Resolved: Development of third world regions is a priority over military stabilization.

As this is my first debate I will just split my debate into three main points: 1. Historical and current attempts at military stabilisation, 2.The social effects of military stabilisation on the recipient country. 3. What non-military aid has achieved. 1. The first obvious example of failed military stabilisation is Iraq. The disastrous occupation and attempt at military stabilisation by the US government not only led to chaos, destruction of infrastructure , a huge death toll and a collapse in Iraq's economy, it also exacerbated ethno-religious tensions leading to a Sunni insurgency against Iraq's Shia led government which led to the loss of huge swathes of territory in the north of the country. After spending 1.7 trillion on Iraq (http://mobile.reuters.com...) the US achieved less than nothing. Other examples include the disastrous attempt at nation building that was the Vietnam war, US deployment of troops to Lebanon after the Israeli invasion in the early 1980's with American forces becoming entangled in the country's civil war, failing to restore order and leading to the death of over 200 marines in a single bomb attack, the deployment of 25 000 troops to Somalia in the early nineties which led to widespread battles between UN and US forces and local warlords, yet again falling to restore order. These aforementioned interventions show that it is impossible to solve ancient ethnic, religious and tribal conflicts through the use of military force. 2. No matter how vigilant and disciplined an army is, there will always be civilian casualties. It is very easy for public perception of foreign troops to sway from peacekeepers to invaders. The United States and other western powers risk alienating the local populace by using guns and air strikes instead of humanitarian aid, investment and diplomacy to bring about lasting change and peace. Western armies once again marching and fighting on the nation's soil might serve as a reminder of the brutality of colonisation and the subsequent chaos that came when the Westerners abandoned their colonies. The United States risks getting into another "war without fronts" as in Vietnam,Iraq and Afghanistan, with the enemy embedded in the local populace and impossible to distinguish from innocent civilians. 3. Some three million lives are saved directly through USAID immunisation programs every year. Agricultural education program's in countries such as Honduras have improved quality of living and drastically reduce soil erosion and environmental impacts. USAID targeted 15 million dollars worth of technical assistance to improve the energy sectors of developing countries as well as creating a 50 billion dollar private market. US charities provide on the ground essentials such as food, water and medical supplies. If the 1.7 trillion that was spent on the Iraq war had been spent on humanitarian aid and investment there would be a lot less dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, and a better quality of life for tens of thousands of people. To conclude I believe that the US needs to focus less on military solutions and more on making sure Aid goes where it is needed. Military intervention does not work in the vast majority of cases, the real emphasis needs to be put on helping developing governments tackle their problems by providing strategic and economic advice as well as financial aid and investment.