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

On Frameworks My opponent takes an approach to the intricacies of foreign policy that ignores the inner workings of it and only scratches the surface. The “dealings” between states is the de facto definition of the world foreign policy, yet my opponent leaves out the key word in the sentence; “dealings.” It is not a complete foreign policy to have “favorable situations produced,” the “dealings” (or in this case the actions implemented because of foreign policy) have to be specific to their area and region, changed in various ways to accommodate almost any nation in the world, and adapted for changing situations worldwide. Therefore saying that “favorable situations have to be produced” is not enough to complete the mission of our nation in the world community, we need to be able to adapt and accommodate. My opponent mischaracterized my framework because I did not say that “building up/stabilizing” countries should go in tandem with “dealing with enemies peacefully,” therefore creating the contradiction in which my opponent goes into great depth. In fact, my framework stated that the three facets of a “good” foreign policy (improving countries around the world, giving them the necessary tools to alleviate predicaments (conflict), and dealing with enemies of the state in a peaceful yet blunt fashion) and then stated they should be accomplished either collectively or individually. Next my opponent begins to bring up times when conflict was necessary to achieve foreign policy agenda throughout the world. While these may be some fine examples, they were irrelevant in regards to the resolution. We are arguing whether Obama’s foreign policy did more good than harm, not if previous situations have called for a contradiction of my framework. I ask voters to take note of this. Obama has dealt with enemies in a peaceful yet blunt fashion; sanctioning and isolating instead of engaging in direct warfare. Therefore my opponent has not made any correct observations or contentions in regards to my framework. The Middle East The amount of blame that my opponent sets upon Obama for affairs in the Middle East is unwarranted. It is a well known fact about the risk factors in deploying drone strikes. However, the notion that the drone strikes are inefficient is irrelevant. According to the Strategic Studies Institute (1)*, using estimates drawn from Pakistanian and international media sources, the ratio of militants killed in drone strikes and civilians killed falls at a 19:1. Using evidence from The Long War Journal (1), the ratio falls at a 14:1. Obama does not advocate the use of drones in the Middle East for heavy civilian death tolls, the administration uses drone strikes on a policy of calculated risk. This means that every decision to fire from a drone is a difficult one, and the amount of lives that the militant could take are put into perspective with the surrounding location. It will sound cold-hearted, but it is the only way to minimize death tolls fighting terrorist groups with boots on the ground from our military and others. The courage it takes to deploy these strikes for the sake of saving countless lives is vast, but it must be done to prevent bloodshed on a larger scale. My opponent’s claims that Obama has not been doing anything to improve the conditions of civilian casualties from drone strikes is incorrect. In fact, I have gathered evidence from my opponent's source to support my claim. “In early 2013, Obama asked Brennan to lead the C.I.A. The President appointed as Brennan’s deputy Avril Haines, a National Security Council lawyer who had worked on drone-strike rules and operations. The number of drone strikes carried out in Pakistan fell. Since Brennan became C.I.A. director, according to the data compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, there has not been a single documented civilian casualty, child or adult, as a result of a drone strike in Waziristan.” “According to former Obama Administration officials, the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center, which oversees the agency’s drone operations, generates an after-action report, which includes an assessment of whether there was collateral damage. The center has a specialized, independent group that conducts post-strike investigations. The investigators grade the performances of their colleagues and bosses—not exactly a recipe for objectivity. But it seems clear that, over time, the Administration’s record improved significantly in avoiding civilian casualties……. In 2008, the last year of the Bush Administration, at least one child was reported killed in a third of all C.I.A. drone strikes in Pakistan, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism—a shocking percentage, if it is accurate. In Obama’s first year in office, the figure was twenty per cent—still very high. By 2012, it was five per cent.” (3) As seen in the quote above, Obama has in fact done something to reduce the amount of civilian casualties, child or adult. A change in administration may not seem like a big improvement, but because of the change there has been a massive improvement in collateral damage from the drone strikes that my opponent never fails to bring to light. There is clear and tangible evidence that the civilian casualties in drone strikes has significantly improved under the presidency of Obama. My opponent’s claims that Obama “let” ISIS take over swaths of land in Iraq and the surrounding Iraq is also incorrect. The U.S. military had severed military involvement to the bare minimum in the area and we were not ready to put ground troops once again to fight a futile war. It was not unwillingness on Obama’s part to act upon the growing threat of ISIS, it was a feeling of deja vu that kept him from engulfing the United States into another trillion dollar quagmire. Once again, it was not just a campaign promise that led Obama to pulling troops out of Iraq, it was the fact that we gave Iraq the needed tools and training to alleviate any crises that might arise. Arab Spring Arguments Libya and the dictatorship of Qaddafi had long been a thorn in the side of the U.S., since we were allied with them. For a country so supportive of human rights and pro democracy throughout the world like the United States, Qaddafi’s regime gave us a blemish on our relatively clean sheet of foreign policy. According to A Guide To Countries of The World (4), “Qaddafi was assisted by “revolutionary committees” who controlled most institutions, including the media….. Human rights abuses rang from arbitrary arrests and torture to extra-judicial executions and disappearances…… In the past he (Qaddafi) has used Libya’s oil wealth to bankroll a range of guerilla groups from the PLO to the IRA.” This evidence shows how much the actions of Qaddafi’s regime during that time but a blemish of the foreign policy record of the U.S., and what influenced Obama’s decision in the years to come. In the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprising in Libya, Obama saw an opportunity, albeit a risky one, but an opportunity for a democratization accomplishment nonetheless. Therefore he acted in the favor of the rebels in the hopes that they would be able to overthrow Qaddafi and form a democratic government favorable to the U.S. and the world community. If the democratization had not failed in its infant stages, Obama would have been praised for years to come for the birth of a pure democratic nation in Libya. It was not instinct or a lack of evidence and blind notions that made Obama intervene, but another motive behind the scenes for another democratic nation in the Middle East. In response to Syria, my opponent’s claims are invalid. Interventionist policies might have worked in the favor of Libya, but Syria was another ball game. A policy of intervention in order to produce “situations favorable to the United States” cannot be used for one and all nations around the world, and Syria is a perfect example of that. My opponent refuses the need for adaptability in the foreign policy of the United States, and used two different events to base his claims off of, which were different on multiple levels. What my opponent can say in hindsight is that we should or should not have acted in these situations. He does not acknowledge that Obama was a bit reluctant to intervene in Syria after the resulting collapse of the Libyan democratic government. Nobody can be sure that intervening or not will result in a democratic nation or a situation that is favorable to the United States. One important asset of Obama’s foreign policy has been his reluctance to act in many questionable situations following Libya. Sometimes in order to prevent nations from worsening in relations with the U.S., abstinence is key. Overview Firstly, I would like to note that a large portion of my rebuttal was sourced from one of my opponent’s own sources. Secondly, I would like to point out to voters that everything my opponent said about the crises in the Middle East has been in complete hindsight, and he did not take into consideration the intricacies the situations posed at the present. Lastly, nothing my opponent provided in his arguments has deviated from the middle east, which does not encompass the entirety of Obama’s foreign policy. Therefore I stand with my claims that Obama’s foreign policy has done more good than harm. The events in hindsight are of lesser importance compared to the actions performed at the present. Sources http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil... Page 27 of PDF, not bottom numbers. http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.newyorker.com... https://books.google.com... Page 187