and nothing else. Each case should be analyzed heavily for the values, criterion supplied, and the good and bad of case should be weighed to form the best conclusion. I have provided tangible evidence and clear reasoning to prove that Obama’s foreign policy has done more harm than good, and I will provide more evidence for my case in the rounds to come. Conclusion: Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for extending his arguments due to Christmas, and I hope that this debate flows smoothly from here on out. Thank you to my mentor YYW for giving me the foundation to produce my case. I hand it over to you Pro! Sources: . https://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.motherjones.com... . http://www.cfr.org... . https://www.whitehouse.gov...