NFA-LD Topic Papers: 2003-2004: Mideast Policy

To narrow the scope of the debate, I will begin with a few potential resolutions:

• The USFG should substantially increase government to government assistance to one or more of the following nations: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, or Oman.
• The USFG should significantly increase security assistance to one or more of the following nations: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, or Oman.
• The USFG should substantially increase military assistance to one or more of the following nations: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, or Oman.
• The USFG should substantially decrease constructive engagement with one or more of the following nations: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, or Oman.
• The USFG should substantially increase constructive engagement with one or more of the following 5 nations: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Jordan, or Oman.

Signficance

The Middle East is one of the most volatile and unstable regions in the world. It is a hotbed of religious, economic, and military unrest. The United States and its interests are tied to this region both economically and militarily, and policy decisions in this region have momentous effects.

Value of the Topic

The importance of the region and U.S. decisions about policy in this region cannot be overstated. The topic will be interesting, as it is current. Unrest continues in the Middle East, and US involvement there is high in several roles ranging from diplomat, to military actor. The nature of that involvement can drastically affect the stability of the region. This topic will be challenging as there is an abundance of literature on this subject, and both side of the coin are equally winnable.

Educational Value

With the abundance of literature on US/ Saudi relations, US/Israeli relations, and relations with other nations in the region, a well constructed resolution would allow us to learn from an in depth examination of foreign policy toward this region.

Division of Ground

If we avoid bi-directionality, ground on this topic would be well divided. There are compelling arguments from both camps about the level of involvement the U.S. should maintain, and the form that involvement should take. The topic should be limited to no more than 5 nations, and include a term of art (such as “government to government assistance”, “security assistance”, etc) in order to limit ground.

There is plenty of room for clean, consistent DA/ Counterplan combos, as well as abundant case neg. While some might argue that limiting things to 5 nations over limits neg ground, I think the lit base is large enough that this will provide more ground that we can cover in an academic debate year. While I concede that negative can prepare a few generic files for each affirmative, I would contend that that is good. The aff’s will all differ though, in general harms areas and solvency mechanisms. Further, this type of debate will go deeper into the lit, rather than broader, as the resolutions of the past two years (terrorism & poverty) have. Lastly, the information available from think tanks and books, will level the playing field a little on this topic for schools without access to lexis - nexus(there are many).

FAQ AND PREMPTS

Q: Where are Iraq and Iran??

A: To avoid overlapping literature with the terrorism topic and the rogue states topic in CEDA two years ago Iran and Iraq were excluded.

Q. Why these five nations?

A. They were chosen due to relative similarity in current levels of engagement (except Israel), and under the assumption that solvency advocates may call for action to more than one of these nations so close in geographic location.

Q. WHAT NO Turkey?!?! But the lit on Turkey is so Money!!!!

A. Yes, but it opens up a whole other can of worms with eastern European and Russian relations we felt exploded the topic, that does not mean it would have to be excluded from the final resolution, but we felt it made the topic a little too big.

Q. Isn’t this too close to the type of debate we had on terrorism?

A. No. The terrorism topic included a much broader scope of action to many more nations. This topic would encourage a debate from some very specific literature on international relations in this region. Counterplan ground will be very different as well.

Even overlapping debates, such as hegemony or unilateralism will differ in the literature and warrants of the link and impact evidence.

If there are other questions, criticism or concerns we would be happy to discuss them.

Suggested Reading:

1) Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response December 2001

2) Geoffrey T. Kemp (Editor), Janice Gross. Stein (Editor), Powder Keg in the Middle East: The Struggle for Gulf Security August 1995

3) Leon T. Hadar, Quagmire: America in the Middle East. October 1992

Please contact us with suggestions or questions.

Respectfully submitted by: