The United States should withdraw from NATO.

He agrees with my primary assertion that the original need and intent of NATO no longer exists. The bulk of my argument stems from this fact. My opponent dismisses the cost of NATO to the American tax payer by citing the expense of $515 million in 2010. -Although I do cite the expense of NATO as a component, it is not my primary objection to the US membership, but rather the entire appropriateness of the US involvement and commitment to NATO. However, since he brought up the spending, I would point out that cherry picking 2010 was far less than 2011 in US expenditures, where the Libyan involvement has probably reached the one billion mark by the time this is read. [1] Let us also consider the indirect costs of NATO in support and base costs. There are 9 major bases in Germany, the most expensive of which costs one billion dollars annually, not to mention people and equipment. Our military presence in Germany is directly connected to our commitment to NATO. [2] My Primary objection is the inappropriate connection to this alliance without a clear and unifying objective or purpose. It is not in the US self interest to be associated with this alliance. I ask the readers of this debate to look at the 28 members of this alliance and consider what reason we have in heading up, or even being part of this group of nations. Current members (A-Z): Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, UK, USA. [3] Let us consider this particular collection of countries. Why is the US intrinsically connected to them now? How is it in the best interest to lead this particular group of countries, and why can they not rely upon their own European Union and its resources for any efforts that we might be doing for them? We are in essence continuing the subsidization of the European defense. Now my opponent brought up an example of terrorism; we all have a unifying desire to address terrorism. I don't understand why such an effort would be limited to this exclusionary group in the area of terrorism. If we look at this particular threat, India is at greater risk than any of these countries [4]. Whereas Canada, a member of NATO is rated as the lowest of all western nations for terrorist threats[5]. There is no need for Canada to be amongst those addressing the risk and threat of terrorism when compared to India which is excluded from NATO. Is our relationship with Bulgaria so much better than that of India? I don't think so. My point is, the membership is almost completely European, and although they may have unifying and common causes that they should address, they are not those of the United States, and they now have the ability to address these issues without our help. There is no reason for the US to be connected to this particular alliance, and although I don't necessarily condone it, the fruits of concentrating on our own hemisphere would be of greater benefit, and more appropriate self interest than being compromised into the support of Europe. My opponent states the original intent is irrelevant to NATO as it stands today, and I would vehemently disagree since the very make up of the alliance is based on those original reasons, the essential structure of the alliance remains, but has only expanded along those same lines. NATO is really a European alliance headed by a non European country, and as such it is not appropriate for either Europe or the US to have such an alliance. My opponent asserts that NATO is a powerful military force, I don't deny that, but lets not pretend that it's all for one and one for all. France has denied the US on several occasions their airspace for military fly overs[6]. It would seem that it's indeed a one way street in that when the US is needed the US responds as in the Balkan conflict [7], a completely European problem, and yet when the US addresses a threat we are met with a no fly zone over Europe, so I'm not seeing how it's in the US best interest, or how they come to the aid of the US. My opponent cites article 5 where the US will be protected by the alliance if the US is attacked. First, that's hardly comforting, and secondly it's a little hard for any American to picture Romanian soldiers on US soil fighting to protect the best interests of the US. Besides, would it make more sense to develop relationships with countries in our own hemisphere to help if such a need should emerge? Isn't it more likely that we would have shared concerns with nations in our own hemisphere than in Europe? Something along the lines of the Monroe Doctrine[8]? My opponent asserts that the US will lose its political influence in the world should the US withdraw from NATO. A completely unsupported assertion I might add. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that our influence would diminish one iota, and to make an assertion requires some sort of support from my opponent. The BoP falls on you to prove that assertion, but I don't want to digress from the thrust of this debate. My opponent believes that NATO is of great benefit to the US when faced with military confrontations, and I would assert that this is a one way street, that we help the countries in the alliance but they are quick to critique and leave the US alone in its international challenges. Look at the Cuban missile crisis, the US was not joined by any member of NATO in quarantining the island of Cuba; on the contrary, the US was called out for adventurism by many of the European countries that belonged to NATO then. In dealing with threats in Central America NATO was not a factor in dealing with hostilities there, and when President Reagan confronted Qaddafi in 1986 both France and Spain denied US air space and refueling [9]. Furthermore, why should the US be beholden to this particular set of countries? At this point my opponent has agreed that the make up, which is based on original intent is essentially arbitrary for the US and Europeans in essence. Ina dispute with a country like Argentina and the Falkland's, what possible benefit could the US have in getting mixed up in a situation like that? I contend that the US membership in NATO is anachronistic, a net negative to the US, and inappropriate at many levels. Thank you. 1. . http://abcnews.go.com.... 2. . http://fluglaerm-kl.de... 3. . http://www.nato.int... 4. . http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com.... 5. . http://news.nationalpost.com... 6. . http://cofcc.org... 7. . http://www.nytimes.com...' 8. . http://www.ushistory.org... 9. . http://news.google.com...