The United States should withdraw from NATO.

Thanks to Innomen for this thought-provoking debate. It is interesting to consider what will happen if the US leaves NATO. I would like to address and summarize all the points brought about in this debate. There are two major points that were brought up: Costs and Purpose, and I will address them both here.C1) Cost of NATOMy opponent's response to my argument that NATO is only a small part of the US defense budget is to show the costs of the Libya war. His source says $896 million but my opponent assumes that it must have been a billion by now. As I have shown in the previous round, the total spending on National Defense for the US in 2010 was $693 billion [1]. While 2011 data is not available yet, it is reasonable to assume that it will be about the same. According to my opponent, spending on Libya accounted for $1 billion. That is 0.15% of the total defense budget. Adding US expenditure on NATO and the expenditure on Libya, the total still does not reach 1% of our defense budget! Now, a billion dollars might seem like a lot to one person, but we are discussing national expenditure, not individual expenditure. 0.15% of the defense budget is a very small fraction of the total expenditure on defense.An important point to note is that Pro concedes that NATO is a powerful military force when he says:"My opponent asserts that NATO is a powerful military force, I don't deny that."Since Pro concedes the point without arguing for the shortcomings of NATO in the Libya War or elsewhere (if there were any at all), I will take for granted that NATO is indeed a very powerful military force with or without the United States.Isn't it worth it to spend such a small fraction of total expenses to be in a treaty with the support of multiple powerful nations? It is not as if NATO is asking for half or even 5% of the US defense budget.C2) The purpose of this allianceMy opponent's main points seem to be that the US has no reason to be associated with the NATO countries, that European nations have not reciprocated our help, and that the US should pursue alliances with non-NATO countries like those in North and South America and India. I will address all three points here:(A) NATO states have helped the US(i) Germany: My opponent says that the US spends money on Germany but leaves out information from his source that Germany pays $1 billion for the upkeep of US bases in Germany [3]. US bases in Europe help the US have a military presence in Europe to counter attacks from the Middle-East. It is fair that both the US and Europe are paying for it.(ii) France: Pro asserts that France denied its airspace to US planes. However, It must be noted that France had withdrawn from NATO during the time in question [5],[6]. This argument actually works for my side as it can be seen that European countries who are not a part of NATO are unwilling to support NATO members. Similarly, if the US withdraws, Europe probably will not let the US use European airspace. To continue to get the benefits of European military assistance, the United States should remain in NATO.As I have shown, 9/11 is a prime example where NATO invoked article 5 declaring 9/11 to be an attack on all of the then 19 member states and sent radar aircraft to patrol the skies over the United States and launched two counter-terrorism operations [2]. Before withdrawing from NATO, one must ask if this show of solidarity and prompt military assistance isn't a good investment of a mere 1% of the defense budget. It is worth mentioning at this point that my opponent's contention that NATO was intended to protect Europe and not the United States is completely negated as Europe has protected the United States after 9/11 when the US needed military assistance.(B) Non-NATO countriesMy opponent prefers that the United States form alliances with India which share a common goal such as eliminating terrorism. I agree with this. NATO does not prevent this. Giving 1% of the defense budget to be in NATO is in no way stopping the United States from forming an alliance with India or countries in the American Hemisphere.NATO nations too share that common goal and withdrawal from NATO is not a prerequisite to forming bilateral alliances with other countries. The United States should stay in NATO as it has been its most useful alliance, and also pursue alliances with India, Mexico, and South America.(C) Connection with NATO nationsMy opponent does not want the United States to be associated with European countries. However, most European countries have free markets, are secular, democratic and economically developed much like the United States. They have a common goal to preserve democracy and stop the spread of terrorism. True India and others have the same goal but I've addressed that point above. My opponent says that the make-up of NATO is based on its original purpose, and that is why the original intent is relevant. This isn't true because NATO has expanded to include states which were previously part of the Warsaw pact, i.e. former communist states [4]. What hapenned 50 years ago is no longer relevant as nations that NATO had a conflict with such as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are now part of NATO [4]. With Turkey which is predominantly in Asia joining NATO, NATO is expanding to include all countries that share a common goal as opposed to just European countries. The phrase "North Atlantic" is now more an indication of where NATO started as opposed to an indication of the geographic location of its current members as it now expanded deep into Eastern Europe and Asia. My opponent's assertion that NATO is based on its original make-up is negated, and with that, it must be accepted that NATO has evolved over the years and its original pupose is irrelevant. Current activities such as 9/11 response as well as the United States being allowed to have a military presence in Europe must be considered, and the benefit that NATO has provided to the United States far exceeded the miniscule costs of being a member of NATO. For this reason, the United States should not withdraw from NATO.Sources[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov...[2] http://www.nato.int...[3] http://fluglaerm-kl.de...[4] http://www.nato.int...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com...