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

"First, my opponent cannot say a vast majority will be saved instead of all 2,000. They don't give this number, and if they cannot give us this number, the number itself should be disregarded. "What? 2,000 soldiers can't be killed in a war, if they aren't fighting the war, but are safe at home. I say MOST of the 2,000 will be saved if the US had withdrawn immediately, because the US can't teleport its soldiers back, and I'm assuming a FEW soldiers/personnel will invariably be killed during the few days it takes to withdraw. Your opposition to this line of argument makes no sense. Con then goes on to essentially argue, that "Iraq and Afghanistan policies were actually beneficial to our national security. According to the Council of Foreign Relations On both Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has displayed an admirable degree of flexibility and adaptation".That's nice, but that's not the issue. The issue, is did this administration pursue a foreign policy that's detrimental to our national security, relative to the one I'm proposing, and the answer is yes. For all of Obama's "flexibility and adaptation", 2,000 US citizens still died, tens of thousands were injured/traumatized, and billions of dollars spent. If my policy of immediate withdrawal was enacted, nearly all of the above casualties wouldn't be, and Obama's "flexibility and adaptation" wouldn't have been needed. "I agree, lives are important, however, if my opponent can't prove that the killing of these lives will undermine our national security, then all of his lives arguments should be DISREGARDED."Con defined Foreign policy (which I mistakenly referred to as National Security earlier), as "actions the United States government takes on behalf of its national interests abroad to ensure the security and well-being of Americans and the strength and competitiveness of the U.S. economy". If we are using this as an operative definition for our debate, its clear that US lives matter. Traditionally, national security is defined as survival of a state, both economically and physically. Its clear that thousands dead/injured, and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, is a detriment to the survival of a state. Con states that I misunderstand the topic, though in what respect, he doesn't mention. It seems to be in reference to an earlier exchange, when I admonished him for using non-US terror casualties in his argument. If this is the case, then it seems Con doesn't understand the topic. This resolutions is about US foreign policy and US National Security. The deaths of non-US citizens, while regrettable, don't directly impact US National Security. Con attempts to address my monetary claim (hundreds of billions of dollars lost), by saying that casualties in the war on terror have dropped since Bin Ladin's assassination, and that since lives are > money, my claim fails. As stated earlier in our debate, this is a nonsensical argument, that doesn't follow on any level. If my "policy" had been enacted, there would been nearly ZERO casualties, as opposed to 2,000 casualties (even if that 2,000 is better then previous years), AND billions of dollars saved. Con then asks me to elaborate on how hundreds of billions of extra dollars would improve national security. A few ways. National Security is partially dependent on economic dominance, and its no coincidence that China has surged economically, while the US has fallen during its "war on terror". The extra money and attention, could be funneled into creating jobs/industry/innovative fields, helping to slow our economic slide. Furthermore, since the well-being of US citizens is also part of National Security, we could also have invested the extra money in providing health-care to the needy, further bolstering National Security, relative to Obama levels.