Development assistance should be priotized over miltia aid in Sahel

I agree with my opponent that Development assistance can be good. That's why I don't think development assistance should be prioritized I am arguing at both are needed. Also most of militia aid isn't sending troops in in fact this chart I'm post shows you what it is. main Types of Military Aid 1. Military funding There are three main programs where military funding is allocated: Foreign military financing provides grants for the acquisition of U.S. defense equipment, services, and training. These grants enable friends and allies to improve their defense capabilities. 2. Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) Provide voluntary support for international peacekeeping activities. These funds support non-U.N. operations and training in response to a nation"s crisis. The goals of PKO are: "Promoting increased involvement of regional organizations in conflict resolution "Helping leverage support for multinational efforts in the event of a nation"s crisis 3. The International Military Education and Training program (IMET) offers military training on a grant basis to foreign military officials. The goals of IMET are: A. Encouraging effective defense relationships B. Promoting interoperability with U.S. and coalition forces militia aid can solve for terrorism using the EU strategy. In 3 years al-Quid can be rid of following this strategy. I am not advocating we send troops in in fact my case specifically states that Africa already has enough militia. I am just advocating that we train them, an educate them which militia aid can do. obviously its better to train them then let them handle things on their own. the U.S. has funded 91 billion bucks in training around the world. I also like to point out the fact that lots of warlords and corrupt leaders try to stop development assistance from going through anyway. I also like to point out the fact that is has been abused, and hasn't worked well in Afghanistan, and Palestine and other places alone. Also my observation which shows that nearly $1 trillion was sapped from the developing [Sihanouk] world in 2011 through crime, corruption, and tax evasion " a dramatic increase from past years, and more than 10 times the total official development assistance that went in. So he can't really talk when it comes to failures in the past especially since unlike him my strategy is fresh and has adjusted to older possible problems while his is the same thing loll. So development alone will increase these problems. I would like to point out that most of the failures he posted were U.S. failures while my plan mostly deals with the EU and some what with the U.S. so I win the failure argument anyway loll in 3 ways. I'd like to state that the EU plan will fix political problems and help upheld a democracy, it also allows us, and the EU to have a closer bond with regional countries so we can deal with border problems, and drug trafficking easily which my opponents case can't solve. We can also deal with terrorism which I show multiple times. The correlation between corruption and terrorism shows that taking military action against terror works to reduce corruption as well. My opponent fails to show how he himself can solve for terrorism, drug trafficking, or piracy which I show we can solve for. ironically the one thing he claims I can't solve terrorism he doesn't show how he can solve himself which means development assistance wouldn't work because of the corruption, and terrorism still there which means I win that argument either way loll. He does try to show how he can end security which I'm bought to get to. To me the biggest LOL in this debate is the fact that he trys to prove he can solve for security. IDK if you noticed his solution but his solution is to put cameras up and other things. LOL unless these "cameras" are equipped with lasers to intervene and fire on criminals or some bull crap that's not going to stop terrorist. He's probably going to try to defend this by saying "it lets us know and be able to stop enemies", but how can the African army stop them without proper training? All that would do is help our side out because we can provide training and support to help them stop terrorism loll so thx for that. I have all the benefits of development assistance cause I state in my intro that I do not feel like development assistance should be prioritized over militia aid because both are needed in the Sahel. So his benefits of agriculture I have because I am not getting rid of Development assistance at all . In fact I believe it is good to have and helps my strategy function. The main reason I win so far is because all my opponents attacks have been focused on problems the U.S. has caused when this strategy was made by and focuses mostly on the EU loll. I also win because I show that militia aid is needed because it solves for some things development assistance can't. Since I m running how both militia aid and development assistance is needed all I have to do is prove that militia aid can do one beneficial thing that development assistance can't and I have proven more then one. It can provide training and support, it can help promote political stability, can help fund major projects which will increase trade and help the economy, and it can allow development assistance to work safely in the first place. States from this strategy will benefit from capacity building. Also he brings up how militia aid caused a civil war in Sudan or somewhere like that but I show we can solve for the on that can come up in Kenya. He doesn't show how he can stop civil wars which leads to corruption which I show I can solve. Kenya is even more important to help lower corruption in because its the center of the African Union and corruption their can spread. Even if you buy his arguments saying miltia aid fails even though most of it has to do with the U.S. and I mostly focus on EU but some of U.S. involvement those things he posted happened in the past. We are improving militia aid and since it has development assistance added and more countries involved this will work better then it has in the past. IDK if I mentioned this or not but Development assistance has failed in the past in countries such as Afghanistan and Palestine as well so he can't really talk much when it comes to past failure. The assistance gets abused or sold by the people who don't even need/use them, or it doesn't even make it safely to the intended recipients. Also ironically I would like to point out how my case says how we can deal with all these child abuses from militia training in the Sahel such as rape. So yes I can solve for that as well. Even if you buy his abuses argument which I show I solve for what would you prefer. Abuses from not voting for both militia aid and development assistance or deaths from terrorism continuing to spread, and corruption continuing to spread cause of going by development assistance which wouldn't even work in that situation? Even if you don't buy the fact that con solves for child abuse we are still the preferable side even if you prefer him on that argument. The main reason my side wins so far because I have his contention 2 literly I agree that development assistance is good. So it doesn't give him any offensive XD. The only way he can win is by somehow defending his cont1. and I shown how at least 75% of it doesn't matter because it has to do with the U.S. acting alone LOL. My strategy involves mostly the E.U. and some help from the U.S. and possible other countries as well. It's not the same thing so it will not have the same problems. Also I have shown clear contradictions with the arguments my opponent has brought up in todays round. Btw I am only 16 and not the best type so excuse my grammar, i'm also in K level classes so not as intelligent as some debaters who are in AP level so excuse my word