Overview: The kritik is functionally a turn to affirmative solvency– we will always win that the best way to stop

bad U.S. policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East is to stop U.S. policy in the Middle East altogether – accept the legitimacy of the violence expressed by the region – they will claim that we are legitimizing violence which is the only way to solve – the root cause of the violence tomorrow is always U.S. actions today, breaking the cycle is the only way to solve anything in the long term. First is the Noorani evidence that says attempting to moderate violence in the region, especially violence that we caused in the first place by eradication, is based on an overwhelming desire to neutralize and delegitimize the power of the region to transform the world through expression of enmity and violence, counter to our aims of global hegemony. You should be skeptical of their numerous scenarios of regional instability and wanton violence that will supposedly result from our failure to intervene in the affairs of the Middle East – these scenarios ignore the fact that this sort of regional violence is legitimate and often the only way our enemies can challenge our global hegemony – delegitimization of that right to violence does not eliminate violence at all but simply justifies unlimited violence and extermination of those we say should be peaceful. Second is the Campbell and Pease evidence which puts the U.S. strategy of engagement into historical context – by forcing our enemies to respond to our offer of engagement, we offer them an impossible choice between giving up their ability to resist, and thus submitting fully to American authority, or rejecting the offer and seceding from humanity, exposing themselves to absolute annihilation. The American strategy of engagement is a process of creating disorder and repressing the symptoms of that disorder, creating fundamental dependencies that further constrain the political agency of our lucky target for engagement. The Pease evidence is particularly important in the context of this affirmative you can see the ramifications of our engagement strategy in action we create disorder by invading Iraq and offer our humanitarian intervention to send in US companies to rebuild the damage and stabilize the region the implication is that U.S. presence in the Middle East is necessary forever this cycle of engagement is akin to slavery. And third is the specific way in which the affirmative constructs this engagement package as if forcing Iran to invest in U.S. pipeline projects would solve all the problems between the two countries our Rasch evidence impacts this sort of illusion as an act that drives conflict underground where it does not disappear but always resurfaces you can imagine a number of scenarios for this sort of re-emergence of violence where Iran begins to express disagreement with the operation of U.S. contractors in their country and we use their previous agreement to our engagement as a weapon against them to justify any amount of violence because we would have “TRIED TO HELP THEM BUT APPARENTLY THEY JUST HATE PEACE AND LOVE VIOLENCE” Rasch says this sort of violence is always worse than the violence inherent in the world.

Fool and the Knave: The aff is the fool opening up the space for the knave to say “well we’re here already why not just kill a few of these terrorists” furthering the state policies that the aff claims to kritik and move away from. This is offense against all their claims of “debaters become policymakers so we solve genocide” all you will create is a government full of Fools who take short-sighted actions that simply give the Knave the power to control the world.