Preemptive Strikes

This debate is turning out to be very interesting"I had not expected to debate a Marxist approach to the topic. Since my opponent has offered no case of his own, but rather confined himself to rebutting my points, I shall defend my case and then present voting issues. I shall also offer an overview. OV1: Extend utilitarianism. This is dropped by the Pro. The impact of this extension is that when determining who has won the debate, judges should ask themselves, which side (Pro or Con) is likely to produce the greatest net benefit. Whichever side does this, has won. It also means we're not looking to communism to determine an action's morality, but purely costs and benefits. MY CASE C1: Pro offers only two examples of why change doesn"t come best from within. In fact, I offered examples of Tunisia and Egypt as examples to support my own assertion. Another example that could be cited is the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, or the Singing Revolution of Estonia, in which thousands sung nationalist songs and formed human chains. One saw the installation of a democratically elected President, the other saw the expulsion of the USSR from the Balkans, respectively. But, this could quickly turn into the war of the examples, as each of us throws out individual examples to prove our points. So instead, let"s look at the theory behind my claim. The Di Stefano evidence went entirely dropped by Pro. It argues that "freedom gained through the paternalistic intervention of outsiders is an ephemeral imposition devoid of lasting intrinsic or instrumental value. An interventionist approach denies the possession of autonomous agency to those who are "assisted." Therefore, the principle of self-determination acts as a safeguard against foreign imperialism and hegemony. Foreigners cannot know what is best for a society; only a state"s own denizens possess such knowledge." There are three takeaways from this: (1) that freedom imposed by outsiders is disrespectful to those within, as it denies them their self-determination, (2) foreigners cannot know what is best for a people, and (3) noninterventionism combats hegemony. These are all negative impacts of preemptive strikes. For example, I hardly think Pro would argue that U.S. or capitalist hegemony is good; people should be free to decide for themselves. There is also anecdotal evidence to support the third point, specifically Iraq, where the U.S. was unaware of all the complex social factors going on, and thus made some poor decisions. Look at Vietnam; U.S. soldiers were known to shoot innocent Vietnamese because of racial prejudices, and false accusation of them being Vietcong. This dropped analysis support the idea that change comes best from within. C2: Firstly, I would argue that the Afghanistan intervention backfired against the USSR"especially insofar as it was against them that the Mujahedeen fought. Also keep in mind, the Mujahedeen would likely not exists if they had not be formed in response to the USSR"s invasion. Furthermore, it was the USSR who initiated the conflict, so they"re really the sole topical actor under the resolution in this case. But either way, we agree that this is an example of preemptive intervention that backfired. Let"s look at some others: Vietnam, Somalia, Cuba, etc. Ultimately, the risk that such aggressive preemptive strikes will fail would outweigh any potential benefit to doing so. Finally, let"s discuss why the Vietnam example is inapplicable. Within Kampuchea (hereafter Cambodia) several guerilla factions were already at war/in a military conflict with Pol Pot. Therefore, Vietnam wasn"t taking "preemptive" action, which is the subject of the debate, but rather it was taking "reactionary" action (see round one rules.) This is the case with most instances of genocide, Rwanda, Bosnia, Nazi Germany, etc. had all been engaged in military conflict prior to the intervention. Lastly, Pro never address the examples I offered originally. Please extend them. C3: Pro continues to offer examples, instead of actually rebutting my arguments. One example does not disprove the analysis I have provided here. I will, however, respond to the N. Korean example. The U.S. felt it the threat from the North was not credible, and the majority of S. Koreans according to CNN did not believe N. Korea would attack. And, while this may be a technicality, since the Koreas are already at war, they cannot preemptively initiate war against one another. It"s already on going. Pro drops my argument that trying to expand your power base leads to war, as it did with the USSR and Afghanistan, the Koreas, North and South Vietnam, Nazi Germany, and many more. All of the examples Pro offers seem to support my very own source"s analysis. Pro also drops my evidence that weakening the doctrine of strict self-defense, which opposes preemption, would increase cycles of violence and proliferate WMDs and WMD violence. If that happens, the proletariat won"t be alive for us to worry about. C4: I think Pro is misunderstanding my evidence. My source defines pacifism as the non-initiation of war. This is very much different from not fighting at all. I am not arguing war is always bad, just that we shouldn"t initiate it preemptively. So, in the case of Nazi Germany, most killings began happening after the invasion of Poland. So there was a war already going on, therefore the world would not have been acting preemptively by intervening, it would have been joining in on a conflict that was already on-going. Furthermore, if the Allies had intervened sooner, WWII would have been hastened. We could never know for certain if that would have been beneficial or not, at the end of the day. I am all for self-defense and humanitarian intervention, as long as that intervention is reactionary rather than preemptive. C5: The Persians under Xerxes had already engaged in battle. The Persian attacked and invaded first, therefore the Spartans &Co. were reacting. They were not engaging in preemption. Lastly, Pro drops the point I made originally that preemptive wars tend to have disproportionately high civilian casualties; thus, it could be said that by attacking first, the genocide is on your hands. C6: PRO DROPS THIS COMPLETELY. It is not touched on at all in his rebuttal. Extend this argument. Preemption increases terrorism, and is thus severely costly. Also dropped: nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are more easily made and obtained by terrorists because preemption leads to chaos which gives terrorists opportunities to steal NBCs. Closing note: Ultimately, I think Pro"s points focus more on war in general, and less on preemption, even though this debate is about preemption, not war in general. As long as no military conflict (like a guerilla war) and no declared war is going on, i.e. as long as it is not preemptive, war cannot be justified. Reactions are fine, not preemption. VOTING ISSUES: 1. Pro says all of his speeches are 100% original. By the same token, it underlines the fact that Pro offers no sources, whereas, in my original speech, I cited numerous experts who are better qualified to analyze this situation than either of us. 2. Intervention will lead to increase violence. Pro completely drops the evidence I offer showing how a loss of strict self-defense, which is against preemption, leads to cycles of violence, and WMD use. Pro drops my evidence that terrorists could obtain NBCs, and Pro drops the evidence that trying to expand power, often characterized by initiation of war"as the Communists did in Korea and Vietnam and as America did in South America"leads to war. 3. Pro completely drops my last contention that preemptive initiations of war empower terrorists. Conclusion: under a utilitarian analysis, increase in violence, death, WMDs, and terrorism are not worth the gain of preemption, especially when change comes best from within (Pro dropped card.) Thus, a Con ballot is in order. Thanks!