[eDebate] On behalf of the Middle East Topic

[james carroll]

it seems to me that the middle east is the most desirable topic:
i agree that debating energy/global warming is interesting. however, if
energy is made into a domestic topic, that topic will be mainly about
politics/agent counterplans, especially at the start of the year. think
of how people avoided debating kyoto this year because the warming
debate was just too big. it will be even easier to avoid that for the
most part with agent cps next year. anyone who WANTED to debate energy
could have run kyoto last year-few people did. 
also, the energy topic does not access the middle east in the way that
perhaps some advocates of the topic think that it will. almost no cut in
oil dependency could change US policy in Iraq or Israel, which is based
on other issues than energy dependence. Oil dependence does affect OPEC
in some sense, but people interested in these debates would do well to
address them directly by having a middle east topic. any advantage
claiming to change US military policy in the middle east would be easily
solved by a CP to do just that. 
the middle east topic will access energy/warming to a large extent. even
tho the middle east now supplies only 28% (i think-not sure) of our oil,
perceptually whatever happens to opec and the iraq wells will have a
large effect on the bush administration renewable policy. for example,
if by some magic wand of fiat, the us were to withdraw from iraq, bush
would probably significantly increase renewable subsidies to make up for
the loss of oil. anyone who wants to on the middle east topic can claim
oil dependence/renewables/warming advantages without having to deal with
a states cp. 
the middle east also seems able to access the other topics equally well.
perhaps it is true that US european relations are on the brink, however
two crucial issues in the relationship are the reconstruction of iraq
and the palestinian peace process. any case that claimed to deal with
these problems would have to research US european ties. also, many of
the new immigration restrictions that ashcroft is instating/considering
have to do with people of middle eastern origin. it seems also that the
middle east topic would address more directly some of the terrorist
concerns, which are the most timely ones in today's immigration debates. 
also, the middle east topic seems the most timely. the claim made by
peter campbell that all these problems in the middle east have been
existing for decades is absurd-this is a historic moment, and the bush
administration is considering a campaign to remake the middle east as we
know it. any cursory glance at any newspaper or newscast for the last
month will find a discussion of military issues in the middle east.
while global warming may be a timely topic, it does not grab the
headlines like the middle east. also, the energy topic will be
relatively the same if undertaken next year, while by this time next
year, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia may have all undergone radical
changes in regime if the hawks in the Bush administration have their
way. 
i guess the final hook for me in debating the middle east is just that
such a topic would be sweet. imagine consistent in depth debates on the
peace process for cases that cut US support for Israel. think about how
important iraqi reconstruction will be in the next year, and how much
literature will be in the mainstream press that small schools can easily
access. the war on terrorism, which seems to be the abiding focus of the
bush foreign policy, is centered on the middle east. i don't think that
any other topic accesses such an interesting and in depth literature
base, and i hope everyone else is as excited as i am about debating the
middle east. 
jamie