Geopolitical Strategy Shift: India

I will rebuild my Case and then attack my opponents. Con C1: Pakistan as ally "First, as indicated by my opponent's evidence we already subsidize Pakistan with around $20B, so in essence it has only cost them $50B." He is trying to understate that fact. Pakistan's GDP is $204 Billion [1]. So this war has cost 25% of Pakistan's annual Gross Domestic Product, and that is a massive number for any country. In a comparable situation with the US, this percentage (25%) would be the GDP of California (our largest state) two times over[2]. This goes into my overall point which shows the sacrifice that the Pakistani people have given in the name of the War on Terror. In addition, Pakistan has also taken huge numbers of casualties in the process. They have taken 30,452 casualties since they joined the War on Terror [3]. "Second, Pakistan as indicated by my evidence is waging its own war on terror separate and non-advantageous for the United States. Remember, the U.S. is waging a war to dismantle the Afghani Taliban and the Haaqani Network – both of which the Pakistanis refuse to take action against." I reject this claim that Pakistan is waging it's own independent war on terror especially given the fact that they have killed 17,742 terrorists since 2001 [3]. It only took 9-10 people to plan the 9/11 attacks, they have stopped 17,000 from trying the same thing, this deserves some recognition. Plus Pakistan is working on killing the Taliban at its source, which is the Pakistani Taliban, if they fall, then the Afghan Taliban has no recruits, and will die, so for that reason the US needs to show support for the alliance with Pakistan. They too, are fighting the same war we are, they are responsible for the capture of many terrorists. [7] "Third, my opponent needs to make an argument about why the amount of money Pakistan spends should determine if we ally with them. Otherwise there is no impact to this argument." My claim is that Pakistan has spent $50 billion on the War on Terror, which is $50 billion more than India [4] who as I stated is not even in the war on terror. I challenge my opponent to prove that it is. "Fourth, evidence TURN: my opponent's evidence on the Pakistani Budget is advocated by the opponent to President Zadari (Kahn) who wants Pakistan to end its war-relations with the U.S.. This turns my opponent's case because his authority is advocating de facto for the position that I am advocating." You are correct in stating the PRESIDENT's standpoint but you forget that in Pakistan the President is a ceremonial position much like in Germany. So his words matter little. However, the person with the power, prime minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has been called by the Associated Press as "A consistently strong U.S.-ally prime minister", and he was called by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as a "Man of Peace" [5] So no, the authority in Pakistan advocates for my position, not yours. - Then, my opponent brought up some points about India and the War on Terror: "First, the United States made a tactical choice in the region to ally with Pakistan over India. Clearly India who detests Pakistan would not be as helpful knowing we chose their enemy over them." So then you are advocating for an alliance with a country that chose petty international rivalries over help with the war on terror? It sounds like India would make a pretty inconsistent ally. "Second, they have not categorically refused to help – they have been part of many co-counter-terror operations in the South Asian region even including operations in Afghanistan. They are part of the group known as the Joint Working Group.[1]" "Third, India has increased its support after the Mumbai terror attacks. From that point India has realized its own stake in the war on terror. [1]" The source cited in both of these attacks clearly stated that India should "reconsider its non-aligned position and join the war on terror". So both are logically fallacious as they were taken out of context in an article not parallel with the position of the citer "Fourth, TURN India in a long-run geopolitical sense is more important than Pakistan" My opponent stated that because India was expanding its influence over Afghanistan, that it was a more important ally geopolitically, but this is wrong as India's drive to influence Afghanistan s not related to Pakistan, but China. India is desperately trying to beat China to Afghanistan's resources, but in the end, it is unsustainable for India due to financial and political risk involved [6]. So India's "growing influence" in South Asia is nothing but an overstatement, and therefore it is not a better ally in the geopolitical sense. PRO C1 "First, is evidence even indicates the government funds the entirety of the ISI – if the government really wanted to reform this organization they could easily restrict funding. However this is not the case, which makes the government complicit in the actions of the ISI." Countries cannot always control their intelligence services, (I mean just look at the CIA in recent years). The fact of the matter is despite the ISI being a rogue organization in some cases, it is important in the catching of terrorists. They are responsible for capturing some of the terrorists that we could not, and by doing so have helped prevent terrorists acts against the US.[7] Just because they are having trouble with some of the more rogue aspects does not mean the US should pull f the alliance with Pakistan. As I stated in Round 2, it dictates more involvement, not less. "The ISI had hid Bin Laden" Source? Any proof that they actively hid Bin Laden? His attack on Con C2 "First, Pakistan, regardless of a U.S. alliance will protect its nuclear arsenal from terrorists because India has a nuclear arsenal of its own (also a stronger conventional military) which would deter nuclear terror and also that as mentioned in my own evidence there are many terror groups looking to destabilize the Pakistan state, e.g. the Pak-Taliban. In both cases Pakistan has a clear incentive to protect its arsenal." You contradict a previous argument..... "This is highly important because as Pakistan is devolving further into anarchy and factionism" definition of anarchy- "Political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control" So if government control is devolving into anarchy, then how will they protect their 90-110 nuclear weapons from terrorists?[8] "Second, terrorists can get nuclear materials from North Korea, Iran (low grade for dirty bomb) and also evacuated sites in the former U.S.S.R" Terrorists are not scientists, they know how to detonate a bomb, but not create one. So a fully operative Nuclear device would obviously be very enticing. His C3 attack- "Thus, even if the U.S. moves away from Pakistan, a Sino-Pak relationship has already occurred and is inevitable for the future." It may be true that a Sino-Pak relationship is inevitable but by shifting away from Pakistan we would undermine our influence in the region and allow China to sway Pakistan, by shifting toward Pakistan, as stated before, we preserve both. I have run out of space so I will attack Pro C2's defense next round, I will also add more to the defense of C3 [1] - https://www.cia.gov... [2] - http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... [3] - http://www.ummid.com... [4] - http://www.hindu.com... [5] - http://indiatoday.intoday.in... [6] - http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com... [7] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] - http://www.fas.org...