Do what you can, with what you have, where you are. – Theodore Roosevelt. In this round we need to realize what we can do with what we have. I think that the use of PMFs abroad is both efficient and justified. In this debate we ought to look to the value of National security above all else because that is the purpose of both the military and PMFs which are the topic of this resolution. To reach my value of national security my value criterion will be pragmatism. To define pragmatism I will use the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is the practice of being practical as opposed to idealistic. It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. -William James, the father of pragmatism When deciding on issues of national security people must be pragmatic and see the real world consequences of their actions and not just what is theorized to happen. They much weigh all of their options, learn all the facts, and then make a pragmatic decision.
My first contention is that PMFs are an important tool for self-defense and ally defense purposes.
A) As with personal self-defense if an immanent threat is perceived you may use any means necessary to defend yourself even if it results in the attackers death. The United States may also use any means necessary to defend itself whether that mean using the regular military or the more experienced and specialized PMFs.
We should have PMFs in our possession for self-defense just like a woman walking alone has pepper spray in her purse. She doesn’t intend on using it to attack someone but if someone attacks her it is a very effective and useful tool for defense just like PMFs. PMFs provide a much-needed defensive tool that can be dispensed quickly and effectively when we need them most. This would certainly include specialized PMFs in support roles.
Lets say all of the sudden North Korea...