Geopolitical Strategy Shift: India

Remember – all drops are concessions (that includes independent warrants or evidence) Flow/Record is gonna be weird in order: Con C1: Pakistan as ally My opponent argues that they are a strong war-ally and this is proven through the cost of $70 billion. However there are a few problems with this argument: First, as indicated by my opponent’s evidence we already subsidize Pakistan with around $20B, so in essence it has only cost them $50B. Second, Pakistan as indicated by my evidence is waging its own war on terror separate and non-advantageous for the United States. Remember, the U.S. is waging a war to dismantle the Afghani Taliban and the Haaqani Network – both of which the Pakistanis refuse to take action against. Third, my opponent needs to make an argument about why the amount of money Pakistan spends should determine if we ally with them. Otherwise there is no impact to this argument. Fourth, evidence TURN: my opponent’s evidence on the Pakistani Budget is advocated by the opponent to President Zadari (Kahn) who wants Pakistan to end its war-relations with the U.S.. This turns my opponent’s case because his authority is advocating de facto for the position that I am advocating. == My opponent argues that India has not helped in the War on Terror. However there are a few problems with this argument: First, the United States made a tactical choice in the region to ally with Pakistan over India. Clearly India who detests Pakistan would not be as helpful knowing we chose their enemy over them. Second, they have not categorically refused to help – they have been part of many co-counter-terror operations in the South Asian region even including operations in Afghanistan. They are part of the group known as the Joint Working Group. [1] Third, India has increased its support after the Mumbai terror attacks. From that point India has realized its own stake in the war on terror. [1] Fourth, TURN India in a long-run geopolitical sense is more important than Pakistan. Tolpolar writes, India became the sixth largest bilateral donor to Afghanistan, it has pledged to spend $1.2billion on helping rebuild the country’s shattered infrastructure. Funds have been committed for education, health, power and telecommunications. There has also been money in the form of food aid and help to strengthen governance… On Pakistan’s side, there are concerns over the increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan. “Afghanistan has been a prize that Pakistan and India have fought over directly and indirectly for decades” wrote analyst Robert D Kaplan. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf openly accused Afghan President Hamid Karzai of being subservient to India.” This is highly important because as Pakistan is devolving further into anarchy and factionism, India is continuing to expand its geopolitical power in the region. Between the two it makes most sense to favor progression rather than regression. Pro C1: Pakistan and Terrorism My opponent argues that the ISI is distinct from the government which means we shouldn’t hold the government accountable. However there are a few problems: First, is evidence even indicates the government funds the entirety of the ISI – if the government really wanted to reform this organization they could easily restrict funding. However this is not the case, which makes the government complicit in the actions of the ISI. Second, he dropped my evidence which indicates that the president of Pakistan himself has come out in support for the goals of the Afghani Taliban and released prisoners for being associated with said group. Third, regardless of the ISI acting rouge it is still the main intelligence agency for the Pakistani government and has continuously spat in the face of people trying to aid the U.S.. As much as my opponent has faith in Pakistan, the ISI literally has the country’s government officials and military in the palm of their organizations hand. The ISI had hid Bin Laden, refuses to take necessary actions in the FATA region and both implicitly and explicitly aids the Afghani Taliban and Al Qaeda. Con C2: Pakistani Nuclear Capability My opponent argues that because of the U.S.-Pak relationship their nuclear weapons have been safe away from the hands of terrorists. Few problems: First, Pakistan, regardless of a U.S. alliance will protect its nuclear arsenal from terrorists because India has a nuclear arsenal of its own (also a stronger conventional military) which would deter nuclear terror and also that as mentioned in my own evidence there are many terror groups looking to destabilize the Pakistan state, e.g. the Pak-Taliban. In both cases Pakistan has a clear incentive to protect its arsenal. Second, terrorists can get nuclear materials from North Korea, Iran (low grade for dirty bomb) and also evacuated sites in the former U.S.S.R. Con C3: China My opponent argues that China is seeking a relationship with China and moving towards India would solidify this relationship. Few problems: First, this relationship is going to occur with or without a U.S. Indian Alliance. As my opponents evidence indicates: “Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao last year called Sino-Pakistani ties ‘firm as a rock,’ and his Pakistani counterpart echoed the sentiment Monday.” Thus, even if the U.S. moves away from Pakistan, a Sino-Pak relationship has already occurred and is inevitable for the future. Second, TURN: this Sino-Pak relationship actually helps the U.S. WoT. Pakistan must deal with the Pak-Taliban regardless of a U.S. alliance since the very stability of Pakistan deals with this issue. However, with a Sino-Pak relationship then Pakistan will have its own obligation to China to combat jihadist groups linked to other groups within China. [2] By extension the terror networks that are intermingled on the Sino-Pak border will be dismantled. [2] http://www.cacianalyst.org... Pro C2: U.S.-Indian Alliance would force Pakistan’s hand My opponent argues that since China and Pakistan are in this emerging alliance, Pakistan won’t be compelled to give into the U.S.’ demands because China will fill this spot. Moreover, he makes a very interesting argument that says a Sino-Pak and U.S.-Indian bloc will be undesirable for all parties involved. However, TURN: if the U.S. does not counter-balance the Sino-Pak alliance with a U.S.-Indian Alliance then Chinese expansionism will be undeterred. This evidence indicates that China is vastly infringing on Indian waters in the Indian Ocean and establishing both military and commercial sites in the Indian Ocean. Chinese expansionism in the region, for the long-run, is undesirable for the U.S. because it increases Chinese competitional power against the U.S.. [3] AND TURN: this destabilizes the region. This evidence indicates that India will be cornered without U.S. assistance which would result in clashes on the Sino-Indian and Pak-Indian borders. And as mentioned above, all of these nations have a nuclear arsenal…and put into the light of historical analysis India has not gotten along with Pakistan or China (India had major wars with both). [3] [1] Tolpolar. War On Terrorism: What Role, if Any, Does India Play? [2] http://www.cacianalyst.org... [3] http://japanfocus.org...