Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security

Good luck in your tournament. This is my first post on the site as well so I suppose you and I are both what DBO might call a couple of noobs, but you appear to have your act together, and I will attempt not to disappoint!I believe the wording to my opposition's resolution has two implications:(1a) that if the current U.S. foreign policy were revoked without replacement, the United States would be safer than it is now [1], or (1b) that if the current U.S. foreign policy were revoked and replaced with the previously existing policy, the United States would be safer than it is now [1], and (2) that the weakening of the national security of the United States is an intentional implication of the policy's writers and / or supporters.[2][3] My opposition provides the following contentions:1. Our current, "Leading from behind" policy, makes America look weak, and undermines our influence.2. Our policy is unnecessary.3. Middle East Policy is harming our economy.Despite his rigor in providing definitions for the words "undermine," "national security," and "Middle East," all of which could be looked up and agreed upon with relative ease in an argument, my opposition cites a politically vested source (Mitt Romney) for the far more subjective and controversial phrase, "Leading from behind." The entire phrase is a metaphor. To remain consistent in his rigor, my opposition should have described it as our current "leading from across an ocean" policy, which would be a more convincing metaphor if for no reason other reason than that it is consistent with the shape of the earth. The opposition's first contention also falls short on a more elementary level: the definition of leadership. The paragraphs supporting his first contention refer to "military leverage" - does leadership mean a full-fledged invasion? He suggests that the Middle East lacks fear of the U.S. military because it is not large enough. Whether the Middle East fears the U.S. military is a far-fetched claim to make in either direction without taking some sort of poll or assessing the patterns of Middle Eastern activity in response to the military, but a simple assessment of the size of the U.S. military will show that any shortcomings are not a question of magnitude, as demonstrated by my opposition in his defense of his second proposition.And finally, my opposition's first contention falls short on a broader level. As we finally allow ourselves to step back, overlook the gritty details of the contention, and attempt to connect it to his proposition, we find the proposition is not supported by the contention unless we unconditionally equate political strength with political leadership with military strength. Even as a summary, it is difficult to reconcile this reasoning as anything other than circular. In fact, he himself compares the strength of the United States with the strength of China without ever mentioning how involved each is in the leadership of other nations or what their political influence might be. If contention #1 had presented a theory of proportionality between national security and "leadership involvement" in the Middle East, I and my opponent could have compared the national security of the United States with that of other, less-involved nations, such as China, Canada, South America, Australia - really, there's a whole globe of evidence to examine. Our hands are tied only by the wording of the contention. The title of my opposition's second contention, "Our policy is unnecessary," is a moot point, implying redundancy or pointlessness to U.S. foreign policy. The explanation of the contention, which talks about how the military is large enough for leadership, is moot to the second contention, moot to the proposition, and contradictory to the first contention's implicit belief that military size / strength is unconditionally proportional to leadership.The third contention classifies gas prices as national security, because "anything pertaining to the nation as a whole" includes reference to gas prices. This definition of national security also encompasses agricultural growth, social security, Medicaid, public education, and I am truly optimistic about the broadening implications of our zeal for national security. High gas prices, while demonstrated to be bad for national security by my opposition, are healthy for alternative energy development, domestic oil drilling, and environmental health, which all are included under the definition of "anything which refers to the nation as a whole," from which we must conclude that Middle Eastern Policy is both healthy and unhealthy for our national security. For the purposes of this conversation, contention #3 is moot. This is a fun definition with which to work.Definitions and Sources:1. Undermine - to subvert or weaken insidiously or secretly (definition provided by opposition)2. Insidious - intended to entrap or beguile. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. Secret - http://dictionary.reference.com...4.