Pre-emption vs. Deterrence (Modern Warfare)

QUERY:Is this debate's context for the United States?INTRODUCTION & PREMISES:I as Con, will be arguing that deterrence should be considered far more preferable to preemption. My opponent clearly stated "Force should NOT be used only as a last resort." Therefore, he must show us why pre-emption is far more effective.ARGUMENTS: #1. Deterrence Works Best AgainstA. TerroristsIt should be properly understood, that most terrorist organizations don't function like a formal state with a legitimate leader that everyone recognizes. There is no central organ pulling the strings. The death of Bin Laden has not stopped Al Qaeda from operating[1]. During the Algerian War, the FLN had many of the leaders killed by the French military. That did not stop the FLN from growing and becoming stronger and eventually winning the Algerian War[2]. The United States did not stop the Viet Cong no matter how many camps or bases they destroyed during the Vietnam War[3]. Terrorist organizations will still function regardless if their leader is alive or not. I think Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal sums it up with Al Qaeda when he said "In fact, al Qaeda was designed not as an organization with subordinate branches, but as a model with multiple franchises—as Burger King not General Motors[4]."[1]http://www.breitbart.com...[2]https://www.princeton.edu...[3]http://alphahistory.com...[4]http://www.wsj.com...Preemption against terrorists for a formal military is like a bear attempting to swat down bees. Sure, the bear may swat down the bees but the bees are faster and extremely difficult to catch. Just as terrorists can roam from state to state in the Middle East without going about formalities that a military would go through. The most notable examples currently are: how the Taliban run back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan[5]; and how ISIS runs back and forth between Syria and Iraq[6]. [5]http://alphahistory.com...[6]http://www.iraqinews.com...There should be more focus on building counter-insurgency movements and methods of neutralizing their opponents and their supporters. Counter insurgency movements can be trained by advisers rather than sending in a foreign military. The United States has did this in Colombia to neutralize FARC and has done it several other places as well [7]. It has been relatively successful. How can terrorists be neutralized? Investment. Invest money in roads, schools,and other local programs. Soft power should be used to curb potential threats. We should attempt to reconcile differences rather than aggravate them.[7]http://www.stratfor.com...B.Rival Super PowersThe Chinese have been aggravating many of their neighbors ranging from Taiwan to Japan to Indonesia to many others in both the South and East China seas. China still has a border dispute going on with India as well. Countries should focus on deterring the Chinese aggression. The South and East China seas should be considered very important since whoever controls those seas determine the trade in the area. It is far better to deter China's aggression.The United States never directly confronted the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Yet the United States won without a single shot fired. The United States beat China and its' agenda to spread communism throughout the world without a shot being fired. It is far preferable to neutralize your enemies than confront them. Deterrence should be considered long before ever considering a preemptive strike. I will explain the weaknesses with preemption next round.I will rebuttal my opponent's Round 2 arguments next round.