The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

As an opening, I would like to welcome my opponent and extend thanks for providing this opportunity to debate. I would like to propose some counter-definitions, largely as my opponent failed to provide a reference for the source of his. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines national as "of or pertaining to a nation" and security as "the state of being protected" or "things done to make people or places safe" [1]. So we may conclude that national security, in terms of the United States, is the state or actions undertaken to protect the United States. I accept my opponent's definitions of moral and mitigate. I propose a counter-definition to obligation. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, an obligation may be defined as "something that you must do because of a law, rule, or promise" [1]. I hold this to be important because not all obligations stem from morality. My opponent's first argument rests on the social contract. However, his argument here only defines the social contract, limits it to democratic and republican forms of government, and establishes that the government morally needs to uphold national security. I take two issues with this. First, that the social contract itself, noted by California State University, recognizes morality as residing in, "the set of rules governing behavior...on the condition that others accept them as well" [2]. There can be a case made here for this including steps taken to preserve national security, but my opponent has the burden of proof of verifying this point. My opponent might argue that, because of the social contract, the government has an obligation to protect the people. This is true. However, this resolution pertains to international conflicts, and the social contract only exists within those societies that created it. It does not apply to people outside of its boundaries, thus it does not apply to other societies, thus it cannot be used as a justification for mitigating international conflict. My opponent's second argument is that international stability leads to national security. I find more fault with my opponent's applications than this contention itself. Application 1: Pax Romana. My opponent is correct in his description of the Pax Romana. However, the Pax Romana applies to an empire. My opponent negated empires with his limitation of the social contract to democratic and republican governments, so his arguments prove contradictory. Additionally, the Roman Empire maintained this form of peace by having conquered everything around it [3]. This was a period of peace maintained through force, and unless my opponent wishes to argue that the United States has a moral obligation to conquer its surrounding countries, then this application hardly applies to a free world. Application 2: The roaring 20s. My opponent cites the roaring 20s as a time of international and national stability. One could argue that the roaring 20s were a period of national stability - for the United States. Germany, on the other hand, was in a state of ruin and instability. The Treaty of Versailles shattered Germany's economy [4] and ultimately contributed to a massively infamous period of global instability known as World War II. To accept such an American-centric viewpoint in a debate pertaining to a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts presents a significant problem to my opponent's resolution. The United States was not stable in the 1920s because the world was; the US was stable because it was on the winning side of a war. On the other hand, Britannia notes that Europe had lost its economic vitality. Europe no longer held a role as the world's banker, and war debts owed by France and England to the United States severely weakened European currency [5]. And one can hardly pretend that countries like Turkey, shattered after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, was stable in the 1920s. In fact, as the Turkey and Greece actually went to war, as verified in the International Journal of Middle East Studies [6]. I reassert that the US stability and security then did not result from the mitigation of international conflicts but from other factors, namely, the money it was owed after World War I, and the prevalent isolationist attitude held by Americans. Application 3: The 1990s. First of all, as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, to cite the 1990s as a period of international stability seems ridiculous. The satellite states it had left, as well as the Russian government itself, certainly underwent major reforms around this period. Change inherently excludes stability, as stability is a preservation of the status quo. Contention 3: His basic concept at first seems reasonable - "if there are no or few countries attacking you, then you are secure and safe." However, this does not hold up under scrutiny. Attacks do not have to be external, nor do they have to be backed by governments. The terrorist groups of September 11 prove an infamous example. America was not being attacked by another country but by terrorist organizations. In fact, it is America's intervention in mitigating international conflicts that sparks anti-American sentiments. Take the second Iraq War, for example. According to Globalpolicy.org, even as far back as 2004, most Iraqi citizens did not want the Americans (and others) occupying their country [7]. If my opponent's definition of moral is concerning "right and wrong in human behavior," then how can occupying a country that poses no threat to national security where the majority of its citizens do not want occupation and, in fact, as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting notes, cost well over "115,676" Iraqi lives [8] be considered moral? This attitude repeats itself. US News notes that US intervention in Syria would be the "most unpopular in 20 years" [9], the Wall Street Journal notes the rising anti-US hostility in Egypt, including the storming of the US Embassy in Cairo [10], and Princeton University notes the rising anti-Americanism throughout the Muslim world [11], the major source of debates over US involvement at the moment. None of the countries in which the United States intervened saw such intervention as a sense of moral obligation but of United States imperialism and occupation. Mitigation cannot lead to international stability if it fosters resentment and anger. Unless the United States violates its ideals and crushes the resistance out of other nations, it cannot guarantee international stability. Note that I am not arguing against US intervention entirely. There certainly are situations in which the United States may decide to intervene. In an era of globalization, it becomes more and more difficult for a country, especially one as powerful as the United States, to adopt isolationism as a foreign policy. However, I am arguing against the idea that the United States has a moral obligation to intervene and mediate conflicts. I have disproved my opponent's notions that such interventions lead to security by proving they, in fact, do the opposite. In assuming that the US has a moral obligation, my opponent also assumes that the United States is infallible in its interventions. This is an absurd notion. No nation is perfect, and, like any other nation, the United States has made mistakes. More than simple intervention, having a moral obligation to intervene, to mediate, increases the risk of national instability in the United States, not only by creating more enemies, but also by harming the United States economically. According to National Priorities, the total cost of the wars in which the United States has been involved since 2001 is "$1,489,213, 950, 461," and the last six digits are constantly rising [12]. This burden becomes especially heavy when one recalls that international instability is not the only danger to US national security. There are plenty of domestic instances to upset national security, such as school shootings and the financial status (though recovering) of the US. There is no doubt that our safety is important. There is also no doubt that there are better methods of achieving stability. Though the United States may choose to mediate conflicts to preserve its own security, it does not have a moral obligation to do so. For this reason, as well as all the others I have listed, I urge you to vote CON. I await my opponent's response. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.csus.edu... [3] http://www.ushistory.org... [4] http://www.history.ucsb.edu... [5] http://www.britannia.com... [6] http://www.jstor.org... [7] http://www.globalpolicy.org... [8] http://www.fair.org... [9] http://www.usnews.com... [10] http://online.wsj.com... [11] http://www.princeton.edu... [12] http://nationalpriorities.org...