Geopolitical Strategy Shift: India

OK, thanks for the arguments. I will concentrate on the fact that Pakistan is a more important to the United States than India. My contentions: 1. Pakistan is an important ally in the War on the terror While my opponent brought up the ISI and how it contributing against the US in the War on Terror, he didn't explain how Pakistan is such an important ally in the war on terror despite this rogue organization. Politicians in Pakistan are arguing that the War on Terror has cost the Pakistan economy $70 billion since 2001. (http://www.supportimrankhan.org...) This 70 Billion dollars that Pakistan has spent already is much larger than the $20 billion we have sent in the form of aid. (http://www.reuters.com...) Our closest ally, the United Kingdom, has contributed $30.6 billion dollars since 2001. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) So financially, this means that Pakistan is not only our closest ally in the Middle East but also our closest ally in the WORLD. So why then, would we shift our focus to India, who refuses to help us in the war on terror? (www.atlantic-community.org/app/.../Presentation_India_PAPER.pdf) To do such would be an unparalleled show of betrayal by our government. 2. The US alliance with Pakistan helps safeguard Pakistan's nuclear capability from terrorists. Of the 50 Muslim-majority states in the world, Pakistan is the only which has developed nuclear weapons. Thus, it is a great target for jihadist organizations. The US influence over Pakistan helps keep Pakistan's nuclear secrets away from countries like Iran and organizations like Al-Qaeda. Keeping these weapons out of the hands of terrorists and Iran is paramount to national security concerns. Whereas India's weapons are safely guarded. http://www.irantracker.org... http://nuclearweaponarchive.org... 3. China is increasing its influence over Pakistan China recognizes the importance of Pakistan, and thus is increasing it's influence on Pakistan. By shifting the geopolitical strategy to India, the result would be less cooperation from Pakistan. Whereas India would not come under the sway of China due to tensions in between the two. Therefore, a shift toward India would maintain the alliance with India only, and it is logical to say that a shift with Pakistan would preserve the alliance with both. (http://articles.cnn.com...) Now onto my opponents case: C1: Pakistan's ISI is rooted in Islamic fundamentalism and has ties to terror organizations I will not deny that the ISI supports terrorism, but he ISI is a rogue organization which operates independently of the government. The Pakistan Spectator even stated, "Even though technically ISI is an organization funded/controlled by the state, it is a controversial, sometimes rogue organization that Benazir Bhutto, the late Pakistani prime minister, once termed a "state within a state" for its tendency to operate outside of the Pakistani government's control, thus answerable neither to the leadership of the army, nor to the President or the Prime Minister." If anything, this unstable organization dictates more US involvement, not less, so a geopolitical shift away from Pakistan would be illogical and unsupportable. C2: Supporting India would force the Pakistani's hand I believe this contention falls because my opponent does not take into account China's increased presence in Pakistan. It can therefore be contended that Pakistan is likely to just give up playing this diplomatic game with the US and India , and instead go to China, who has shown full support of Pakistan. It would be illogical to assume that Pakistan will continue being forced by the US into change when they have an equally powerful and eager ally in China. See my third contention for information about China's increased presence as I believe it counters this contention. In the end, a China-Pakistan bloc competing with a US-India bloc is undesirable given the tensions between all the countries involved. I look forward to your rebuttals.