Jump to content
CRusso

Ozark NFL

Recommended Posts

Might seem redundant after the MSHAA thread, but I think the teams will be different. Anyway, here's Central. Sieggy correct me if anythings different.

Sieggy/Brittany - Japan - relations, deterrence

John/Kelsey - Same

Clayton/Chris - PMCs - Stability, HR, Flow the aff is on the wiki.

David/Devin - PMCs - Stability, rape

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mtown:

Sammy/Shawna- new

Madz/Chas- Japan with alliance and russia

Jamie/Shane- night raids

Cassandra/Allison- night raids

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Might seem redundant after the MSHAA thread, but I think the teams will be different. Anyway, here's Central. Sieggy correct me if anythings different.

Sieggy/Brittany - Japan - relations, deterrence

John/Kelsey - Same

Clayton/Chris - PMCs - Stability, HR, Flow the aff is on the wiki.

David/Devin - PMCs - Stability, rape

http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2010-2011+%E2%80%94+Springfield+Central+(MO)+%E2%80%94+Clayton+Russo+%26+Chris+Williams uh wat

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People realize there are several NFL and MSHSAA districts in Missouri, right? It'd be nice if people titled their threads with at least which district they were talking about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People realize there are several NFL and MSHSAA districts in Missouri, right? It'd be nice if people titled their threads with at least which district they were talking about.

 

Title changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2010-2011+%E2%80%94+Springfield+Central+(MO)+%E2%80%94+Clayton+Russo+%26+Chris+Williams uh wat

 

Idk why the link on the main page isn't working. Here's a good one. http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2010-2011+%E2%80%94+Springfield+Central+(MO)+%E2%80%94++Clayton+Russo+%26+Chris+Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mtown:

Sammy/Shawna- new

 

uh what? Also: can I get cites for either of the affs we know about? ALSO: any hints on NEW NEW aff?

 

EDIT: Probably should have seen this coming. Oil Price fluctuation = lol

Edited by siegby
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't actually have the aff finished yet. We will probably wait until Wednesday and see what is happening in the world (remember health care last year =] )

 

Here are the 1acs we have read so far:

SoKo (read at Truman)

[b]Observation 1- Inherency- The [/b][b]United   States[/b][b] is continuing its presence in [/b][b]South   Korea[/b][b].[/b]
 [b] [/b]
 [b] [/b]
 [b] [/b]
 [b]A- The attacks of November 23rd on [/b][b]South   Korea[/b][b] will guarantee that the [/b][b]United   States[/b][b] military presence will continue to increase in coming weeks. This will hurt US/ [/b][b]China[/b][b] relations.[/b]

 [b]Lobe on November 24, 2010 [/b]Hawks, Doves Aflutter Over Pyongyang's Latest Moves Analysis by Jim Lobe Bureau Chief of Inter Press Service with a Juris Doctor  from Univ of California Berkley [url]http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53667[/url]
 That's not only because [b][u]the bombardment, which drew heavy retaliatory shelling by South Korean forces, has brought tensions on the peninsula to their highest level in decades, if not since the end of the Korean War more than 50 years ago[/u][/b]. [b][u]The crisis could[/u][/b] also [b][u]strain increasingly delicate relations between the U.S. and China,[/u][/b] which, to the administration's growing frustration, is widely seen here as North Korea's only big-power ally whose continuing diplomatic and economic support is indispensable to keeping the Kim dynasty in power.  China has long feared that regime collapse next door would result in chaos, spurring the flow of millions of refugees into northern China and the possible intervention of South Korean and U.S. troops right up to the border.  [b][u]Washington's announcement Wednesday that it is dispatching the USS George Washington aircraft carrier task force to take part in joint military operations off the North Korean coast beginning this weekend is certain to cause heartburn in Beijing[/u][/b], as well as Pyongyang, given the increased sensitivity Beijing has shown in recent months regarding its maritime claims, including the Yellow  Sea.  While the George Washington is intended primarily to convey solidarity with Washington's South Korean ally, [b][u]it may well be seen as provocation in [/u][/b][b][u]Beijing[/u][/b][b][u]. According to some analysts here, the upcoming exercises likely presage a reinforcement of [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] military capabilities in the region[/u][/b] -- short, however, of returning U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea, as was suggested earlier this week by Seoul's hawkish defence minister.  [b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] has more than 25,000 [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] troops stationed in the South at the moment.[/u][/b]  [b][u]"I imagine that over the coming weeks and months, you're going to see a further supplementing of the American presence," said Alan Romberg, a former East Asia State Department expert now with the Stimson Center here. "The Chinese won't like it; they'll see this as somewhat directed against them.[/u][/b] But this is part of the cost of their letting the North go ahead and act with what we see as impunity." 

 [b][font=Times-Roman] [/font][/b]
 [b][font=Times-Roman] [/font][/b]
 [u][font=Times-Roman]
[/font][/u]  [b]B-[/b][b]US[/b][b]/ [/b][b]China[/b][b] relations are the key relations to determining worldwide peace or war.  [/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Husain 2009 [/font][/b][font=&quot]Sino-US relations By Javid Husain retired ambassador Published: [/font][font=&quot]October 27, 2009[/font][font=&quot] [url]http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/27-Oct-2009/SinoUS-relations/[/url][/font]
 [b][u][font=&quot]If there is one issue which will determine the future course of the 21st century, it is the direction and substance of US-China relations in the coming decades[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].[/font] The driving factors behind this relationship are twofold: the US determination to prevent the emergence of a power in any part of the world capable of challenging its global supremacy and the phenomenal economic growth of China over the past three decades which in due course would translate itself in the growth and strength of its military power. The combined effect of China’s huge size and rapid growth makes it inevitable that the world would, at first, see increasing rivalry between the two nations in the economic field followed by a challenge to the US global supremacy in the military field by China in the second half of the 21st century. Of course, this conclusion is based on the bold assumption that the present trends of growth in the economic power of the two nations are sustained in the coming decades. These developments would transform the global geopolitical scene with far-reaching strategic, political and economic implications for the whole world. There is no denying the fact that the current world order has been shaped primarily by the West under the leadership of the US - a reflection of the Western countries’ domination of the global political and economic scene since the end of the World War II. The structure, the procedures and the functioning of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, the World Bank and the IMF, established after the World War II, were such that no major decision could be taken without the backing of the West. The position has remained more or less unchanged since then. This state of affairs is going to change dramatically in the coming decades reflecting the redistribution of the economic and ultimately the military power globally. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union did pose a challenge to the military supremacy of the West. The defeat and disintegration of the Soviet  Union made the world unipolar briefly with the US emerging as the global hegemon. However, the rapid growth of China and other powers like India and Brazil, the re-assertiveness of Russia, and the emergence of other power centres such as the European Union, Japan and the ASEAN indicate that the US unipolar moment has already passed. The world is increasingly turning multipolar with several centres of power emerging on the scene even though for the time being the US is the only country capable of projecting its military power in the different corners of the world. It is inevitable that these developments would ultimately lead to the re-writing of the rules which determine the way in which the world functions in the political and economic fields. China’s rapidly growing economic and military strength would make it a major player in this process of global transformation. An example of the kind of changes that can be expected in the coming decades was the call by the Governor of China’s Central Bank, Zhou Xiaochuan, in March 2009 for the replacement of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency by Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s). Changes can, thus, be expected in the structure and functioning of multilateral institutions like the UN Security Council, the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. The net effect of these changes would be the gradual decline in the influence of the US and the West and increase in the role of China and other emerging powers. The changes in the structure and functioning of the international political and economic institutions will be only one consequence of the growing rivalry between the US and China. There will also be important consequences of this development for US-China bilateral relations.[font=&quot] [b][u]The US-China relationship is both cooperative and competitive at present[/u][/b][/font][font=&quot].[/font] China is an extremely important trading partner of the US. In 2008, China’s exports to the US were estimated to be $338 billion whereas its imports from the US amounted to $70 billion. China is also the recipient of the US private investment on a large scale. Many US firms have established their manufacturing facilities in China which has thus also benefited from the inflow of the US technology. As a result of its balance of payment surpluses, China has accumulated huge foreign currency reserves estimated to be over $2 trillion. Some 60 percent of China’s official reserves are held in dollar-denominated assets. These trade and economic linkages dictate a cooperative relationship between the two countries. But there are also elements of competition between them in the economic field. China’s growing appetite for fossil energy resources in Africa, the Persian Gulf region, Latin  America and elsewhere, which pits it against the demand by the US for the same resources, is just one example of this competition. China’s trade surpluses with the US year after year generate increasing US charges of dumping against China and demands for the appreciation of its currency and the opening up of its market. Environment is another area where the two countries are pitted against each other in terms of emission reduction targets for climate warming gases. But [b][u][font=&quot]it is the strategic and political aspect of the relationship between the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]US[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] and [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]China[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], which will play a predominant role in determining its future direction.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font]The US views China’s rapid growth as posing a serious threat to its global supremacy and to its security interests, especially in Asia. Predictably, it is now engaged in a strategic manoeuvre of far-reaching consequences to contain China through an architecture of security alliances on the latter’s periphery. That is why the US has pledged to make India a major world player in the 21st century, why it entered into an agreement with India in 2005 for close military cooperation and why it has agreed to commence cooperation in civilian nuclear technology with India despite the crushing blow delivered by it to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime through its nuclear explosions of 1998. The US would also try to strengthen its security relations with other countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and even the ASEAN countries for the same purpose. The US focus on China also limits the extent to which it can put pressure on Russia for achieving its strategic goals in Europe, Caucasus and Central  Asia. The recent decision by President Obama to abandon the missile defence project in Poland and the Czech Republic is a reflection of this limitation. China has naturally reacted to the US initiatives by its own moves to protect its vital national interests. Its strategic partnership with Russia aims at countering the US global hegemony and unilateralism. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation including China, Russia and Central Asia Republics excepting Turkmenistan as members serves the same purpose besides enhancing regional cooperation to combat terrorism, extremism and separatist movements within the member states. China’s strategic relationship with Pakistan balances in South Asia the effect of the growing US strategic partnership with India. China is also engaged in diplomatic moves to strengthen its relations with the ASEAN countries, Japan and South Korea with which it maintains extensive trade and economic relations. Historically, the rise of a new great power, which challenges the prevailing world order, has led to tensions and wars with the established great powers. This was especially the case when the existing great powers were not able to accommodate the emerging great power through necessary adjustments in the global political, security and economic architecture.[font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]The question whether the 21st century would be a century of peace or of war and conflict will be decided fundamentally by the ability or the failure of the US and the Western countries to accommodate China’s rise, by adapting the existing world order dominated by the West to the strategic compulsions of China’s phenomenal rise.
[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Times-Roman] [/font][/u][/b]
 Thus the plan:
 The United States Federal Government, specifically President Obama, will order the withdrawal of all ground troops in South Korea. Funding, enforcement, administration and logistics will be through necessary means. We claim fiat.
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b]Advantage 1- Trade[/b]

 [b]A-[/b][b]US[/b][b] military presence in [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] causes trade frustrations between the [/b][b]US[/b][b] and [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b]. [/b][b]Asia[/b][b] will be key to economic recovery. [/b]

 [b]Schneider 10[/b]
 For U.S., free-trade agreement could be backdoor to China
 By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 8, 2010 [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110805802_pf.html[/url]
 [b][u]For the [/u][/b][b][u]United   States[/u][/b][b][u],[/u][/b] an agreement could represent the most-promising chapter in [b][u]a long effort to recalibrate the balance of trade between the Western developed world and the world's manufacturing center in [/u][/b][b][u]Asia[/u][/b]. This [b][u]has been [/u][/b]an[b][u] elusive[/u][/b] American goal ever since Taiwan, Japan and later South Korea began emerging as industrial powers in the 1960s and 1970s, reshaping the worldwide auto and textile industries among others. [b][u]Asia, with its expanding middle class, growing wealth and rich opportunities for investment, may be the future engine of world economic growth.[/u][/b] But U.S. officials and business executives continue to cite a range of trade frustrations, from India's tight grip on its service sector and Japan's close control of agriculture to Indonesia's strict ownership rules and China's management of its currency. [b][u]South   Korea[/u][/b][b][u] has unique sensitivities. After centuries of war and invasion, it remains a society[/u][/b] both resilient and insecure - successful in the global economy, but divided from communist North Korea and [b][u]reliant on a major [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] military presence. As a result, there is a national fixation on food security, which has produced stiff tariffs on imported agricultural products and prominent labeling for goods that use Korean ingredients[/u][/b]. Hotel chains, for instance, advertise dishes with Korean ingredients on their menus and the Dunkin' Donuts chain here gives its Korean wheat-based confections a special display tray. The tariffs are supposed to come down under the free-trade agreement. But building market share for foreign imports will be a separate challenge.


 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b]B- A lack of focus on trade with [/b][b]South   Korea[/b][b] is bad for several reasons. First, it hurts the [/b][b]US[/b][b] economy. Secondly, it hurts the ability of the [/b][b]US[/b][b] to influence other nations through soft power. Failure to focus on trade now will permanently effect US/ [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] relations. [/b]
 [b]Bandow on [/b][b]November  23, 2010[/b]
 Free Trade Deal With South Korea Will Boost Prosperity And Security By DOUG BANDOW Posted 11/23/2010
 [url]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=554639&p=1[/url]
 According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, [b][u]the elimination of South Korean tariffs alone should add $10 billion to $12 billion to the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] GDP.[/u][/b] [b][u]Demand[/u][/b] for American audiovisual, financial and telecommunications services also likely [b][u]would increase substantially. Overall, the ITC figures that American exports to [/u][/b][b][u]South   Korea[/u][/b][b][u] would go up nearly twice as much as imports from the ROK. The longer-term gain could be even greater[/u][/b][font=&quot]. First, South Koreans, like Chinese, remain less affluent individually than suggested by their GDP. Continued strong growth would greatly enhance individual buying power, leading to increased purchases of American goods and services. Second, reunification with the North is likely some day. A unified [/font][font=&quot]Korea[/font][font=&quot] will be an even more important market for U.S. Concerns. [/font][b][u]Nor is economics the sum total of the issue. A rising [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u] is bumping up against a still dominant [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]. Strengthening trade ties is one way for [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] to ensure continued American influence in [/u][/b][b][u]East Asia[/u][/b][b][u]. Despite the Wall Street crash, the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] retains the world's largest and most productive economy. However, [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u]'s economic dominance in [/u][/b][b][u]East Asia[/u][/b][b][u] is waning. China has pushed American companies into second and even third place in many countries, most notably in South Korea[/u][/b] and Japan. [b][u]At the same time, the People's Republic of [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u] is asserting itself throughout [/u][/b][b][u]Asia[/u][/b][b][u], including in the ROK.[/u][/b] [font=&quot]In June [/font][font=&quot]Beijing[/font][font=&quot] finalized the economic framework cooperation agreement with [/font][font=&quot]Taiwan[/font][font=&quot], and is pressing for free-trade agreements with [/font][font=&quot]Australia[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Japan[/font][font=&quot]. The PRC and [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot] also have discussed the possibility of an FTA. The fact the PRC is pursuing this strategy with [/font][font=&quot]America[/font][font=&quot]'s three leading military allies in the region demonstrates [/font][font=&quot]Washington[/font][font=&quot]'s problem[/font]. [b][u]South   Korea[/u][/b][b][u] is not waiting for the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]Last year [/font][font=&quot]Seoul[/font][font=&quot] completed the world's largest bilateral trade pact, with the European Union[/font]. [b][u]American manufacturers will soon find themselves at a disadvantage compared to European producers — with the likely loss of roughly $30 billion in exports. The primary benefit of the FTA is economic. But expanding trade ties offers geopolitical advantages as well.[/u][/b] The Bush administration only slightly overstated the benefits when it argued: [b][u]"By boosting economic ties and broadening and modernizing our longstanding alliance, it promises to become the pillar of our alliance for the next 50 years[/u][/b], as the Mutual Defense Treaty has been for the last 50 years." [b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u]'s influence in [/u][/b][b][u]East Asia[/u][/b][b][u] is slowly ebbing. Today, the U.S.-ROK military alliance is outdated.[/u][/b]
 [b][u]However, [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] can employ American "soft power" — access to the world's most important, advanced, and productive economy — to actively engage friendly nations[/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot].[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] The [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] should press for multilateral and regional agreements. [/font][font=&quot]Washington[/font][font=&quot] also should negotiate FTAs with [/font][font=&quot]Japan[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Taiwan[/font][font=&quot], and ASEAN, the collection of highly trade- dependent Southeast Asian states. But the start is for the president to accept and Congress to ratify the pending accord with [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot].[/font] [b][u]Failing[/u][/b] [font=&quot]to approve the South Korean FTA[/font] [b][u]is likely to result in permanent economic and geopolitical damage. This would be a high price to pay at any time, but especially when China is rapidly expanding its influence throughout East Asia[/u][/b].


 [b]C- Soft power allows the [/b][b]US[/b][b] to stop terrorism. [/b]
 [b]Margulies 10[/b]
 PUTTING GUANTANAMO IN THE REAR- VIEW MIRROR: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DETENTION POLICY
 Peter Margulies Professor of Law, Roger Williams University. Roger Williams University lexis
 President Obama’s announcement that he would close Guanta* namo within a year redefined efficiency in counterterrorism. Bush and Cheney viewed efficiency narrowly, as the speed entailed in taking concrete steps to kill or incapacitate terrorists.56 [b][u]President Obama[/u][/b] has a broader vision. While the President does not slight the importance of killing or detaining those who would do violence against the United States, he also views efficiency as entailing the accumulation of good will throughout the world.57 The President [b][u]understands the importance of American soft power to our ability to achieve policy goals.58 When America has credibility on the world stage, it can count on cooperation from other governments and populations. Moreover, American credibility blunts charges of excess or hypocrisy that furnish recruiting tools for terrorists.[/u][/b]

 [b][font=&quot]D- Economic turmoil causes war. The longer the recovery takes the more likely war is.[/font][/b]
 [font=&quot] [/font]
 [b][color=black][font=&quot]Haniff 09[/font][/color][/b]
 [color=black][font=&quot]Financial crisis bigger threat than Al Qaeda, says US intelligence czar, Aziz Haniff, the National Affairs Editor and Chief Diplomatic and Political correspondent of India Abroad--the oldest and largest circulating South Asian newspaper in North America and the largest outside of India.He has been covering Washington for over 18 years since joining India Abroad and over the years has scored many scoops and done tons of exlusives, including interviews with presidents, prime ministers, cabinet ministers, and US and South Asian lawmakers., [url]http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2009/feb/15bcrisis-financial-crisis-bigger-threat-than-al-qaeda-says-us-intel-chief.htm[/url][/font][/color]
 [b][u][font=&quot]The plunging global economy is an even bigger threat to the United States' national security than the al Qaeda terrorist network or proliferation of weapons of mass destr[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]uction[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot],[/font][font=&quot] according to America's new intelligence czar.Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the Obama administration's Director of National Intelligence, in his first appearance before the US Congress, stated,[/font][font=&quot] "[/font][b][u][font=&quot]The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]." [/font][font=&quot]Traditionally, US intelligence chiefs always preface their opening remarks with either terrorist or nuclear proliferation threats, but Blair's first sentences in his testimony before the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was about the economy.Blair said, "The crisis has been going on for over a year, and economists are divided over whether and when we could hit bottom. Some even fear that the recession could further deepen and reach the level of the Great Depression." "Of course,[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]all of us recall the dramatic political consequences wrought by the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Europe[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], the instability, and high levels of violent extremism," he said. "Though we don't know its eventual scale, it already looms as the most serious global and economic and financial crisis in decades,[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]"[/font][font=&quot] he added. Blair pointed out, "Industrialised countries are already in recession and growth in emerging market countries, previously thought to be immune from industrialised countries' crises, has also faltered, and many are in recession as well." "Even China's dynamic growth engines have taken a hit as they grapple with falling demand for their exports and slowdown in foreign direct investment and portfolio investments," he said. Blair served notice that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging market nations over the next year, prompting additional countries to request International Monetary Fund or other multilateral or bilateral support." [/font][font=&quot]"[/font][b][u][font=&quot]Time is probably our greatest threat[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]," [/font][font=&quot]he said. [/font][b][u][font=&quot]"The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to US' strategic interests."[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]Blair added, "Roughly, a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instabilities such as government changes because of the current slowdown."[/font]
 [color=#141413][font=Arial]
[/font][/color]  [color=#141413][font=Arial] [/font][/color]
 [b]E- Reducing US military presence in [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] allows the [/b][b]US[/b][b]/ [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] relationship to focus more on trade.[/b]
 [b]Bandow 10[/b]
 The U.S.-South Korea Alliance Outdated, Unnecessary, and Dangerous
 by Doug Bandow enior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan July 14, 2010 [url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb90.pdf[/url]
 [b][u]The U.S.-ROK military alliance has lost its purpose. [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] is not critical to [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s defense [/u][/b][b][u]and [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s assistance is not[/u][/b]—or at least should not be—[b][u]critical to [/u][/b][b][u]South   Korea[/u][/b][b][u]’s defense. Far from improving regional security, the current relationship makes it harder for both nations to act to protect their own vital interests.[/u][/b] Especially after the financial crash of 2008, [b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] should make policy to promote [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s[/u][/b], not the ROK’s,[b][u] continued economic development. Doing so would not end the strong relation- ship between the peoples of the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] and the ROK. Rather, eliminating the alliance would offer a new beginning. The relationship would continue, but now it would be centered on[/u][/b] family, [b][u]trade,[/u][/b] culture,[b][u] and other nonmilitary ties. Security cooperation could continue where warranted, but with [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u] and [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] as equals.[/u][/b][b][u] After 65 years of dependence on the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u], the South Korean people should take over responsibility for their own defense.[/u][/b]
 [font=&quot]
[/font]  [b]Advantage 2- Korean war[/b]

 [b]A- Recent attacks have put the Korean peninsula on the brink of war. This evidence isolates 2 reasons: the transition from Kim Jung Il to Kim Jung Un as the leader of [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b] and the [/b][b]US[/b][b] military presence in the region.[/b]

 [b]Childs on [/b][b]November  26, 2010[/b]
 26 November 2010 Last updated at 11:47  ET US-South Korea military alliance under pressure
 By Nick Childs Defence and security correspondent, BBC News [url="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-exercises-lsquoputting-korea-on-brink-of-warrsquo-15015250.html#ixzz16SiF5p6h"][color=#003399]http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-exercises-lsquoputting-korea-on-brink-of-warrsquo-15015250.html#ixzz16SiF5p6h[/color][/url][b][color=#262626] [/color][/b]
 [b][u][color=black]Tensions have soared between the [/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black]Koreas[/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black] since the North's strike destroyed large parts of the island, killing two civilians and two marines in a major escalation of their sporadic skirmishes along the sea border[/color][/u][color=black]. [/color][/b][color=black]The attack — eight months after a torpedo sank a South Korean warship further west, killing 46 sailors — has also laid bare weaknesses in [/color][color=black]South Korea[/color][color=black]'s defence 60 years after the Korean War. And [/color][b][u][color=black]the skirmish forced [/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black]South Korea[/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black]'s beleaguered defence minister to resign on Thursday. The heightened animosity between the Koreas is taking place as the North undergoes a delicate transition of power from leader Kim Jong Il to his young, inexperienced son Kim Jong Un[/color][/u][/b][color=black], [/color][color=black]who is in his late 20s and is expected to eventually succeed his ailing father. As [/color][color=black]Washington[/color][color=black] and [/color][color=black]Seoul[/color][color=black] pressed [/color][color=black]China[/color][color=black] to use its influence on [/color][color=black]Pyongyang[/color][color=black] to ease tensions amid worries of all-out war,[/color][color=black] t[b][u]he [/u][/b][/color][b][u][color=black]US[/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black] prepared to send a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to South Korean waters for joint military drills starting tomorrow. The North, which sees the drills as a major military provocation, said: “The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war.”[/color][/u][/b]
 [color=black][font=Verdana]

[/font][/color]
 [color=black][font=Verdana]
[/font][/color]  [b][color=black]B- This war on the Korean peninsula will escalate beyond just the borders of [/color][/b][b][color=black]Korea[/color][/b][b][color=black] to a global war. [/color][/b]
 [b][color=black]Van Auken on [/color][/b][b][color=black]November 27, 2010[/color][/b][b][color=black][/color][/b]
 Bill Van Auken The Korean crisis and the threat of a wider war
 27 November 2010 [url]http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/pers-n27.shtml[/url]
 [b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] had threatened to carry out joint US-South Korean military exercises in the [/u][/b][b][u]Yellow  Sea[/u][/b][b][u] last July, [/u][/b]ostensibly in response to the sinking of a South Korean warship in which 46 sailors lost their lives. South   Korea has charged North   Korea with having sunk the vessel, which went down near the disputed maritime border imposed by the US at the end of the Korean War, but Pyongyang has denied any responsibility. [b][u]In the face of [/u][/b][b][u]Beijing[/u][/b][b][u]’s sharp protests, the Obama administration shifted those exercises to the [/u][/b][b][u]Sea  of Japan[/u][/b][b][u], away from Chinese waters. This time [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u] is deploying one of its most powerful warships in the [/u][/b][b][u]Yellow  Sea[/u][/b][b][u] as a demonstration of its military supremacy against [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u]. [/u][/b]While the Chinese government issued a measured warning over the exercise, declaring that it opposed “any military acts in our exclusive economic zone”—which extends 200 miles from the Chinese coast—others close to the Beijing government and its military vigorously denounced the US maneuvers.  [b][u]While the immediate pretext for the provocative exercise is the Korean conflict, it is in line with an increasingly aggressive [/u][/b][b][u]US[/u][/b][b][u] policy in [/u][/b][b][u]Asia[/u][/b][b][u]. This has included the US attempt to insert itself into territorial conflicts in the South China Sea[/u][/b], backing Japan, Vietnam and other ASEAN countries against China. Washington’s aim in the region has been the pursuit of a series of alliances and assertions of military power directed against China that stretch from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. [b][u]In the wake of the world [/u][/b]capitalist[b][u] financial meltdown[/u][/b], geostrategic offensive has been coupled with increasingly aggressive demands for Chinese currency revaluations and trade concessions. Fundamentally, the growing US-China tensions are rooted in deep-going shifts in the world economy and the global balance of forces: China’s rise to the position of the world’s second-largest economy, eclipsing Japan, on the one hand, and the relative economic decline of US imperialism, combined with its growing use of military force, on the other.  [b][u]This conflict threatens to turn [/u][/b][b][u]Northeast Asia[/u][/b][b][u] and the entire planet into a tinderbox. Much as in the period preceding the First World War, seemingly isolated regional confrontations between minor powers have the potential of precipitating a global conflagration, this time between nuclear-armed adversaries.[/u][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b]C-[/b][b] The current presence of the [/b][b]US[/b][b] military in [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] makes conflict inevitable. The [/b][b]US[/b][b] should withdraw its military from [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b].[/b]
 [b]Hale on [/b][b]November  28, 2010[/b]
 Stuck between a ROK and a hard place Cliff Hale, The Shorthorn guest columnist    Sunday, 28 November 2010 [url]http://www.theshorthorn.com/content/view/21027/266/[/url]
 Yet, [b][u]for 57 years North and [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b][b][u] have been only inches from resuming a war that will automatically suck [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] forces into a conflict that will make [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] and [/u][/b][b][u]Afghanistan[/u][/b][b][u] look like Capture the Flag at camp. [/u][/b]During the totalitarian regimes of Kim Il-sung and his son, current ruler Kim Jong-il, and on the brink of installing Kim Jong-un as the next leader, the seemingly unpredictable nation has regularly stirred up international provocations ending in conciliatory measures, largely financial, by the rest of the world, lead by the U.S. Chances are good that the recent attack by North Korea will be more of the same, with the same results, but[b][u] at some point the North will err and step too far, or the South will err and respond too sharply, and our forces — about 28,000 — along the Demilitarized Zone will be wedged between both nations’ armies. [/u][/b][b][u]North[/u][/b] Korea has much of the natural resources of the peninsula, [b][u]and [/u][/b][b][u]South Korea[/u][/b] has two-thirds of the entire Korean population as well as the fifth largest deep-water sea ports in the world. Each [b][u]desire[/u][/b]s [b][u]and need[/u][/b]s[b][u] the resources of the other, but voluntary, mutually-beneficial exchange is not possible[/u][/b] as long as both insist on having things strictly their own way, and [b][u]as long as the U.S. is held hostage in the middle.[/u][/b]
To paraphrase David Bowie,[b][u] using the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] military to “prevent” war from continuing on the [/u][/b][b][u]Korean[/u][/b][b][/b][b][u]Peninsula[/u][/b][b][u] is like putting out a grease fire with gasoline. 
The U.S. should recall its troops from South Korea,[/u][/b] and during that process, withdraw all financial aid of any form from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the North, and offer trade incentives to the southern Republic of Korea so that the only way the DPRK can get any American dollars is to do business with the ROK. [b][u]People too busy making, buying and selling things are not inclined toward war[/u][/b].

 [b] [/b]

 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b]D- All the evidence about the state of [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b] or [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] that is from before November 23rd should be categorically ignored. Right now is a unique moment for 5 reasons: it is different in size and scope from previous Korean battles, [/b][b]South Korea[/b][b] responded, it is near the March bombing of a submarine by [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b], [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b] has developed nuclear weapon grade material, and there is a transition to a new leader in [/b][b]North Korea[/b][b].[/b]
 [b][color=#262626][font=ArialMT] [/font][/color][/b]
 [b]Stirewalt on [/b][b]November  23, 2010[/b]
 Today's Power Play: Attack Makes North Korea a Foreign Policy Priority by Chris Stirewalt | November 23, 2010
 Read more: [url]http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/23/todays-power-play-attack-makes-north-korea-foreign-policy-priority#ixzz16SlA3xyX[/url]
 [b][u]The North and South have skirmished over this island and the ones around it before. There were flare-ups in 1999, 2002 and November 2009. But the engagements were between the two navies and had limited casualties[/u][/b]. These confrontations were not unlike the interaction between American and Soviet forces in hot spots during the Cold War -- a little breast beating and turf establishment [b][u][color=black]Now, we have an artillery barrage aimed at civilian villages.[/color][/u][/b][color=black] [/color][color=black]Casualty reports are so far unreliable, but the most credible local outlets say that some 60 homes are ablaze. Dozens of soldiers from the South may be injured and at least two might be dead. [/color][b][u][color=black]The South responded with its own artillery and, possibly, a fighter jet strike against the Northern battery. [/color][/u][/b][color=black]The incident apparently began with South Korean military exercises off the islands. It comes at a bad moment[/color][color=black]. [b][u]Still hanging over the relationship between North and South is the sinking of the Cheonan in March. The torpedoed warship took 46 sailors down with it. There has yet to be any resolution of the incident.[/u][/b] [/color][color=black]The [/color][color=black]U.S.[/color][color=black] is still calling for an apology and the North has been promising a "physical" response to joint U.S.-South Korean exercises held this summer as a show of strength and solidarity. [/color][b][u][color=black]Worse, is the report from a U.S. nuclear scientist this week that [/color][/u][/b][url="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/north-korea.htm#r_src=ramp"]North Korea[/url][b][u][color=black] is making highly enriched uranium that could be exported[/color][/u][/b][color=black] [/color][color=black]to those even rogue-ier than the Johnnie Walker-swilling, Madeline Albright-twirling Kim Jong Il. We might have little to fear from the balky rockets of [/color][url="http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/north-korea.htm#r_src=ramp"]North Korea[/url][color=black], even those armed with the hand-me down nukes the country got from [/color][color=black]China[/color][color=black]. But if the NorKs are selling HEU on the nuclear black market, we have a big, big problem. [/color][b][u][color=black]This all comes as an ailing Kim is looking to hand the reins over to his 27-year-old son, Kim Jong Un[/color][/u][/b][color=black].[/color]
 [color=black][font=Arial]

[/font][/color]
 [font=&quot]
[/font]  [b]E- The [/b][b]US[/b][b] should withdraw the ground components of the [/b][b]US[/b][b] Forces [/b][b]Korea[/b][b]. The continued existence of US forces allows [/b][b]North   Korea[/b][b] to dictate [/b][b]US[/b][b] involvement in attacks and by just leaving air and naval forces the [/b][b]US[/b][b] would be more able to deter agression.[/b]
 [b]Stanton[/b][b] 10[/b]
 [color=#262626]It's Time for the U.S. Army to Leave [/color][color=#262626]Korea[/color][color=#262626] [/color][b][color=#394265]Joshua Stanton: After 60 Years, It's Time We Should Withdraw[/color][/b][b][color=#262626] [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/11/opinion/main6386737.shtml[/url][/color][/b]
 [color=#262626][font=&quot]Proceeding against the advice of my cardiologist, I must concede that for once, Ron Paul is actually on to something. [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]The ground component of U.S. Forces Korea[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot], which [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]costs U.S. taxpayers [/font][/color][/u][/b][font=&quot][url="http://www.freekorea.us/2007/09/24/some-usfk-stats-and-history/"]billions of dollars[/url][/font][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] a year to maintain[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot], [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]is an equally unaffordable political liability on the South Korean street. [/font][/color][b][u][font=&quot]We should withdraw it[/font][color=#262626][font=&quot].[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot] Every Saturday night off-post brawl is a headline in the muck-raking Korean press, for which the American soldier is inevitably blamed, and for which angry mobs perpetually demand renegotiations of the Status of Force Agreement to give Korea’s [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://freekorea.us/?p=5877"]not-even-remotely-fair[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] judicial system more jurisdiction over American soldiers.  [/font][/color][font=&quot]The South Korean people do not appreciate the security our soldiers provide. [url="http://freekorea.us/2005/08/07/signs-of-the-times-so-this-is-why-i-spent-four-years-in-korea/"]The way some of them treat our soldiers[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] ought to be a national scandal. Many off-post businesses don’t even let Americans through their front doors. The degree of anti-Americanism in [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] is sufficient to be a significant force protection issue in the event of hostilities.  [/font][/color][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot] does not have our back. [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot] made much of the fact that it sent 3,000 soldiers to [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot], where they [url="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050128-korea-iraq.htm"]sat behind concrete barriers[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] in a secure Kurdish area of [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot], protected by peshmerga, making no military contribution and taking no combat casualties. Their contribution to the effort in Afghanistan has been [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://www.freekorea.us/2009/05/05/south-korea-always-there-when-they-need-us/"]negligible[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot], which is more than can be said of their contribution to the Taliban (previous President Roh Moo Hyun reportedly paid them a ransom of up to [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://freekorea.us/2007/09/01/a-death-in-the-alliance/"]$20 million[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] in 2007 to free South Korean hostages who took it upon themselves to charter a shiny new bus to bring Christianity to Kandahar). [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] has been an equally [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://freekorea.us/2005/03/30/the-death-of-alliance-part-vi-2/"]unsteady ally[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] against [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]China[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot].  [/font][/color][b][u][font=&quot]The American security blanket has fostered a state of national adolescence by the South Korean public.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]Too many of them ([url="http://freekorea.us/2001/08/16/ofk-archive-anti-americanism-in-koreathe-statistical-record/"]some polls[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] suggest most) see [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]America[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] as a barrier to reunification with their ethnic kindred in the North. Maybe nothing short of a North Korean attack on the South can encourage more sober thinking by South Koreans about their own security, but I suspect a greater sense of self-reliance and even vulnerability might.  [/font][/color][font=&quot]During my service in [/font][font=&quot]Korea[/font][font=&quot], as [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] taxpayers subsidized [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot]’s defense, [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot] subsidized Kim Jong Il’s potential offense with [url="http://freekorea.us/2006/09/08/the-seven-billion-dollar-man/"]billions of dollars[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] in hard currency that sustained the very threat against which we were ostensibly helping to defend. [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] never made [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]North Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]’s disarmament a condition of this aid. Instead, that aid effectively undermined [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] and U.N. sanctions meant to force [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]North Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] to disarm. [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://www.freekorea.us/2010/04/10/some-brief-thoughts-on-the-end-of-kumgang/"]What does South Korea have to show[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] for this colossal outlay now.  [/font][/color][font=&quot]Because [/font][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][font=&quot], now one the world’s wealthiest nations, expects up to 600,000 American soldiers to arrive protect it from any security contingency, successive South Korean governments actually [url="http://freekorea.us/2006/07/12/sticker-shock-a-post-usfk-south-korea-must-do-less-for-more/"]cut their nation’s defense[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] rather than modernizing it and building an effective independent defense. Consequently, [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] still has a 1970-vintage force structure, designed around a 1970-vintage threat, equipped with 1970-vintage weapons. This is partly the legacy of ten years of leftist administrations, but[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [b][u]it’s[/u][/b] [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]also [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]the legacy of military welfare that allowed [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] to defer upgrading its equipment,[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot] [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]building a professional volunteer army, and organizing an effective reserve force to deal with security contingencies.[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [b][u]Worst of all, South Korea diverted billions of dollars that should have been spent on modernizing its military into regime-sustaining aid to Kim Jong Il, to be used[/u][/b], [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]as far as anyone knows, [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]for nukes, missiles, artillery, and pretty much everything but infant formula.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot] [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]To this day, [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] continues to resist accepting operational control over its own forces in the event of war.  [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]The [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] Army presence in [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]Korea[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] is an anachronism, defending against the extinct threat of a conventional North Korean invasion. The far greater danger is that if Kim Jong Il assesses our current president as weak, he will choose more limited or less conventional means to strike at our soldiers and their families.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot] [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]Given the reported [/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://www.freekorea.us/2010/02/21/were-the-taliban-casing-yongsan/"]presence of Taliban operatives[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot] in [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]Seoul[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot], he might even plausibly deny responsibility for an attack.  Thus, while I don’t go so far as to accept the Princess Bride Doctrine (”never get involved in a land war in Asia”), I do not believe it is wise for us [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]to have our forces within easy artillery range of Kim Jong Il[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot],[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] such that[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [b][u]he may freely choose the time, place, and manner of our involvement  [/u][/b][/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]I offer two qualifications here. First, this is not to suggest that we unilaterally abrogate the alliance with [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]South Korea[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot].[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [b][u]Our air and naval installations in [/u][/b][/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot]Korea[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] provide [/font][/color][/u][/b][font=&quot][url="http://freekorea.us/2006/01/21/the-death-of-an-alliance-part-30/"]useful power-projection capability[/url][/font][b][u][color=#262626][font=&quot] and are far more secure, ironically, than our many scattered and isolated Army posts.

[/font][/color][/u][color=#262626][font=&quot][/font][/color][/b][color=#262626][font=&quot]Here is the Iraq aff ... read at every other tournament this year (the inherency cards change each week but this is a basic structure):

[/font][/color]  [b]Observation 1- Despite claims to fully withdraw, the most recent plan will retain troops in [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] for decades.[/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Watson 10[/font][/b]
 [color=#262626][font=&quot]Paul Joseph Watson
[/font][/color][font=&quot][url="http://www.prisonplanet.com/"]Prison Planet.com[/url][/font][color=#262626][font=&quot]
Friday, [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot]August  13, 2010[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=&quot] [url]http://www.prisonplanet.com/iraqs-top-general-u-s-troops-should-stay-until-2020.html[/url][/font][/color]
 Iraq’s top general has called for U.S. troops to stay in the country until 2020, a telling reminder that [b][u]President Barack Obama’s supposed withdrawal more than seven years after the 2003 invasion is nothing more than a publicity stunt, with tens of thousands of [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] forces remaining as a residual occupying army for decades to come.[/u][/b] “At this point, the withdrawal is going well, because they [u.S. forces] are still here,” Lt. Gen. Babakir Zebari told a news conference in the Baghdad. “But the problem will start after 2011.” “If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians, ‘the U.S. army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020,’” he said. [b][u][color=#262626]Despite public pronouncements by Obama that a plan to fully withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 is in progress, the details of the agreement actually establish a permanent presence of a sizable occupying force in perpetuity.[/color][/u][/b]
 [b][color=#262626]Thus the plan:[/color][/b]

 [b][color=#262626]The [/color][/b][b][color=#262626]United States[/color][/b][b][color=#262626] Federal Government will order an immediate withdrawal of all [/color][/b][b][color=#262626]US[/color][/b][b][color=#262626] troops from the [/color][/b][b][color=#262626]Republic[/color][/b][b][color=#262626] of [/color][/b][b][color=#262626]Iraq[/color][/b][b][color=#262626]. Funding, enforcement, administration, and logistics will be through necessary means. We will clarify our intent.[/color][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Advantage 1- OIL[/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]First, despite monthly fluctuations in oil prices, it is still on an upward trend.[/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Yonan [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]8/14/10[/font][/b][b][font=&quot][/font][/b]
 Costs also rise on the neighbor islands as the price of crude oil continues upward By Alan Yonan Jr. POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Aug 14, 2010 [url]http://www.staradvertiser.com/business/businessnews/20100814_oahu_prices_reach_2_year_high.html[/url]
 [b][u][font=&quot]Crude oil prices, while fluctuating from month to month, have been on an upward trend during the past year. The benchmark contract on the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]New York[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] Mercantile Exchange closed at $75.39 yesterday, up 7 percent from $70.52 in August 2009. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]"[/font][font=&quot]Fortunately, [/font][b][u][font=&quot]the price of oil[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]is well below the $147-a-barrel high of late summer 2008. But it [/font][b][u][font=&quot]is still high,[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]"[/font][font=&quot] said HECO spokesman Peter Rosegg. In September 2008 the electricity rate for [/font][font=&quot]Oahu[/font][font=&quot] was 32.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.[/font]
 [font=&quot] [/font]
 [b]And we are on the brink. Small increases in oil prices now could cause the Federal Reserve to engage in quantitative easing to stop deflation. This would crush the economy.[/b]

 [b]Schiff 10[/b]
 [font=&quot]Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital Peter Schiff: Preventing a devastating decline in the dollar [/font][font=&quot]8/10/10[/font][font=&quot][/font]
 [font=&quot]http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20100810/FREE/100819996[/font]
 But [b][u]the oil market holds far more near-term significance.[/u][/b] On Monday, oil busted through the $80 price ceiling that had held since May.[b][u] Any additional breaks to the upside would be extremely significant and could potentially send crude up to the mid-$90s before another correction takes hold. The danger for the dollar is that rising oil prices could be considered one of the unforeseen "negative shocks" of which Fed President Bullard warns, triggering a new round of inflation. If the government fears the "recovery" will be derailed by higher energy prices, then look for quantitative easing to become the driving force of our economic policy. The Fed will perversely argue that rising oil prices are deflationary, as they will cause cash-strapped consumers to reduce spending on other goods[/u][/b]. In reality, higher oil prices are merely evidence of the inflation the Fed itself has been creating. [b][u]Instead of solving our problems, quantitative easing could tip the dollar into a death spiral. [/u][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b][font=&quot]Economic turmoil causes war. The longer the recovery takes the more likely war is.[/font][/b]
 [font=&quot] [/font]
 [b][color=black][font=&quot]Haniff 09[/font][/color][/b]
 [color=black][font=&quot]Financial crisis bigger threat than Al Qaeda, says US intelligence czar, Aziz Haniff, the National Affairs Editor and Chief Diplomatic and Political correspondent of India Abroad--the oldest and largest circulating South Asian newspaper in North America and the largest outside of India.He has been covering Washington for over 18 years since joining India Abroad and over the years has scored many scoops and done tons of exlusives, including interviews with presidents, prime ministers, cabinet ministers, and US and South Asian lawmakers., [url]http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2009/feb/15bcrisis-financial-crisis-bigger-threat-than-al-qaeda-says-us-intel-chief.htm[/url][/font][/color]
 [b][u][font=&quot]The plunging global economy is an even bigger threat to the United States' national security than the al Qaeda terrorist network or proliferation of weapons of mass destr[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]uction[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot],[/font][font=&quot] according to America's new intelligence czar.Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the Obama administration's Director of National Intelligence, in his first appearance before the US Congress, stated,[/font][font=&quot] "[/font][b][u][font=&quot]The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]." [/font][font=&quot]Traditionally, US intelligence chiefs always preface their opening remarks with either terrorist or nuclear proliferation threats, but Blair's first sentences in his testimony before the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was about the economy.Blair said, "The crisis has been going on for over a year, and economists are divided over whether and when we could hit bottom. Some even fear that the recession could further deepen and reach the level of the Great Depression." "Of course,[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]all of us recall the dramatic political consequences wrought by the economic turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Europe[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], the instability, and high levels of violent extremism," he said. "Though we don't know its eventual scale, it already looms as the most serious global and economic and financial crisis in decades,[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]"[/font][font=&quot] he added. Blair pointed out, "Industrialised countries are already in recession and growth in emerging market countries, previously thought to be immune from industrialised countries' crises, has also faltered, and many are in recession as well." "Even China's dynamic growth engines have taken a hit as they grapple with falling demand for their exports and slowdown in foreign direct investment and portfolio investments," he said. Blair served notice that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging market nations over the next year, prompting additional countries to request International Monetary Fund or other multilateral or bilateral support." [/font][font=&quot]"[/font][b][u][font=&quot]Time is probably our greatest threat[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]," [/font][font=&quot]he said. [/font][b][u][font=&quot]"The longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to US' strategic interests."[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]Blair added, "Roughly, a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instabilities such as government changes because of the current slowdown."[/font]
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b]Independently, rising oil prices also increase food prices. This causes mass starvation.[/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Mark 06[/font][/b]
 Will the End of Oil Be the End Of Food? By Jason Mark, AlterNet co-author, with Kevin Danaher, of "Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power." He is researching a book about the future of food Posted on August 31, 2006, Printed on August 19, 2010 [url]http://www.alternet.org/story/41023/[/url]
 For farmers like Randall, today's challenges may be tomorrow's crises. The problems of coping with [b][u]high oil prices reveal how utterly dependent our food production system is on nonrenewable fuels.[/u][/b] As long as oil is plentiful, that dependence isn't a concern. But in some circles fears are growing that [b][u]if global petroleum production begins a steady decline, our entire food system will be strained, testing our ability to feed ourselves.[/u][/b]"How dependent on oil is our food system?" Richard Heinberg, a leading "peak oil" scholar and the author of [url="http://alternet.bookswelike.net/isbn/0865715297"]The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies[/url] said in an interview. "Enormously dependent. Fatally dependent, I would say." Of course, you won't find any oil on your dinner plate, but [b][u]petroleum and other fossil fuels are inside of every bite you eat. About one-fifth of all [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] energy use goes into the food system. [/u][/b]The synthetic nitrogen fertilizers that are essential for high crop yields are a byproduct of natural gas. Gasoline and diesel fuels power the combines that rumble through the grain fields. Countless kilowatts of electricity are burned up in the factories that process all of the packaged goods that line the supermarket shelves. And then there's the gasoline required simply to get food to market. We now have a globalized food system, one in which the typical American meal travels 1,500 miles from farm to fork. Organic products -- though they may have a more sustainable veneer -- are in many respects no different; 10 percent of organic products come from abroad. Without oil, we would all be on one harsh diet. [b][u]"We've created an agricultural system where, on average, for every energy of food calorie we produce, we need to expend about 10 calories of fossil fuels,[/u][/b]" Heinberg said. Such an imbalance would not be worrisome if there were an inexhaustible supply of oil. But, as every child learns in elementary science class, petroleum is a nonrenewable resource. A heated debate is under way about when that resource will begin to decline. Some say that we have already passed the summit of peak oil and point to a leveling of global petroleum production as proof. The U.S. government argues that we have decades before oil extraction begins to decline. Others calculate that we will hit the peak oil mark sometime in the next 10 years. Regardless of when exactly oil production starts to drop, it's clear that in this century humanity will have to learn to live without cheap, abundant oil. What this means for our food system is also up for debate. At the very least, [b][u]costlier oil will lead to more expensive food,[/u][/b] especially for processed[b][u] and [/u][/b]packaged goods. At the very worst, peak oil [b][u]could seriously disrupt agriculture,[/u][/b] especially in highly industrialized nations like the United States, where food systems are heavily reliant on oil. "This era of increasing globalization of our food supply is going to draw to a close here in the next decade or so," Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association, said. "I think it (eventual oil scarcities) is going to mean the end of importing billions of dollars of food from overseas[b][u]. [/u][/b][b][u]It's going to mean the end of relatively cheap food in the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] And it's going to mean a significant increase in starvation and malnourishment across the world."[/u][/b][b]
[/b] 
 [b]And even small increases in food prices put food out of reach for over 1 billion people. [/b]
 [b]Power 96[/b]
 Tampa Tribune ‘96  [Paul Power Jr., “Grain shortage growing problem,” Jan 20, LN] 
 There are more people in this world than ever, but less grain to feed them. That's kindled fears of a world food crisis, a problem Florida may help prevent. Poor weather, drought, political unrest and [b][u]economic shifts[/u][/b] have decreased planting, pushing world grain reserves to record lows. Meanwhile, the world's population grew by 100 million, to 5.75 billion in 1995 - a record increase. Now, miners in West Central Florida are digging out phosphate more quickly, so it can be used to make fertilizer. Analysts are warning about the increasing possibility of flood or drought in the world's food-producing regions. That [b][u]can push food prices much higher, both here and abroad, and even cause famine in the poorest countries. [/u][/b]U.S. food prices may rise more than 4 percent this year, ahead of the rate of inflation. "Conditions today indicate that there is at least some vulnerability in the food supply," said Sara Schwartz, an agricultural economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Corn and soybean production plunged last year in the United States, she said. Wet weather slowed grain planting in the United States and Canada. Elsewhere, drought and civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa cut production to 20 percent below normal. The European Union has less than one quarter of the grain reserves it held in 1993. The amount of corn expected to be available in the United States by summer - when corn is harvested - was trimmed  by crop forecasters this week to 507 million bushels, the lowest in 20 years. On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 
 1995, world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institutein Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he 
 said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersennoted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security.  During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. [b][u]"Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food[/u][/b],"he said. "[b][u]Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the[/u][/b] developing [b][u]world who live on a dollar a day or less." [/u][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b]Withdrawing from [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] would drop oil prices. Experts agree that withdrawing troops from [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] would reduce oil prices because of reduced supply threats and a stronger dollar.[/b]
 [b]Lindorff 08[/b]
 [font=&quot]Want Cheaper Gas and Oil? End the Damned Wars! by Dave Lindorff Philadelphia-based journalist. [url]http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/17/9017[/url][/font]
 One analyst, [b][u]economist Ismael Hussein-Zadeh, a professor of economics at [/u][/b][b][u]Drake[/u][/b][b][/b][b][u][font=&quot]University[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]in [/font][font=&quot]Des Moines[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Iowa[/font][font=&quot], has a different explanation for the price rise, and American motorists and homeowners should pay close attention. "Oil prices have gone from the mid $20 range in the fall of 2002 to $127 yesterday -- a rise of $100/barrel in just over five years," he says. "And the bulk of that increase can be attributed to the [/font][font=&quot]US[/font][font=&quot] wars in [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][font=&quot], and to the threats of war against [/font][font=&quot]Iran[/font][font=&quot]." Hussein-Zadeh's analysis[/font] [b][u]looks[/u][/b] [b][u]at a number of ways that the[/u][/b] Bush/Cheney [b][u]wars have contributed to rising oil prices. Chief among these are two factors: the threat to supplies, particularly from the [/u][/b][b][u]Persian  Gulf[/u][/b][b][u] region[/u][/b] from which 20 percent of the world's oil supplies come,[b][u] and a falling dollar, because oil is priced in dollars, and as it loses value, oil producing countries raise their prices to compensate[/u][/b]. In an article titled "Worried About the Price of Gas? End US Wars," Hussein-Zadeh writes, "Soon after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the price of oil began to escalate in tandem with the escalation of war and political turbulence in the Middle East." Furthermore, he says, "Anytime there is a renewed US military threat against Iran, fuel prices move up several notches." If the US were to actually make good on Bush's and Cheney's threats to attack Iran, in Hussein-Zadeh's view "the sky would be the limit" to oil prices, with $200/barrel being a starting point. [b][u]The dollar's fall, too, is significantly a result of the [/u][/b]wars-particularly the[b][u] Iraq War, [/u][/b]he says.[b][u] That war has been costing the US $200 billion a year, all in borrowed funds. That in itself is a huge hole that has to be funded by borrowing from [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u], [/u][/b][b][u]Japan[/u][/b][b][u], [/u][/b][b][u]Saudi Arabia[/u][/b][b][u] and other nations. But as Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the true cost of the [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] War, when interest on debt, health costs of injured veterans and other long-term costs are factored in, is more like $3 trillion and rising.[/u][/b] And when currency speculators and traders -- the ones who really set the value of the dollar -- make their bets, they're looking at that bigger number, not the little one. Moreover, [b][u]it's not just oil that has been driven up in price because of the war. As energy costs have gone up, so has the cost of food, in no small part because most fertilizer is oil-based, and because transportation costs are also largely a reflection of oil prices[/u][/b][b][u].[/u][/b] [font=&quot]As well, to the extent that American's food is imported, they are paying in shrinking dollars, whose value is being driven down because of the war. Hussein-Zadeh says the Bush/Cheney administration and its neoconservative war promoters have worked hard to offer other more benign explanations for the crippling rise in energy prices, and food prices. As he puts it: Neoconservative forces in and around the Bush administration and beneficiaries of war dividends -- wishing to deflect attention away from war as the main culprit for the skyrocketing energy prices -- tend to blame secondary or marginally relevant factors: OPEC, China and India for their increased demand for energy, or supply-demand imbalances in global markets. Whatever the contributory role of these factors, the fact remains that the current oil price hikes started with the beginning of the Bush administration's wars against [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][font=&quot]. Furthermore, a closer examination of these factors reveals that their roles in the current price inflation of oil have been negligible. Common sense bears him out here. China's and India's economies have indeed been growing rapidly, and with them, demand for oil, but over the past five years, oil prices have risen 400%, and the same cannot be said for demand. Even if Chinese and Indian growth figures of 7-9 percent per year were accurate (and there is reason to believe they are grossly inflated), that at best would amount to perhaps a 50% increase in economic activity over five years. In fact, during this time more efficient energy use in the developed countries has largely offset much of the increasing demand for oil in China and India, and even in China and India, much of the energy growth has involved replacing inefficient vehicles and power plants with more efficient ones, so oil consumption isn't rising in lock step with economic growth[/font]. [b][u]The answer then, to rising oil prices, is obvious then[/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot].[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]It is not some silly two-month moratorium on federal taxes-what Sen. McCain referred to, in a candid moment, as a "little gift" to American vacationers. Nor is it opening up the Artic refuge to drilling -- a move that would take years to lead to any significant new supply, and which in any case would have minimal impact on overall supply, or on prices. Nor is it opening up the Strategic Oil Reserve -- another drop in the barrel. Nor is it hammering OPEC to boost production -- something they have already done. No, it is much simpler. As Hussein-Zadeh puts it: The political implications of this discussion are clear[/font][font=&quot]:[/font] [b][u]to bring down the prices of fuel and food requires bringing home the troops. By lowering the energy costs of production and transportation this will help save our own and many other economies from the plagues of inflation and stagnation. It will bring relief to hundreds of millions worldwide who are burdened by crippling energy bills and the crushing costs of feeding their families. [/u][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b]And history is on our side. When countries withdraw from [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] oil prices drop. [/b][b]Turkey[/b][b] proves this is true.[/b]
 [b]Wilen 07[/b]
 John Wilen, AP Business Writer Oil falls as Turks withdraw from Iraq  12/18/07 ://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-12-17-3815204975_x.htm
 [b][u]Oil prices fell Tuesday after Kurdish officials said Turkish troops that entered [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] early Tuesday have returned to [/u][/b][b][u]Turkey[/u][/b][b][u], reducing worries that the conflict would cut oil supplies from the region[/u][/b]. Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the regional Kurdistan government, told The Associated Press that the Turkish troops had withdrawn. Earlier they had gone about 1 1/2 miles into northern Iraq in an operation against Kurdish rebels. The Iraqi government said it was an unacceptable action that would lead to "complicated problems."[b][u] The threat of[/u][/b] just such[b][u] a Turkish incursion into [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] was one of the many factors behind oil's rise to near $100 a barrel in November.[/u][/b] While oil futures have since retreated from those highs on a view that global supplies of crude are growing as demand is falling, concerns about supply disruptions remain high.[b][u] Oil prices jumped more than $2 earlier Tuesday before news of the Turkish withdrawal "threw cold water on the rally,"[/u][/b] said Addison Armstrong, director, exchange traded markets at TFS Energy Futures LLC in Stamford, Conn. Light, sweet crude for January delivery fell 14 cents to settle at $90.49 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after trading as low as $88.88 when the Turkish withdrawal was announced. Analysts attributed some of Tuesday's price volatility to the January contract's expiration. February crude fell 97 cents to settle at $90.08 a barrel on the Nymex.
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b][font=&quot]Advantage 2. [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] Civil War[/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]First, [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]US[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] military presence in [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] is intensifying the prospects of civil war in [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/b][b][font=&quot].[/font][/b]
 [font=&quot]Englehardt 8[/font]
 [font=&quot](Tom, Teaching Fellow at UC-Berkeley and Co-founder of The American Empire Project, Nation Report’s Tom Dispatch, 3/20)dc[/font][font=&quot][/font]
  No[b], the [/b]U.S. military does not stand between Iraq and civil war: As with fragmentation, the U.S. military's presence has, in fact, been a motor for civil war in that country. The invasion and subsequent chaos, as well as punitive acts against the Sunni minority, allowed Sunni extremists, some of whom took the name "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia," to establish themselves as a force in the country for the first time. Later, U.S. military operations in both Sunni and Shiite areas regularly repressed local militias -- almost the only forces capable of bringing some semblance of security to urban neighborhoods -- opening the way for the most extreme members of the other community (Sunni suicide or car bombers and Shiite death squads) to attack. It's worth remembering that it was in the surge months of 2007, when all those extra American troops hit Baghdad neighborhoods, that many of the city's mixed or Sunni neighborhoods were most definitively "cleansed" by death squads, producing a 75-80% Shiite capital. Iraq is now embroiled in what Juan Cole has termed "three civil wars," two of which (in the south and the north) are largely beyond the reach of limited American ground forces and all of which could become far worse. The still low-level struggle between Kurds and Arabs (with the Turks hovering nearby) for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in the north may be the true explosion point to come. The U.S. military sits precariously atop this mess, at best putting off to the future aspects of the present civil-war landscape,  but more likely intensifying it.  
 [font=&quot] [/font]
 [b]Iraq[/b][b] civil war would escalate to nuclear war.[/b]
 [b]Corsi 07[/b]
 Jorome Corsi, Writer for WorldNetDaily. 1/8/07. World Net Daily, “War with Iran is Imminent.” [url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669[/url]
 [b][u]If a broader war breaks out in Iraq[/u][/b], Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, [b][u]it will only be a matter of time before [/u][/b][b][u]Israel[/u][/b][b][u] and the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] have no choice but to invade [/u][/b][b][u]Syria[/u][/b][b][u]. The [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] war could quickly spin into a regional war,[/u][/b] with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons.  With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? [b][u]If we get more deeply involved in [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u], [/u][/b][b][u]China[/u][/b][b][u] may have their moment to go after [/u][/b][b][u]Taiwan[/u][/b][b][u] once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war[/u][/b], much as World Wars I and II began
 [font=&quot] [/font]
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Fortunately, ONLY A COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL SOLVES. Troop presence guarantees a delay in reconciliation and saps [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]US[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] international diplomatic effectiveness. The day we withdraw we begin to solve.[/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Richardson[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] 07[/font][/b]
 [font=&quot]Why We Should Exit Iraq Now Bill Richardson Governor of New Mexico [/font][font=&quot]Saturday,  September 8, 2007[/font][font=&quot] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702063.html[/url][/font]
 [b][u]Those who think we need to keep troops in [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] misunderstand the [/u][/b][b][u]Middle East[/u][/b][b][u].[/u][/b] I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that [b][u]only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long. Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u], reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.[/u][/b] The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. [b][u]The day we leave, this myth collapses,[/u][/b] and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. [b][u]Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists[/u][/b] who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.

 [b]And only a full withdrawal without pre-conditions will work. Anything else will cause policy paralysis.[/b]
 [b]Odom, a professor at Yale, 06[/b]
 [font=&quot]How to cut and run from Iraq [/font][font=&quot][/font][font=&quot]  William E. Odom senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University., Los Angeles Times-Washington Post  [/font][font=&quot][/font][font=&quot]  Published: 00:00 November 4, 2006 [url]http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/how-to-cut-and-run-from-iraq-1.264456[/url][/font]
 [b][u]The [/u][/b][b][u]United   States[/u][/b][b][u] upset the regional balance in the [/u][/b][b][u]Middle East[/u][/b][b][u] when it invaded [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u].[/u][/b] Restoring it requires bold initiatives, but "cutting and running" must precede them all. [b][u]Only a complete withdrawal of all [/u][/b][b][u]US[/u][/b][b][u] troops - [/u][/b]within six months and[b][u] with no preconditions - can break the paralysis that enfeebles our diplomacy.[/u][/b] And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public.  Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the president's conjured set of illusions: that we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq; creating democracy there; preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; making Israel more secure; not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in vain; and others. But reality no longer can be avoided. [b][u]It is beyond US power to prevent bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighbouring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Moqtada Al Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread of instability beyond Iraq.  [/u][/b]
 [b][u][color=black][font=&quot]
[/font][/color][/u][/b]  [b][u][font=&quot] [/font][/u][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]We must act now. Delaying the process will be seen as a betrayal, will embolden terrorists, and will cause any achievements in [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] to be lost. [/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Jarrar 10 [/font][/b]
 [font=&quot](Raed, Senior Fellow, Peace Action, The Progressive, May[/font][font=&quot] 26, [/font][font=&quot][url]http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/26-1[/url][/font][font=&quot]) SM[/font][font=&quot][/font]
 [b][u][font=&quot]While most Iraqis would agree that [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] is still broken, delaying [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]or canceling[/font][b][u][font=&quot] the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] troop removal will definitely not be seen as "flexibility," but rather as a betrayal [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]of promises. Iraqis believe that prolonging the military occupation will not fix what the occupation has damaged, and they don't think that extending the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] intervention will protect them from other interventions[/font][font=&quot]. The vast majority of Iraqis see the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] military presence as a part of the problem, not the solution[/font][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]Linking [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]withdrawal to conditions on the ground creates an equation by which further deterioration in [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] will automatically lead to prolonging the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] military presence. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]Some of the current Iraqi ruling parties want the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] occupation to continue because they have been benefiting from it. [/font][font=&quot]Some regional players, including the Iranian government, do not want an independent and strong [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] to re-emerge[/font][font=&quot]. And other groups, including[/font][b][u][font=&quot] Al Qaeda, would gladly see the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]United States[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] stuck in the current quagmire, losing its blood, treasure and reputation[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]Connecting the pullout to the prevalent situation would be an open invitation to those who seek an endless war to sabotage [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] even further, and delaying it will send the wrong message to them[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]. [/font][font=&quot]By contrast,[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]adhering to the current time-based plan would pull the rug from under their feet and allow Iraqis to stabilize their nation[/u][/b], [b][u]a process [/u][/b][/font][font=&quot]that may take many years but[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]that cannot begin as long as [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]'s sovereignty is breached by foreign interventions.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]If the Obama administration reneges on its plans, it will effectively reward those responsible for the bloodshed and further embolden them. Such a decision would most likely have serious ramifications for the security of [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] troops in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], and will impede the security and political progress in the country[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]And[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]delaying the U.S. pullout will not only harm the U.S. image around the world, [/u][/b][/font][font=&quot]which Obama has been trying hard to improve[/font][b][u][font=&quot], but it will also be the final blow to U.S. credibility in Iraq. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]The mere promise of a complete withdrawal has boosted Iraqi domestic politics and enhanced the [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] perception in the country[/font][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot]Unless Obama delivers on his promises, many of these achievements will be lost, and [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] will be sent back to square one[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]. [/font]

[b]The war in [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] is waged through a racist ideology. We must individually call on the government to end the war to end racism. [/b]
 [b]Hudgson 10[/b]
 Imperialism, Islamophobia, and Torture  By Adam Hudson, published October, 2010 
 [url]http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=893[/url]
 [b][u]Racism is not just an individual problem of prejudice or hate. It is an ideology used to justify systems of hegemony and oppression. It creates a binary between the Self and the Other[/u][/b]. The Self is ascribed all positive aspects of humanity, such as rationality, intelligence, high culture, and credit for creating the benefits of modern civilization.[b][u] The Other is ascribed all negative aspects of humanity, such as irrationality, primitivity, criminality, and barbarity. By categorizing certain groups as inferior “others”, hegemonic powers rob those people of their humanity, thus, making it easier to commit acts of brutality against them for imperial interests. Racism, under the banner of “manifest destiny”, was used to justify the genocide[/u][/b] committed against the Native Americans that made room for American territorial expansion. [b][u]Racism was used to justify the enslavement of millions of black Africans whose free labor was exploited to work on plantations and build the American economy. Despite the advancements made during the civil rights movement, racism still exists in many areas of American life[/u][/b], such as the disproportionate number of African-Americans and Latinos in prison, de facto housing segregation, inequality in the education system, and police brutality committed against people of color. Some of the most recent cases of police brutality were the deaths of 22-year-old Oscar Grant in Oakland[url="http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=893#_edn16"][xvi][/url] and 7-year-old Aiyana Jones in Detroit[url="http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=893#_edn17"][xvii][/url] – both of whom were African-American. [b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s wars against[/u][/b] Afghanistan and[b][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] serve to maintain American global hegemony and access to key resources such as oil. The racist dehumanization of Muslims[/u][/b], Arabs and South Asians[b][u] is committed to justify America’s wars and acts of torture primarily against people from countries whose populations are predominantly Muslim and black and brown-skinned, such as Iraq,[/u][/b] Afghanistan, and Yemen. [b][u]It is not difficult to witness the manifestations of Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism in American society.[/u][/b] It exists within the media and underlies the sophistry of politicians and leading intellectuals. Muslims, Arabs and South Asians are always suspected of being terrorists, similar to how black and Latino people are suspected of being drug-dealers, gang members and criminals. Racism is the fundamental ideological motivation behind America’s wars and use of torture. [b][u]The key task now is to end [/u][/b][b][u]America[/u][/b][b][u]’s use of torture and, more broadly, eliminate racism and imperialism; a daunting task but a necessary one, nevertheless. First, it is important for everyone, of all races, to see and treat every other person as a human being. Despite our cultural differences, we are part of one human family. Second, it is crucial that we hold our political leaders accountable for authorizing acts of torture and starting wars.[/u][/b] At Stanford, we can start by pressuring our government to hold current Professor and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and other government officials, accountable for authorizing torture and engaging in aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Third, it is vital that we work to build institutions that foster peace instead of war and sustain humanity rather than destroy it. [b][u]To build a better future for humanity is by no means an easy task. But a million-mile journey begins with one step. Let’s make that first step.[/u][/b]

   [b]The sole reason that the [/b][b]US[/b][b] is in [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] is for democracy promotion. However, this effort is failing. There are many warrants as to why this will never work.[/b]
 [b]Layne 10[/b]
 [url="http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing"]Who Lost Iraq and Why It Matters: The Case for Offshore Balancing[/url]  August 19, 2010 [b][i][font=&quot]Christopher Layne [/font][/i][/b][i][font=&quot]holds the Mary Julia and George R. Jordan professorship of international affairs at [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]Texas[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]A & M[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]University[/font][/i][i][font=&quot]’s [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]George[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]H.[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]W.[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]Bush[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]School[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] of Government and Public Service [url]http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing[/url][/font][/i]
 [font=&quot]The neoconservative conclusion—that the key lesson learned from the Iraqi disaster is “next time do it right”—is fundamentally wrong. The [/font][font=&quot]United States[/font][font=&quot] still would have failed in [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] even if American policy had been executed flawlessly[/font].[b][u] The correct lesson from [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] is “next time, don’t do it.” [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] policies of regime change and democracy promotion at the point of a bayonet almost never succeed. The problems began with the real reasons that the administration went to war[/u][/b]: pursuit of regime change and [b][u]democratization in [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]Although the administration repeatedly claimed a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/113 and exaggerated and intentionally miscalculated the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), President Bush himself has made it clear he did not embark on war because of these imagined provocations. In a December 2005 speech, after conceding that prewar intelligence estimates about Iraqi WMD were “wrong,” Bush said that “it wasn’t a mistake to go into [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot]. It was the right decision to make.... We are in [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] in its place.” Doubtless the United States and the world would be better off if brutish rulers like Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamic clerics who rule Iran were deposed and replaced by democratic governments. However, as former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft has observed[/font][b][u][font=&quot],[/font][/u][/b][b][u] “in the process of trying to do it you can make the [/u][/b][b][u]Middle East[/u][/b][b][u] a lot worse.”4 [/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u]’s track record in democracy promotion and nation-building is not encouraging. Since the early 1990s, the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] has attempted to implant democracy—without any notable success[/u][/b]—[font=&quot]in [/font][font=&quot]Panama[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Somalia[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Haiti[/font][font=&quot], [/font][font=&quot]Bosnia[/font][font=&quot], Kosovo, and [/font][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][font=&quot]. [/font][font=&quot]U.S.[/font][font=&quot] efforts to assist post-Soviet [/font][font=&quot]Russia[/font][font=&quot]’s democratization, a key American aim since the Cold War’s end, also have been disappointing. The two cases where the [/font][font=&quot]United States[/font][font=&quot] did succeed, in [/font][font=&quot]Germany[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Japan[/font][font=&quot] after World War II, highlight the unique circumstances required for a democratic transition under a foreign power’s military occupation. Both Axis powers were utterly defeated and surrendered unconditionally; both were occupied by an overwhelming number of American (and, in [/font][font=&quot]Germany[/font][font=&quot]’s case, Allied) troops; and both were incapable of resisting the occupying authorities. “Whereas warweary Germans and Japanese recognized the need for an occupation to help them rebuild,” observes [/font][font=&quot]Georgetown[/font][font=&quot] [/font][font=&quot]University[/font][font=&quot] professor David Edelstein “a significant portion of the Iraqi people have never welcomed the U.S.-led occupation as necessary[/font].” [b][u]In fact, [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] met none of the criteria transitologists (scholars who study the processes of transition from authoritarian or totalitarian rule to democracy) believe are required for a successful democratic transition: a modern market-based economy, absence of hostility between ethnic or religious groups, a political culture that is hospitable to democracy, and a vibrant civil society.[/u][/b] As the RAND Corporation’s Andrew Rathmell (who served in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad) has observed,[b][u] “[/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] was not a promising environment for achieving the goal of building a peaceful, democratic, free-market nation. [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u] had failed to develop into a cohesive nationstate[/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot];[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] its state structures had the form but not the substance of a modern state; its economy was in poor shape; and its society had endured almost half a century of debilitating violence.”7 In these respects, [/font][font=&quot]Iraq[/font][font=&quot] was completely unlike [/font][font=&quot]Germany[/font][font=&quot] and [/font][font=&quot]Japan[/font][font=&quot] in 1945.[/font] [b][u]The Bush administration should have known that it could not succeed in democratizing Iraq because of the plethora of authoritative prewar evidence that a U.S. invasion of Iraq was bound to result in geopolitical disaster.[/u][/b]
 [b][u][font=&quot]
[/font][/u][/b]  [b]And the promotion of democracy leads to conflict. [/b]
 [b]Gartzeka et al 10[/b]
 International Crises and the Capitalist Peace Authors: Erik Gartzkea; University of California, San Diego 
b University of Maryland, J. Joseph Hewittb Volume [url="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=t713718605%7Etab=issueslist%7Ebranches=36#v36"]36[/url], Issue [url="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g922333675"]2 [/url]April 2010
 [url]http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a922330932&fulltext=713240928[/url]
 The democratic peace is important, not just because it is a rare “lawlike” relationship in international relations, but also because of the hope it provides to many that the world can become a more peaceful place. [b][u]It should not be surprising that the good news of democratic peace has been widely embraced by academic researchers, the policy community, and by interested observers. Nevertheless, the merit of an idea in an empirical science must rest in its observed impact more than its abstract virtue. This study contributes to a small but growing body of literature casting doubt on the robustness of the democratic peace observation. It has been known for some time that democracies are only peaceful in pairs. Other research has shown that the democratic peace is even more exclusive than previously imagined, limiting the finding to developed democracies[/u][/b] ([url="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a922330932&fulltext=713240928#CIT0025"]Hegre 2000[/url]; [url="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a922330932&fulltext=713240928#CIT0038"]Mousseau 2000[/url]). We take this insight full circle, demonstrating that it is economic development and market freedoms, rather than political liberty, that precipitate interstate peace. It should be emphasized that the capitalist peace is an equally optimistic discovery. The fact that free markets and prosperity reduce the impetus to war means that the liberal peace still obtains, though with a considerably different causal logic and set of empirical precursors. Indeed, a liberal economic peace may be even more sustainable and transportable to the broader international community than is liberal government.[b][u] Promoting democracy, even imposing it as some have advocated (or pursued), is not likely to reduce interstate conflict.[/u][/b] [b][u]While democracy is certainly desirable in its own right, democratizing for peace appears to be based on a misconception, and may even lead to a weakening of the actual determinants of liberal peace. If democracy leads to an expression of popular preferences in places where these preferences are incompatible with [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] or other Western interests, then it should not be surprising to find that democratization can actually increase interstate conflict.[/u][/b] The United States may be best advised to focus on promoting economic development and free markets. As we have shown, these are the more proximate causes of cooperation among states in the modern world, and may themselves help to promote democracy.
 [b] [/b]
 [b] [/b]
 [b]The [/b][b]US[/b][b] should withdraw all troops from [/b][b]Iraq[/b][b] because it has been a failure.[/b]
 [b]Layne 10[/b]
 [url="http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing"]Who Lost Iraq and Why It Matters: The Case for Offshore Balancing[/url]  August 19, 2010 [b][i][font=&quot]Christopher Layne [/font][/i][/b][i][font=&quot]holds the Mary Julia and George R. Jordan professorship of international affairs at [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]Texas[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]A & M[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]University[/font][/i][i][font=&quot]’s [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]George[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]H.[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]W.[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]Bush[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] [/font][/i][i][font=&quot]School[/font][/i][i][font=&quot] of Government and Public Service [url]http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/who-lost-iraq-and-why-it-matters-case-offshore-balancing[/url][/font][/i]
 [b][u]The administration’s current policies will magnify difficulties in the [/u][/b][b][u]Middle East[/u][/b][b][u]. [/u][/b]Rather than seeking regime change in Iran, Washington should attempt to reach a diplomatic modus vivendi with Tehran. [b][u]In [/u][/b][b][u]Iraq[/u][/b][b][u], the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] should disengage its troops from combat operations and withdraw all of its forces as expeditiously as logistical constraints permit.[/u][/b] To the extent it is necessary to prevent foreign jihadists from entering Iraq, or pursue terrorist targets there, Washington should rely on airpower based over-the-horizon, not on ground troops. If the Democratic-controlled Congress and public opinion fail to force the Bush administration to reverse its course[b][u] the[/u][/b] next [b][u]administration must move swiftly to extricate the United States from Iraq.[/u][/b]

Here are the cites for the nite raids aff (read by Jamie/ Shane at MSHSAA and by Allison and Cassandra at NFL):

[b]Contention 1- Inherency- The use of night raids in [/b][b]Afghanistan[/b][b] has increased since General Petraeus has taken control of the military.[/b]
 [b]Linkins 11[/b]
 Jason Linkins  [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/michael-hastings-afghanistan-petraeus_n_817798.html"]Michael Hastings On Afghanistan: Petraeus Is Pursuing A 'Failed Strategy'[/url] 
 First Posted: 02/ 2/11 [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/michael-hastings-afghanistan-petraeus_n_817798.html[/url]
 [b][u]Taking over from McChrystal, Petraeus moved quickly to institute his own, more aggressive version of COIN[/u][/b] [b][u]-- one that calls for lots of killing, lots of cash and lots of spin. He loosened the restrictions McChrystal had placed on the rules of engagement,[/u][/b] giving U.S. soldiers the green light to use artillery, destroy property and defend themselves more vigorously. He drastically upped the number of airstrikes, launching more than 3,450 between July and November, the most since the invasion in 2001. He introduced U.S. tanks into the battle, unleashed Apache and Kiowa attack helicopters,[b][u] and tripled the number of night raids by Special Forces.[/u][/b] The fighting was calculated to force the Taliban to the bargaining table and reduce NATO casualties, which soared to 711 last year -- the highest of the war.



 [b]Thus the plan: 
The [/b][b]United States[/b][b] federal government, specifically President Obama, will order an immediate cessation of night raids as a part of the [/b][b]US[/b][b] military presence in [/b][b]Afghanistan[/b][b]. Administration, enforcement, funding, and logistics of the plan will be through necessary mean. 
Contention 2- Stability[/b]

 [b]First, night raids are perceived by the [/b][b]Afghanistan[/b][b] population to be fraught with abuse. Even if these allegations aren’t true, propaganda by the insurgents will push Afghan citizens into protests. Stopping each night raid is critical. [/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Gaston and Horowitz 10[/font][/b]
 Erica Gaston and Jonathan Horowitz on behalf of the Open Society Institute (OSI) and Susanne Schmeidl from The Liaison Office (TLO). Research was carried out jointly between OSI and TLO.Strangers at the Door Night Raids by International Forces Lose Hearts and Minds of Afghans A case study by the Open Society Institute and The Liaison Office February 23, 2010 [url]http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/articles_publications/publications/afghan-night-raids-20100222/a-afghan-night-raids-20100222.pdf[/url]
 [b][u][color=black][font=&quot]The practices inherent in night raids—an intrusion into the home at night, interactions with women of the family—clash with fundamental notions of privacy.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot] Afghans believe that women‘s quarters are sacrosanct and should not be touched by outsiders. Some women interviewed feared that they would be sent to hell for looking at the international forces or being seen by them during these raids.16 [/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]Because these operations are so offensive to Afghan communities, reports of misconduct during night raids are especially prone to exaggeration. During the discussion groups, interviewees gave accounts of international forces tearing or chopping the Holy Quran[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot] [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]with an ax, taking women away in helicopters and returning them dead, and shooting babies or children at point-blank range.[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot] [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]Even if some of these and other stories are due to insurgency propaganda, Afghans are ready to believe them.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot] T[/font][/color][color=black][font=&quot]he perception is that forces willing to conduct night raids as a matter of standard protocol would also be willing to engage in other outrageous acts during these raids.[b][/b]While many claims go unsubstantiated and others are simply false, international and Afghan military forces should not ignore that they are built upon a reality of abuse, and that even the [/font][/color][color=black]―[/color][color=black][font=&quot]unbelievable[/font][/color][color=black]‖[/color][color=black][font=&quot] [/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]allegations shape the way Afghan communities understand the conflict. Whether propaganda, exaggeration, or fact, complaints about night raids spread rapidly through communities provoking extreme reactions.[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot] [b][u]Following allegations that international forces violated the Holy Quran in a search operation in Wardak in October, 15 public demonstrations were organized countrywide[/u][/b][/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]. [/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot]Furthermore, such experiences create (or add to the already)[/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot] negative perceptions of international forces, sometimes pushing individuals toward outright support for insurgents[/font][/color][/u][/b][color=black][font=&quot]. As one interviewee suggested, [/font][/color][color=black]―[/color][color=black][font=&quot]If someone is handcuffed in front of women, he would see no other way left, but to head towards the mountains [to fight with the insurgents].[/font][/color][color=black]‖[/color][color=black][font=&quot]18[/font][/color][b][u][color=black][font=&quot]     Each night raid that takes place reinforces these perceptions and gives fresh fodder to insurgent propaganda.[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][font=&quot]
And [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] is on the brink of collapse since the Egyptian riots. A small scale protest, like one against night raids, could spill over into total instability in [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] in under 3 hours. [/font][/b][b][u][color=black][font=&quot][/font][/color][/u][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Hazem 11[/font][/b]
 [font=&quot]Najeeb [/font][font=&quot]Rehan   Hazem[/font][font=&quot],  [/font][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][font=&quot] after [/font][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][font=&quot], February 7[/font]
 [font=&quot]http://himalmag.com/blogs/blog/2011/02/07/afghanistan-after-egypt/[/font]
 [b][u][font=&quot]Most people in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] are waiting for something to ignite a large-scale chaos. It could be anything, a small protest or a leader who is willing to lead them to a protest[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [b][u]A retired general,[/u][/b][/font][font=&quot] who refrained from being named, indirectly [/font][b][u][font=&quot]said that he had the power to destroy the government in just three hours[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]. ‘But I must say the current situation in Afghanistan and the lack of efficient leaders have forced me to just watch from the long distance,’ he said before adding, [/font][b][u][font=&quot]‘The uprising in Egypt is the holy youth’s rebellion. It has an ability to change the perspective of every youth in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]Gen Taqat, however, advises Afghan youth to be cautious. ‘We are not in [/font][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][font=&quot],’ he says, [/font][b][u][font=&quot]‘[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] is highly vulnerable. [/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]If we take inspiration from [/font][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][font=&quot] and let the chaos drive President Hamid Karzia away, will there be anyone left to lead us? [/font][b][u][font=&quot]It’s dangerous to think of replicating the Egyptian scenario here in Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]. Our community is very backward. We still depend on the UN and the [/font][font=&quot]United States[/font][font=&quot] to implement a regular government.’[/font]
 [font=&quot]All eyes are fixed on today’s [/font][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][font=&quot]. Now that the authoritarian regimes in some Arab countries are facing their fall one after the other, naturally, [/font][b][u][font=&quot]the question arises whether something similar will occur in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]. Political analysts do fear that if the people of [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] focus on the reasons of the current instability and uprising in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]Egypt[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot], they may follow suit and stand against their government.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] Only time can tell.[/font]
 [font=&quot] [/font]
 And instability in Afghanistan spills over to the entire world. 
 RTT News 9
  (Global Financial Newswires, [url]http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1144493[/url], AD: 7/8/10) jl 
 (RTTNews) - Ahead of President Barack Obama's announcement concerning new troop levels in [url="http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1144493"][color=windowtext]Afghanistan[/color][color=windowtext][img=file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ROBERC%7E1.022/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif][/color][/url] Tuesday night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke Monday night at Gotham Hall in New York City, where she argued that instability in regions like Afghanistan still represent a threat to U.S. security. "We have seen in recent weeks that the stability of countries far away like Afghanistan and Pakistan is directly connected to our own national security," Clinton said. She added, "As long as countries like that struggle to control their borders, extend their sovereignty, the door is open to the bad actors who today are more empowered because of the tools of globalization, the instant communication, the weapons of such greater force and magnitude than what came before." Clinton called it "imperative" to look at the "syndicate of terrorism that operates out of the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan."  Specifically, she noted al-Qaida as "being the head of the table of this syndicate of terrorism" and argued that if they and a group like the Taliban can maintain a safe haven in the region, "then terrorists will continue to use that territory to plan future attacks on us."
 [font=&quot]
[/font]  [b][font=&quot]Contention 3- Torture and international law[/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]First, the use of night raids by the [/font][/b][b][font=&quot]United   States[/font][/b][b][font=&quot] is based on a flawed system. Many of the houses that are raided are raided due to incorrect information. This hinders the ability of the international system to set up appropriate international laws and results in the torture of those detained through night raids. [/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]Gaston and Horowitz 10[/font][/b]
 [font=&quot]Erica Gaston and Jonathan Horowitz on behalf of the Open Society Institute ([/font][font=&quot]OSI[/font][font=&quot]) and Susanne Schmeidl from The Liaison Office (TLO). Research was carried out jointly between [/font][font=&quot]OSI[/font][font=&quot] and TLO.Strangers at the Door Night Raids by International Forces Lose Hearts and Minds of Afghans A case study by the Open Society Institute and The Liaison Office February 23, 2010 [url]http://www.soros.org/initiatives/washington/articles_publications/publications/afghan-night-raids-20100222/a-afghan-night-raids-20100222.pdf[/url][/font]
 [font=&quot]Almost two years later, Alston‘s critiques are still relevant. Those leading[/font][b][u][font=&quot] night raids are often Special Operations Forces (SOF) operating out of regional commands, rather than from the local ISAF base or PRTs.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] Though efforts have been made to better incorporate SOF into the chain of command in 2009, the local ISAF commanders are often still ignorant as to what raids occur in their area of operations, and which forces are conducting them. During a November 19, 2009 meeting between the Regional Command North and humanitarian and development actors in Kunduz, one of the ISAF military officials voiced his frustration with recent US military/special forces activities in the area for not sharing any details about their operation, adding [/font][font=&quot]―[/font][b][u][font=&quot]ISAF cannot influence anything the US Military/Special Forces do[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].[/font][font=&quot]‖[/font][font=&quot]22 Highlighting the concern about raids carried out by SOF, independent monitors in southern Kandahar and Helmand province noted that recently some raids have been carried out by ISAF rather than SOF, and that it is easier to raise concerns and track those who are accountable for these ISAF-led raids.2 [/font][b][u][font=&quot]The lack of visibility over those conducting raids also weakens the potential for innocent families who are harmed to receive appropriate apologies or compensation, as was recommended in General McChrystal‘s assessment on the military strategy in Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot].24             So far, ISAF has failed to set up a comprehensive system of compensation in Afghanistan, and instead it is up to the discretion of individual troops involved in a given incident.25 When those troops are not local to an area, or are not identifiable within the chain of command – as often happens in the case of night raids – there is almost no chance for affected civilians to receive an apology or to have their losses recognized or compensated.26[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]There also appears to be insufficient accountability for and verification of the intelligence that led to many of these raids. Many people detained during night raids said they were targeted because their rivals or enemies deliberately passed misinformation to international forces[/u][/b][/font][font=&quot]. Though these allegations are hard to confirm, the fact that many detainees are soon released without charge, the frequency of wrongful aerial bombings, and the underlying local dynamics of many Afghan regions lend credibility to these claims. As one shopkeeper from Paktia described, [/font][font=&quot]―[/font][font=&quot]The Afghan National Army and[/font][b][u][font=&quot] the international forces have raided my house six times. Every time they searched my house,[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][b][u][font=&quot] they could not find anything and apologized after the search operation and told me that wrong intelligence had been given to them Research in other insurgency and civil war contexts has found that the motivations for informants to pass tips to one side or the other are often personal.28  Given this empirical research and the history of ethnic and tribal rivalries in Afghanistan, it is not surprising that many tips leading to night raids would be driven by personal motivations of the informant.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] While some tips are true, others are not. For this reason, stronger mechanisms for verifying information are imperative given the impact of these practices.[/font][font=&quot] [b][u]Afghans point to these raids and complain that international forces operate under a culture of impunity. These critiques are not surprising, given the lack of visibility over how raids are authorized and which forces conduct them, and the absence of a mechanism to refer and address complaints about conduct after the fact. The civilian and military strategies in [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=&quot]Afghanistan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot] both emphasize the importance of rule of law and stronger government accountability for long-term stability. Reports of abuse and concerns about the lack of accountability for these raids, reinforce, rather than correct, existing flaws in the Afghan detention and justice system.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] With the international community spending billions of dollars annually to improve rule of law,[/font][b][u][font=&quot] international forces are working at cross-purposes by not having in place a serious system for accountability that can respond to night raids that result in abuse, property destruction, wrongful detentions, and the denial of due process.[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot] [/font][i][font=&quot]e) Conduct of Afghan National Security Forces, Irregular Militias, and Other Afghan Actors [/font][/i][font=&quot] One of the positive reforms made by the July 2009 tactical directive was to have the involvement of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) at all raids, a step that many Afghan communities requested.[/font]
 [font=&quot]Unfortunately, however,[/font][b][u][font=&quot] some of the benefits of this positive reform are undermined by allegations of abuse by Afghan forces or officials during the raids or afterwards during detention. When international forces detain individuals, they will often hand them over to Afghan institutions (Afghan National Police (ANP), Afghan National Army ([/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]ANA[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot]) or the National Directorate of Security (NDS)), which are plagued with corruption and allegations of torture or other mistreatment.29 Those detained by international forces frequently reported having to pay a bribe worth several thousand U.S. dollars to secure their release.[/font][/u][/b]
 [b][font=&quot]
[/font][/b]  [b]Additionally, credible international law is critical to appropriately respond to genocide.[/b]
 [b]Slovic 9[/b]
 Paul Slovic Decision Research and University of Oregon.  10/15/09 [url]http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/Slovic.HC2009Oct28.pdf[/url]
 [b][u]Drawing upon behavioral research and common observation, we argue here that we cannot depend only upon our moral intuitions to motivate us to take proper action against genocide[/u][/b] and mass abuse of human rights. [b][u]This places the burden of response squarely upon moral argument and international law.[/u][/b] The genocide convention was supposed to meet this need but it has not been effective. [b][u]It is time to reexamine this failure in light of the psychological deficiencies described here and design legal and institutional mechanisms that will compel us to respond to genocide with a degree of intensity that is commensurate with the high value we place on individual human lives.[/u][/b]
 [b][u] [/u][/b]

 [b][font=&quot] [/font][/b]
 [b]And, genocide is the worst possible impact. [/b]
 [b]Lang 03[/b]
 ‪Act and idea in the Nazi genocide By Berel Lang professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan, 2003, pg 12-13
 Before considering further the two primary factors in the concept of genocide (the specification of the group and the intention related to its destruction), it is important to recognize the implied relation between these factors, on the hand, and the likely agents of genocide, on the other. That genocide entails the destruction of a group does not imply that the act of genocide itself must be the act of a group; but the practical implementation of a design for genocide would almost necessarily be so complex as to assure this. Admittedly; the same technological advances that make genocide increasingly possible as a collective action also have increased the possibility that an individual acting alone could initiate the process. ([b][u]When the push of a single button can produce cataclysmic effects, we discover an order of destruction-“omnicide[/u][/b]”-even larger than genocide.)'1' [b][u]But the opprobrium attached to the term “genocide” seems also to have the connotation of a corporate action--as if this act or sequence of acts would be a lesser fault, easier to understand if not to excuse if one person rather than a group were responsible for it. A group (we suppose) would be bound by a public moral code; decisions made would have been reached collectively; and the culpability of individual intentions would be multiplied proportionately.[/u][/b] Admittedly, corporate responsibility is sometimes invoked in order to diminish (or at least to obscure) individual responsibility; so, for example, the “quagmire” effect that was appealed to retrospectively by defenders of the United States’ role in Vietnam. But [b][u]for genocide, the likelihood of its corporate origins seems to accentuate its moral enormity: a large number of individual, intentional acts would have to be committed and the connections among them also affirmed in onder to produce the extensive act. Unlike other corporate acts that might be not only decided on but carried out by a single person or small group of persons, genocide in its scope seems necessarily to require collaboration by a relatively large number of agents acting both collectively and individually.
[/u][/b][b]Furthermore, torture is a moral issue. Regardless of the benefits that can be gained it should be evaluated as worse than murder.[/b]

 [b]Kleinig 05[/b]
 [font=&quot]JOHN KLEINIG Director of the Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics and Professor of Philosophy in the Department of aw & Police Science, John Jay College of Criminal JusticeTicking Bombs and Torture Warrants   622 [url]http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/dlr/docs/vol10-iss2/vol10-2-13.pdf[/url][/font]
 [font=&quot]Nevertheless, a defender of the argument’s secondary application might seek to rationalize its expansion as follows.[/font] [b][u]The important thing about the primary argument is its heuristic value: it provides a set of considerations under which torture will be justified. But once we have allowed this, the real question will not: Is torture ever justified? but: In what situations is torture justified?[/u][/b] [font=&quot]Where is the line to be drawn? [/font][b][u]Once we have freed ourselves from the shackles of absolute prohibitions, we can consider less stringent circumstances, in order to determine whether under these circumstances, too, torture might be justified[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]Do we need to be talking about 3 million lives or will 1 million do, 100 thousand, 100, 10, or even 1? We can also talk about probabilities – whether one needs to  know (in some especially strong sense – sub specie aeternitatis) that there is a bomb, that Dr Doom will talk, that he will tell the truth, that we can find the bomb in time, that it can be deactivated, and  so on, or is it enough that we are only 99% certain or 90% or just have reason to believe it very likely? And so on.[/font] [font=&quot]We can envisage a range of consequences, probabilities, and coercive measures, impacting on each other. Thus, a lesser degree of coercion might be compatible with a lower probability of evil occurring, provided the evil is serious enough[/font][font=&quot]. [/font][b][u]How we respond to such possibilities will depend partly on what we see to be the specific evils associated with torture – with whether they go so fundamentally to what we take to be the constraints of morality and civilization that only – if at all – the most extreme circumstances could be allowed to override or compromise them, or whether, like most other moral considerations, those relating to torture must take their place with others in the competitive and uncertain jostle for a morally acceptable solution[/u][/b].  [font=&quot]And, if the latter, we need to have some sense of how the jostle is to be brought into some sort of order. [/font][b][u]If what makes torture wrong must compete with other considerations, we can see the slipperiness of the slope we’re on – not just a theoretical slipperiness but also a practical one, for  wherever the ticking bomb argument has been wheeled in to justify torture, however defined, its actual scope has expanded[/u][/b][b][u][font=&quot].[/font][/u][/b][font=&quot]  This may appear to be a contingency, manageable through closer oversight, but before I consider that, let me first review some of the basic issues. Why is torture such a problem? And[/font] [b][u]why should we even be tempted to put it in a special moral category of its own[/u][/b]? [font=&quot]Further, what kind of a warrant does the ticking bomb argument give us for inflicting it?[/font]  [b][u]Put summarily, as it has to be here, the torture of a human being represents the most invasive attack on his/her dignity of which we are capable.[/u][/b] [font=&quot]Not only does it represent what Henry Shue calls an “assault on the defenseless,”  itself an act of presumptuous domination, but[/font] [b][u]it threatens and undermines the very characteristics that constitute our human distinctiveness, and attacks them in a way that does not merely extinguish them – as killing does – but in a way that humiliates, degrades,  and perverts[/u][/b]. [font=&quot]Even more than that (and this, perhaps, is what makes its evil distinctively repulsive, most obviously – though not only – in the case of interrogatory torture), it seeks to turn its victim against him- or herself. The pain that is suffered or the suffering that is undergone, most assuredly the victim’s own pain or suffering,  betrays him or at least seeks to betray him. His  resistance – including that which is most individually and distinctively him – is captured and exploited by the torturer and turned against him; his tormentor commandeers him and – through his bodily and/or mental anguish – seeks to have him betray who he most deeply is. The torturer takes something that is central to a person’s individuality – whether it is universally possessed, like his body (though it is his body), or more particularized, such as his loves or religious commitments, and uses them against him. Our deepest self is made to cry out to us to accede to the torturer’s demands. Of course, torture also has other things to be said against it. Not only does it humiliate those who suffer it, it also brutalizes those who inflict it and those who tolerate it.  It signifies something about a society that is prepared to use it, and it formally  sanctions its use by any who consider their cause important enough. It corrupts as well as diminishes[/font].[b][u] But its most distinctive horror is the way in which it turns the individual against [/u][/b]himself [b][u][themself]*, demoralising [/u][/b]him[b][u] [them]*. That is one reason why the effects of torture can be so lasting. In a morally significant sense, torture represents a worse invasion of our humanity than killing or even murder[/u][/b].[b]
Contention 4- Solvency[/b]
 [b]The plan solves. The [/b][b]United States[/b][b] should stop night raids. Without the plan there will continue to be tensions in [/b][b]Afghanistan[/b][b].[/b]
 [b]Riechmann 10[/b]
 [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/14/karzai-us-should-reduce-intensity-_n_783202.html"]Karzai: U.S. Should Reduce Intensity, Stop Night Raids In Afghan War[/url]
 [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/14/karzai-us-should-reduce-intensity-_n_783202.html"]DEB RIECHMANN[/url] | 11/14/10 [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/14/karzai-us-should-reduce-intensity-_n_783202.html[/url]
 Afghan President Hamid Karzai said[b][u] the [/u][/b][b][u]United States[/u][/b][b][u] must reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations, especially night raids that fuel anti-American sentiment and could embolden Taliban insurgents[/u][/b]. Karzai's remarks in an interview Saturday with The Washington Post come as the international military coalition has stepped up pressure on insurgents at the same time that the president has set up a peace council in hopes of reconciling with the top echelon of the Taliban. [b][u]"The time has come to reduce military operations,[/u][/b]" Karzai said in the interview. "[b][u]The time has come to reduce the presence[/u][/b] of, you know, boots[b][u] in [/u][/b][b][u]Afghanistan[/u][/b][b][/b]... to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life." Karzai also said he met with one or two "very high" level Taliban leaders about three months ago, but described a peace process in its initial stages – one that amounts to little more than "the exchange of desires for peace." He said, however, that he believes Taliban leader Mullah Omar has been informed of his discussions. He said the Taliban share his feeling that the nine-year-old war has taken too high a toll on the people of Afghanistan. "They feel the same as we do here – that too many people are suffering for no reason," Karzai said. "Their own families are suffering." Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, claims the 30,000 U.S. reinforcements and thousands of troops dispatched to the war this past year have made substantial progress in beating back the insurgency, although the coalition is not claiming victory. In the past three months, more than 300 insurgent leaders have been captured or killed, more than 850 lower-level militants have been killed and at least 2,170 foot soldiers have been apprehended. Karzai said [b][u]the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] should end the rising number of Special Operations forces night raids that aggravate Afghans and could strengthen the Taliban insurgency. [/u][/b]He said he wants American troops off the roads and out of Afghan homes and that the long-term presence of so many foreign soldiers will only make the war worse. "I don't like it in any manner and[b][u] the Afghan people don't like these raids in any manner," Karzai said. "We don't like raids in our homes. This is a problem between us and I hope this ends as soon as possible. ... Terrorism is not invading Afghan homes and fighting terrorism is not being intrusive in the daily Afghan life."[/u][/b]
 A senior official with the military coalition's headquarters in Kabul said Sunday that the coalition share's Karzai's concerns and has discussed the issue with him on many occasions. "However, the use of intelligence-driven, precision-targeted operations against high-value insurgents and their networks remains a key component of our comprehensive civilian-military counterinsurgency operations," the official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss Karzai's remarks. [b][u]"These operations are conducted in full partnership with the government of [/u][/b][b][u]Afghanistan[/u][/b][b][u] and they include Afghan forces on each operation.[/u][/b] There is no question that they are having a significant impact on insurgent leadership and its networks.

 

I will check with Chas/ Madz about getting the Japan sites up soon.

 

Edited by Dr. McNinja
Compressing posts
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the new Japan aff

[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Contention 1- The Status Quo[/size][/font][/b]
[size=3][b][font=Century Gothic]First, despite protests and promises the [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]Okinawa[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]prefecture[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic] of [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic] is home to the majority of the [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]US[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic] presence in [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic].[/font][/b][/size]
[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Pike 10[/size][/font][/b]
[font=Arial]John, [/font][b][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/b][b][font=Arial], [/font][/b][b][font=Arial]Japan[/font][/b][b][font=Arial] [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa.htm[/url][/font][/b]
[size=3][b][u][font=Arial]During 2004 [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Japan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] and the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]United States[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] continued discussions on plans to scale back the [/font][/u][/b][color=blue][b][u][font=Arial]US[/font][/u][/b][/color][b][u][color=blue][font=Arial] military[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] presence in the country. [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Tokyo[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] will ask [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Washington[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] to move some Marines now on the southern [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]island[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] of [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] outside the country. There is no doubt some changes will be made to the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] forces. The [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]US[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] Marines are a tremendous burden in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial], particularly the infantry and the training needs of the infantry in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] can't really be met on the island, given the sensitivities there. [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] accounts for less than one percent of [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Japan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]'s land, but hosts about two-thirds of the 40,000 [color=blue]American forces[/color] in the country.[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Arial] In recent years, Okinawans have grown increasingly angry about the military presence, because of land disputes and highly publicized violent crimes committed by a few [/font][font=Arial]U.S.[/font][font=Arial] troops. In return for moving troops outside the country, [/font][font=Arial]Japan[/font][font=Arial] would provide pre-positioning facilities for weapons, fuel and other equipment for the [/font][font=Arial]US[/font][font=Arial] military.[/font]

[b][font=Century Gothic]The new base sharing isn’t reducing US military presense in Japan it is only shifting it.[/font][/b]
[b][font=Century Gothic]The Mainichi Daily News in 11[/font][/b]
[font=Century Gothic]Gov't announces Japan-U.S. working group on expanding Okinawa base-sharing[/font][font=Century Gothic][url="http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110126p2a00m0na007000c.html"][color=#000080]http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110126p2a00m0na007000c.html[/color][/url] January 26, 2011 (2-1-11)[/font]
[b][u][font=Century Gothic]The committee section[/font][/u][/b][font=Century Gothic] also[/font][font=Century Gothic] [b][u]announced that[/u][/b] [/font][font=Century Gothic]in addition to the F-15 fighter training flights to be shifted from Okinawa's Kadena Air Base to Guam,[/font][font=Century Gothic] [b][u]flights now operating out of Misawa Air Base in Aomori Prefecture and out of the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Yamaguchi Prefecture will also be moved to the U.S. territory[/u][/b] [/font][font=Century Gothic]Regarding the shift of the training flights[/font][font=Century Gothic], [b][u]Gov. Nakaima questioned what effect it would really have, saying, "Up to this point, that's the only part of the military presence that has been reduced, and often those flights moved out are just replaced with new aircraft coming in[/u][/b]. [/font][font=Century Gothic]I won't know the true outcome until the move has been completed."[/font]
[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Thus the plan- The United States Federal Government, specifically President Obama, will substantially reduce its military presence in Japan by immediately closing the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and reducing the marine presence in the Okinawa prefecture to 5,000 marines, which will include the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. Funding, enforcement, administration, and logistics will be through necessary means.[/size][/font][/b]
[b][size=3][font=Century Gothic]Contention 2- The plan would solve[/font][/size][/b]
[size=3][b][font=Century Gothic]First, if the [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]US[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic] doesn’t leave Futenma all the other bases are at risk. Only closing the base and withdrawing down to 5,000 Marines will solve.[/font][/b][/size]
[b][font=Arial][i]O’Hanlon 2k1[/i][/font][/b]
[font=Arial](Michael, Director of Research and a Senior Fellow on Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, “Come Partly Home, [/font][font=Arial]America[/font][font=Arial]: How to Downsize U.S. Deployments Abroad,” pg online @ [url="http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2001/0301forceandlegitimacy_ohanlon.aspx"][color=#40007e]http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2001/0301forceandlegitimacy_ohanlon.aspx[/color][/url][/font]
[font=Times New Roman][b][u]Keeping so many marines on [/u][/b][b][u]Okinawa[/u][/b][b][u] also places a major strain on U.S.-Japan relations, as [/u][/b][b][u]George[/u][/b][b][u]Washington[/u][/b][b][u]University[/u][/b][b][u] Professor Mike Mochizuki has argued and as an increasingly broad swath of the [/u][/b][b][u]U.S.[/u][/b][b][u] defense community now recognizes.[/u][/b] In terms of acreage, three-quarters of U.S. bases in Japan are on Okinawa, taking up almost 20 percent of the land of an island that is small and, as home to more than a million people, densely populated even by Japanese standards. Changes to the base structure agreed to in the 1990s will reduce the acreage of the U.S. bases on Okinawa by only about a fifth, even if they are carried out in full. (Local resistance to moving the marines' Futenma air base has stymied efforts to enact much of the plan.) Meanwhile, marine flights continue in and out of Futenma—located right in the middle of Ginowan City—with the associated risks of accidents. Polls in recent years showed that more than 80 percent of all Japanese consider the Okinawa arrangement undesirable and unfair to local citizens.[b][u] By trying to hold on to all of its bases in Japan, the United States risks causing a backlash and ultimately losing everything, including those facilities with the greatest military benefit for crises in Korea, the Taiwan Strait, or elsewhere—notably, the Kadena Air Force base on Okinawa and U.S. Navy and Air Force facilities on Japan's main islands. [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=Arial]Washington[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] should therefore scale back the number of marines on [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] to [/font][/u][/b][font=Arial]about[/font][b][u][font=Arial] 5,000. The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit should remain, as should enough forces to maintain storage and staging facilities for use in a crisis.[/font][/u][/b][font=Arial] But most other marines should go elsewhere in the region or return home, and most Marine Corps facilities and training ranges should be returned to Japanese use. Compensating steps should be taken, notably increased storage of [/font][font=Arial]U.S.[/font][font=Arial] military supplies on [/font][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][font=Arial] or on ships in Japanese ports to facilitate rapid deployments in the region. [/font][font=Arial]Tokyo[/font][font=Arial] might well pay for the necessary equipment and many of the redeployment costs. Ideally, [/font][font=Arial]Japan[/font][font=Arial] would also increase its direct military contributions to the alliance. But [/font][b][u][font=Arial]major reductions in the marines on [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] need not await the normalization of Japanese security policy.[/font][/u][/b]

[b][font=Century Gothic]And all disadvantages are inevitable if we don’t withdraw troops [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic] will kick us out.[/font][/b]
[b][font=Century Gothic]Meyer in 09[/font][/b]
[font=Times New Roman]G2mil is a collection of articles on military and space affairs, authored by Carlton Meyer, a former Marine Corps officer who participated in military operations around the world. [/font][u][url="http://www.g2mil.com/Japan-bases.htm"][b][font=Century Gothic][color=#000080]http://www.g2mil.com/Japan-bases.htm[/color][/font][/b][/url][/u][font=Times New Roman][i][b]©2009[/b][/i][b][i] (1-3 0-11)[/i][/b][/font]
[size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Japan is one of America’s closest allies[/font][/u][/b][font=Century Gothic], [/font][/size][font=Century Gothic]yet[/font][font=Century Gothic][size=3] [b][u]this relationship is threatened by a refusal to accommodate reasonable demands from the Japanese people to close outdated American military bases[/u][/b]. [/size][/font][font=Century Gothic]During the Cold War, the [/font][font=Century Gothic]USA[/font][font=Century Gothic] maintained some 50,000 military personnel in [/font][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][font=Century Gothic] to help defend that nation from the [/font][font=Century Gothic]Soviet Union[/font][font=Century Gothic] and Communist China. Those threats are mostly gone, while [/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] now fields a first-rate military that can defeat any threat[/font][/u][/b][font=Century Gothic]. [/font][/size][font=Century Gothic]As a result[/font][size=3][font=Century Gothic], [b][u]the Japanese people are less tolerant of the noise and crime produced by large American military bases. President Obama must close some bases before the new Japanese nationalist government demands that all American GIs leave immediately.[/u][/b][/font][/size]


[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Advantage 1- US/ Japan relations[/size][/font][/b]

[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]First, now is the key time to establish a viable US/ Japanese relationship. Unfortunately, the current failure to resolve the Futenma issue is causing major friction in the relationship.[/size][/font][/b]
[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Maehara 11[/size][/font][/b]
[font=Times New Roman]Seiji Maehara, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan
At the Center for Strategic and International Studies
"Opening a New Horizon in the Asia Pacific" [b][color=#820000]Maehara: 2011 is the Inaugural Year of the New Japan-US [/color][/b][b][color=#820000]Alliance[/color][/b][/font]
[font=Times New Roman]Sunday, January 9, 2011 [url]http://www.panorientnews.com/en/news.php?k=642[/url][/font]
[font=Arial]Fifty years have passed since the Japan-US Security Treaty was concluded in 1960. This year,[/font][b][u][font=Arial][size=3] 2011, is interpreted as the inaugural year of the new Japan-US alliance which ushers in the next half a century[/size][/font][/u][/b][font=Arial]. The NATO Summit adopted a new Strategic Concept last year, in which new cooperative security in the 21st century was introduced. Likewise,[/font][b][u][font=Arial][size=3] the Japan-US relations, which are the most important in the transpacific relations, must be deepened in transformation to a new alliance responding to the changing strategic environment.[/size][/font][/u][/b][font=Times New Roman] Last December the US Department of State released "The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR)," which showed the [/font][font=Times New Roman]US[/font][font=Times New Roman] determination to lead the world through civilian power. The QDDR also involved a rigorous review of an effective setup for the implementation of [/font][font=Times New Roman]US[/font][font=Times New Roman] foreign policy, which reminds us of the distinct character of the [/font][font=Times New Roman]United States[/font][font=Times New Roman], that is to constantly aim to improve itself. In particular, it is noteworthy that the QDDR indicates that the [/font][font=Times New Roman]US[/font][font=Times New Roman] takes measures which include strengthening the inter-agency approach to the security areas including conflict prevention, development, peace building, and assistance to vulnerable states by making use of civilian power. I hope that [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman] and the [/font][font=Times New Roman]United States[/font][font=Times New Roman] in close cooperation would promote the rise of civilian power in the Asia Pacific, while making the Japan-US Security Treaty cornerstone of peace and stability. If the Asia Pacific region were to become a driving force for the peace and prosperity in the twenty-first century, we need to bolster the network of civilian power, and see to it that democracy and market economies take root in the region. After all, they have brought the most peace and prosperity to human kind throughout history.

Today I wish to share with you my basic thoughts on how Japan and the US should cooperate with each other in this region, which is going through a period of change, in order to promote the shaping of a new order and to open a bright future under the theme of "Opening a New Horizon in the Asia Pacific."

(Current Situation in the Asia Pacific and its Future Vision)
There is no doubt that the twenty-first century is the era of the Asia Pacific. The three countries of [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman], the [/font][font=Times New Roman]United States[/font][font=Times New Roman], and [/font][font=Times New Roman]China[/font][font=Times New Roman] occupy the top three spots in global GDP ranking. In addition, some estimate that the share of [/font][font=Times New Roman]Asia[/font][font=Times New Roman] excluding the [/font][font=Times New Roman]US[/font][font=Times New Roman] and other Pacific-rim countries as a percentage of global GDP likely will reach 40% in 2030 compared to 25% in 2009.

At the same time, we must remember that the rapidly developing Asia Pacific is fraught with factors of instability and uncertainty. The nuclear and missile development issue of DPRK is a cause for major concern. It should be noted that, as seen in the sinking incident of the [/font][font=Times New Roman]Republic[/font][font=Times New Roman] of [/font][font=Times New Roman]Korea[/font][font=Times New Roman]'s patrol ship "Cheonan" last May, the shelling of the Yeongpyeong island last November and the development of enriched uranium, DPRK these days is escalating the level of its provocation against the region and the international community. In addition, in the case of [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman], we have with DPRK the unresolved issue of the abduction of Japanese citizens.

The rise of Asian emerging economies, while providing opportunities for the economies of [/font][font=Times New Roman]Asia[/font][font=Times New Roman] and the world, also is causing tension against the backdrop of the scramble for resources. In addition, increase in military spending by some countries without transparency has become a factor that could potentially raise tension in the region. Thus, with ongoing multi-polarization among the community of nations we are witnessing a tendency for countries to increasingly pursue their own interests in the absence of a common platform.

The Asia Pacific is a region full of diversity with a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, and religions. It is this diversity that is driving the remarkable growth of the region. Diversity, with a misstep, may turn into a conflict. Instead, it is quite possible to bring prosperity in the region by building on diversity a stronger sense of unity and making the region even more dynamic and open. We should build this new order with the fundamental philosophy that developing the Asia Pacific region through cooperation, instead of under hegemony, is indivisible from the long-term interests of the countries in the region.

With this in mind, it will be important to develop institutional foundations embodying the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights, global commons, and free and fair trade and investment rules, including the protection of intellectual property rights. This needs to be done in addition to developing infrastructure that has underpinned the development and economic growth of the region's developing countries to date.

For example, Indonesia, a country with the world's largest Muslim population, elects its president through direct ballot, and is enjoying political stability as a democratic state by respecting the freedom of speech among others. These developments have made [/font][font=Times New Roman]Indonesia[/font][font=Times New Roman]'s leadership role in ASEAN more dependable. The Bali Democracy Forum organized at President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's initiative is worthy of attention as an Asia-originating commitment to democracy. [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman] highly appreciates it as an attempt in the region to build an institutional foundation called democracy. I myself attended the 3rd Bali Democracy Forum last December on behalf of the Japanese Government and gave a presentation titled "Democracy in Diversity -- Building on [/font][font=Times New Roman]Asia[/font][font=Times New Roman]'s Unique Strength -- ."

Needless to say, whether fast rising emerging economies such as China and India will engage actively in shaping the region's new order with full grasp of the common interests of the international community will be crucial. In particular, as [/font][font=Times New Roman]China[/font][font=Times New Roman] already has grown deep economic interdependence with both [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman] and the [/font][font=Times New Roman]United States[/font][font=Times New Roman], its peaceful development in harmony with the international community will be in the interest of both of our countries. Japan, therefore, takes interest in the role that China will play in shaping a new regional order in the Asia Pacific.

(Roles Expected of Japan and the US)
In consideration of such strategic environment, the Japan-US alliance is vitally important not only to the defense of Japan but also to the peace and stability of the Asia Pacific region as the region's public goods. I highly appreciate that the United States not only has continued to make immeasurable contributions to the region's peace and stability by maintaining an overwhelming presence in the Asia Pacific, but also has been intensifying its engagement in the region under the Obama administration.

The top-priority task today for Japan and the United States, I believe, is to invest our all-out and all-round effort to shape a new order in the Asia Pacific region, which finds itself in the middle of a period of change. The roles of our two countries will not diminish in anyway in the days ahead. In fact, in view of the urgent need to develop "institutional foundations" in the region today, expectations are only rising that we play even greater roles, and I feel the responsibilities on our shoulders are very great.

To date Japan has endeavored to promote various regional cooperation, in addition to making contributions to the sustainable growth of the Asia Pacific through trade and investment, official development assistance (ODA) and others. [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman] will carry on these efforts. In particular, [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman], jointly with the [/font][font=Times New Roman]United States[/font][font=Times New Roman], has considered important ASEAN's centrality in regional cooperation. [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman], therefore, will continue to attach importance to supporting efforts toward ASEAN integration through assistance for the building of an ASEAN Economic Community by 2015 and the strengthening of ASEAN connectivity. At the same time, we are paying particular attention to East Asia Summit (EAS) among the various frameworks that are evolving with ASEAN at the core. [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman] has consistently advanced the idea of [/font][font=Times New Roman]US[/font][font=Times New Roman] participation to EAS and welcomes the official decision of US and Russian participation last year. 

There are some concrete agendas for [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman] and the [/font][font=Times New Roman]United States[/font][font=Times New Roman] to pursue in order to develop institutional foundations in this region. Expanding and strengthening the role of EAS is one of them. EAS so far has seen progress in regional cooperation in the five priority areas of energy, education, finance, disaster management and measures against avian flu. In the days ahead, we wish to bring up for consideration the possible inclusion of security within the scope of EAS. From this perspective we are looking forward to the role that [/font][font=Times New Roman]Indonesia[/font][font=Times New Roman] will play as the ASEAN Chair this year. These, I believe, are in line with the thoughts Secretary Clinton enunciated in her presentations in [/font][font=Times New Roman]Hawaii[/font][font=Times New Roman] in January and October of last year.

The second task is the APEC, which has achieved remarkable progress in creating common platform for the liberalization of trade and investment over the past 20 years or so. We shall build on the "Yokohama Vision," a product of the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting that was held in [/font][font=Times New Roman]Yokohama[/font][font=Times New Roman] last November, and continue close coordination with the [/font][font=Times New Roman]United States[/font][font=Times New Roman], which will chair the APEC process this year, from the vantage of "From Yokohama to [/font][font=Times New Roman]Honolulu[/font][font=Times New Roman]." In [/font][font=Times New Roman]Yokohama[/font][font=Times New Roman], it also was confirmed with regard to "The Pathways to FTAAP (Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific)" that concrete actions should be taken by way of building on the regional endeavors currently under way. The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership agreement (TPP) can be regarded in particular as a next-generation type FTA. As such, it can be an important first step towards the realization of an FTAAP. If a framework becomes a reality with major global economies such as [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman] and the [/font][font=Times New Roman]United States[/font][font=Times New Roman] participating, it will have great economic as well as political significance. I regard this also as part of the process of strengthening Japan-US relations. Quite frankly, in considering [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman]'s participation in TPP, [/font][font=Times New Roman]Japan[/font][font=Times New Roman] has to carry out reforms including agriculture, which doubtless will entail difficulties. However, the Government of Japan has decided to launch consultations with the countries concerned, as it believes that the revitalization of agriculture and further opening up of Japan are two objectives that can go hand in hand rather than run counter to each other.

Thirdly, we should establish closer partnerships among countries that are mature democracies with market economies, with a view to building a system of cooperation encompassing both security and the economy. One approach in this regard is the consolidation of networking in the Asia Pacific region. If we can expand the networking among countries which share the rules, we will be able to reinforce the region's institutional foundations. In parallel, we should engage in rules-making efforts for new public space such as the outer space and cyber space, in addition to rules governing the freedom of maritime navigation, intellectual property rights, and open skies.

(Deepening Japan-US Alliance)[/font][size=3][font=Arial]
[b][u]For our two countries to play a central role in order to move in the direction I have suggested, an unshakeable Japan-US alliance will be essential. [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=Arial]Japan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] and the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]United States[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] fell out of step last year over the issue of the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial].[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Arial]At the same time, dissatisfaction grew among Okinawans over the inability of the Japanese government to turn their wishes into reality. The crucial point is that efforts to gain the understanding of local [/font][font=Arial]Okinawa[/font][font=Arial] community will be essential for the resolution of the issue.[/font][size=3][b][u][font=Arial] It will be essential to not invite a situation that might undermine the functioning of the Japan-US alliance, which has a strategic importance for the region's stability, as the Government of Japan moves forward the relocation of Futenma Air Station while making clear that it will deliver on the Japan-US agreement of May 28th last year. It therefore will be important for both [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]Japan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] and the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial]United States[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Arial] to contribute their respective wisdom from medium- and long-term perspectives, and work with unwavering determination to resolve the Futenma relocation issue[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Arial]. 

From the viewpoint of setting the right environment to manage the bilateral alliance, the understanding reached in principle between the two governments as a result of the comprehensive review of the Host Nation Support for the US Forces in [/font][font=Arial]Japan[/font][font=Arial] is an achievement of the [/font][font=Arial]Kan[/font][font=Arial] and Obama administrations. This major political decision to maintain the current level of support over a five-year period in spite of the harsh fiscal conditions is a reflection of the recognition on the part of the Government of Japan regarding the importance of the Japan-US security arrangements. [/font]


[size=3][b][font=Century Gothic]Additionally, a good US/ Japanese alliance solves all the problems the negative will say. It improves deterrence and solves the problems of climate change, terrorism, proliferation, economic decline, ethnic strife, pirates, cyber terrorism, trade, humyn rights, and democracy. [/font][/b][/size]
[b][color=#000058][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Waseda 10[/size][/font][/color][/b]
[font=Times New Roman]The Enduring Importance of our Security Alliance Ambassador John V. Roos
Waseda University Organization for Japan-U.S. Studies (WOJUSS) event
Waseda University, Tokyo January 29, 2010 [url]http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20100129-71.html[/url][/font]
[b][u][font=Century Gothic][size=3]There is still much more that we can do together in the future to enhance cooperation, which will in turn provide greater deterrent value at a lower cost. [/size][/font][/u][/b][font=Times New Roman]Prime Minister Hatoyama recently spoke in Singapore about the idea of greater U.S.-Japan engagement with Southeast Asia in response to natural disasters. The United States Marine Corps and Japanese Ground Self-Defense Forces can serve together as first responders in regional humanitarian crises[/font][b][u][font=Century Gothic].[/font][/u][/b][font=Times New Roman] When such crises occur, we can and should coordinate our responses as allies, as we are doing with the international community now in Haiti, where Japan is playing a significant and very valuable role in helping to address that terrible tragedy. In addition to supporting our friends in Southeast Asia as Prime Minister Hatoyama has proposed, we should also seek closer cooperation with partners in the region who share our values and objectives. In recent years, the U.S. and Japan have established trilateral dialogues with both Korea and Australia.[/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]These multilateral engagements can supplement our efforts to protect sea-lanes, which carry critical energy and food supplies, and defend against ballistic missiles and other threats. The [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]United States[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] and [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] can do much more to extend our deterrence to space and cyber-space[/font][font=Times New Roman].[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Times New Roman]Our two countries maintain a qualitative edge in satellite and computer technology. These technologies can be deployed in coordination in the field of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Given the proliferation of potential threats in this area, we just can't afford to duplicate our efforts. [/font][font=Century Gothic]Finally,[/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic] our partnership can and should extend beyond this region. The flip side of the rise of new global powers is the weakening of state control in large swaths of the developing world. Due to the effects of climate change, population pressures, ethnic strife and the economic crisis, countries from the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Philippines[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] to [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Yemen[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] are struggling to control what happens within their borders. Unfortunately, terrorists, pirates, and criminal organizations are a way of life and have thrived in this environment[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Times New Roman][b][u][font=Verdana].[/font][/u][/b][font=Verdana] In this inter-connected world, their ability to use places like [/font][font=Verdana]Somalia[/font][font=Verdana], [/font][font=Verdana]Yemen[/font][font=Verdana], and the border regions of [/font][font=Verdana]Pakistan[/font][font=Verdana] to disrupt commerce or carry out cross-border acts of violence makes them a threat to the entire community of nations. Protecting what is becoming known as the "global commons" is emerging as a key security objective. The Maritime Self-Defense Forces of Japan's deployment to the Horn of Africa and its leadership in supporting governance in [/font][font=Verdana]Pakistan[/font][font=Verdana] and [/font][font=Verdana]Afghanistan[/font][font=Verdana] are concrete manifestations of [/font][font=Verdana]Japan[/font][font=Verdana]'s major contribution in this endeavor[/font][/font][font=Century Gothic].[/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic] Whether it is stopping Iran's dangerous nuclear program or supporting UN peacekeeping operations, Japan and the United States can be more effective when we work together to tackle common challenges[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Verdana][font=Times New Roman]. [/font][/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Verdana][font=Times New Roman]In closing, today, I have focused my comments on the importance of our security alliance and the credible deterrence it provides. But we must always remember that[/font][/font][b][u][font=Century Gothic][size=3]the alliance [/size][/font][/u][/b][font=Verdana][font=Times New Roman]I have talked about is important because it[/font][/font][b][u][font=Century Gothic][size=3]serves a larger purpose - not only peace and security, but also the advancement of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Ultimately our military power and objectives underpin these broader purposes.[/size][/font][/u][/b][font=Verdana][font=Times New Roman]And our alliance, at its basic and most important level, succeeds because it is deeply rooted in history, our shared values, and our common view of the world. Since the bitter conflict that our nations endured just 65 years ago, we have come a great distance together, and our people have benefitted immensely from our ever-deepening cultural, educational, and economic ties, broadening our partnership beyond our security agenda that I've talked about today. We can never forget that. And we have a great deal of work left to do in these other areas.[/font][/font][b][u][font=Century Gothic][size=3] There are many global challenges and regional challenges that still confront both our nations, and we must meet them together[/size][/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic].[/font][/u][/b][font=Times New Roman][font=Verdana]In this year of the 50th anniversary of our alliance, we must remain firmly focused on the future and the work that must still be done, not only to maintain but to deepen our alliance. It is simply not acceptable for either of our countries to become complacent. Let me make one final point. Whenever issues have arisen between our two countries in the post-war period, we have always met those challenges in the spirit of cooperation, and our relationship has always emerged even stronger than before. In 1960, major turbulence accompanied the signing and ratification of the treaty we celebrate this year, and yet that treaty has become the cornerstone of our approach to regional security and economic prosperity. History demonstrates that our partnership has the strength and resiliency to meet any challenges that arise. As the United States Ambassador to [/font][font=Verdana]Japan[/font][font=Verdana], I look forward to working with [/font][font=Verdana]Japan[/font][font=Verdana]'s leaders to mark this anniversary year with a redoubling of our joint efforts to strengthen our core security partnership while broadening our cooperation across the range of global concerns[/font][/font][font=Century Gothic].[/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic] Through our enduring alliance and friendship, our nations will be even safer, the region and the world will be more secure, and we will continue to fulfill and build upon the vision of that historic treaty that was signed just 50 years ago.[/font][/u][/b][/size]


[size=3][b][font=Century Gothic]The [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]United States[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic] should close the Futenma base. This will create a new and better alliance with the [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]United States[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]. [/font][/b][/size]
[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Bandow 10[/size][/font][/b]
[font=Century Gothic]Doug [b]Bandow[font=Century Gothic],[/font][/b] senior fellow at the Cato Institue, [/font][font=Century Gothic][b]05-12[/b][/font][font=Century Gothic]-2010[/font][font=Century Gothic], “[/font][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][font=Century Gothic] can defend itself” published on cato.org [url]http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11804[/url][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]Making fewer promises to intervene would allow the [/font][font=Century Gothic]United States[/font][font=Century Gothic] to reduce the number of military personnel and overseas bases.[/font][font=Century Gothic][size=3] [b][u]A good place to start in cutting international installations would be Okinawa[/u][/b]. [/size][/font][font=Century Gothic]America[/font][font=Century Gothic]'s post-Cold War dominance is coming to an end. Michael Schuman argued in [i]Time[/i]: "Anyone who thinks the balance of power in [/font][font=Century Gothic]Asia[/font][font=Century Gothic] is not changing — and with it, the strength of the [/font][font=Century Gothic]U.S.[/font][font=Century Gothic], even among its old allies — hasn't been there lately." Many analysts nevertheless want the [/font][font=Century Gothic]United States[/font][font=Century Gothic] to attempt to maintain its unnatural dominance. Rather than accommodate a more powerful [/font][font=Century Gothic]China[/font][font=Century Gothic], they want [/font][font=Century Gothic]America[/font][font=Century Gothic] to contain a wealthier and more influential [/font][font=Century Gothic]Beijing[/font][font=Century Gothic]. Rather than expect its allies to defend themselves and promote regional stability, they want [/font][font=Century Gothic]Washington[/font][font=Century Gothic] to keep its friends dependent. To coin a phrase[/font][font=Century Gothic][size=3], [b][u]it's time for a change[/u][/b]. [/size][/font][font=Century Gothic]U.S.[/font][font=Century Gothic] intransigence over[/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] has badly roiled the bilateral relationship.[/font][/u][/b][font=Century Gothic] [b][u]But even a more flexible basing policy would not be enough.[/u][/b] [/font][/size][font=Century Gothic]Washington[/font][font=Century Gothic] is risking the lives and wasting the money of the American people to defend other populous and prosperous states. [/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Washington should close Futenma — as a start to refashioning the alliance with Japan[/font][/u][/b][font=Century Gothic]. [b][u]Rather than a unilateral promise by the [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=Century Gothic]United States[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] to defend [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic], the relationship should become one of equals working together on issues of mutual interest.[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Century Gothic]Responsibility for protecting [/font][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][font=Century Gothic] should become that of [/font][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][font=Century Gothic]. Both[/font][font=Century Gothic][size=3] [b][u]Okinawans[/u][/b] [/size][/font][font=Century Gothic]and Americans[/font][size=3][font=Century Gothic] [b][u]deserve justice. It's time for [/u][/b][/font][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Washington[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] to deliver.[/font][/u][/b][/size]



[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Advantage 2- Japanese Diplomacy[/size][/font][/b]

[size=3][b][font=Century Gothic]Independently, the focus of the Japanese diplomats on resolving the Futenma relocation has hampered the ability of the Japanese government appropriately handle territorial disputes with [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]Russia[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic].[/font][/b][/size]
[b][font=Arial][i]Yomiuri Shimbun[/i][/font][/b][b][font=Arial][i]10[/i][/font][/b]
[font=Century Gothic]11/3/10[/font][font=Century Gothic] (“[/font][font=Century Gothic]Russia[/font][font=Century Gothic] taking advantage of DPJ-led government”, [url="http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T101102003381.htm/greenhill-chris"][color=#40007e]http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T101102003381.htm//greenhill-chris[/color][/url][/font]
[size=3][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Kunashiri[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Island[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] in the [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]northern territories[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] on Monday, ignoring [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]'s sovereignty[/font][/color][/u][/b][/size][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]. [/font][/color][/u][/b][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]It was quite natural that Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara summoned the Russian ambassador immediately to protest the visit. Medvedev is the first Russian head of state to make such a visit since the Soviet era. Since the Russian president expressed his intention in late September to visit the disputed [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]northern territories[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] off [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Hokkaido[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic], [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Tokyo[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] has expressed strong concern and asked Medvedev not to do so through diplomatic channels. We find it extremely regrettable that he snubbed the request completely and visited the island. Some observers speculate that Medvedev's visit was meant to promote himself as a strong leader and consolidate his power base with an eye to reelection as Russian president in 2012. DPJ has bungled affairs However, that may not be the only reason.[/font][/color][size=3][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Ever since its inauguration last year, the Democratic Party of Japan-led government has strained Japan-U.S. relations over the relocation of the [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]U.S.[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Okinawa[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Prefecture[/font][/color][/u][/b][/size][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]. It also recently failed to effectively deal with the souring of Japan-China relations triggered by the collision of a Chinese fishing vessel and Japan Coast Guard patrol boats off the [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Senkaku[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Islands[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]. [/font][/color][size=3][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Moscow[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] has apparently exploited confusion in [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]'s foreign policy under the DPJ-led government and tried to suppress [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Tokyo[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]'s demands that [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Russia[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] return the northern islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan and the Habomai group of islets. To change the present situation, Prime Minister Naoto [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Kan[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] must overhaul the nation's diplomatic strategies, which are based on the Japan-U.S. alliance, as soon as possible. Territorial negotiations between [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Tokyo[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] and [/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Moscow[/font][/color][/u][/b][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] have been deadlocked for decades.[/font][/color][/u][/b][/size][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] While [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] has demanded the return of all of the islands, [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Russia[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic] only has expressed some ideas based on the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration in 1956, which agreed just on the return of Habomai and Shikotan islands after the conclusion of a peace treaty between the two countries.Medvedev has so far proposed to take a "creative and flexible approach" toward solving the territorial dispute, which is different from the approach adopted during the Cold War years. However, he has only spoken of this approach and not shown any specific substance.[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]'s advanced technology and economic cooperation must be very attractive for [/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic]Russia[/font][/color][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic], which is trying to promote development in its Far Eastern region, but [/font][/color][b][u][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Medvedev's latest visit inevitably will chill Japan-Russia relations further.[/size][/font][/color][/u][/b]



[b][color=#262626][font=Century Gothic][size=3]We will win on the likelihood of our argument. The best sources show that territorial disputes are the MOST LIKELY cause of war. [/size][/font][/color][/b]
[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Valeriano 09[/size][/font][/b]
[font=Century Gothic](Brandon, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Ph.D. at [/font][font=Century Gothic]Vanderbilt[/font][font=Century Gothic]University[/font][font=Century Gothic], “When States Die: Geographic and Territorial Pathways to State Death,” pg online @[url="http://tigger.uic.edu/%257Ebvaler/When%20Do%20States%20Die%20II%20Final.doc"][color=#0000f6]http://tigger.uic.edu/~bvaler/When%20Do%20States%20Die%20II%20Final.doc[/color][/url][/font]
[font=Century Gothic]Due to the salience of territorial disputes (Senese 1996) and their connection to annexation and irredentist movements (Saideman 2001), we believe that territorial disputes are symptoms of when states will be at risk for system exit. [/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Engaging in disputes that will put a state’s territorial boundaries in question is a path towards state ruin. The resulting process will demonstrate that a reliable predictor of state death is the engagement in a territorial dispute or the emergence of a territorial issue. Buffer state status may still be an important predictor of when states die, but there are other factors that have been left unexplored and we hope to uncover them here.[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Century Gothic]This research represents an expansion of the territorial explanation of war (Vasquez 1993). It demonstrates that the territorial theory of conflict has research fertility in that new questions and answers can emerge from its central logic (Lakatos 1970).[/font][font=Century Gothic][size=3] [b][u]Territorial disputes are typically the most likely causes of war and also seem to be strongly associated with instances of state death. Territory as a process, and key issue at dispute, can explain more than is assumed in international politics.[/u][/b][/size][/font][font=Century Gothic] The relevance and importance of territorial questions has long been ignored in the field and this article is an example of how the process of state death may have territorial elements inherent in the story of such an event. States do not die because they fail economically, fail to provide for social safety nets, or experience environmental destabilization (Homer-Dixon 1999). States often die when they fail to control and settle pressing issues at stake in the realm of foreign policy. We will next examine past research on state death and present our theoretical refinement.[/font]


[size=3][b][font=Century Gothic]And The [/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic]US[/font][/b][b][font=Century Gothic] must reduce the military presence in Futenma. Any other policy would cause continued political costs from the Japanese government. [/font][/b][/size]
[b][font=Century Gothic][size=3]Matsubara 10[/size][/font][/b]
[font=Century Gothic]Mihoko Matsubara is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation [/font][color=#4c4c4c][font=Century Gothic]Much Ado About Nothing on Futenma [/font][/color][b][color=#9e5700][font=Century Gothic]August 3rd [url]http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/03/much-ado-about-nothing-on-futenma/[/url][/font][/color][/b]
[size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]First, dialogue with [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] is important to highlight how the Futenma project reduces the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]U.S.[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] military footprint on [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] and alleviate local concerns. Any further postponing of this political decision prevents resolution of the issue, invites unnecessary speculation and political costs, and harms Tokyo’s relations with Washington and Okinawa[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Century Gothic]Second, the Japanese government has to develop and articulate a long-term security strategy. Due to terrorism and piracy threats, additional contributions to international security will be required in the future and[/font][size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Tokyo[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]’s “free ride” cannot continue. It is critical for [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Tokyo[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic] to assign limited resources effectively both to national defense and international contribution.[/font][/u][/b][/size]
[size=3][b][u][font=Century Gothic]The Futenma issue rang an alarming bell for [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]Japan[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]’s security strategy and relations with the [/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]United States[/font][/u][/b][b][u][font=Century Gothic]. Now, it is time[/font][/u][/b][/size][font=Century Gothic] for [/font][font=Century Gothic]Tokyo[/font][b][u][font=Century Gothic][size=3]to[/size][/font][/u][/b][font=Century Gothic] devise long-term stratagem and[/font][b][u][font=Century Gothic][size=3] resolve the Futenma issue.[/size][/font][/u][/b]

Edited by Dr. McNinja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Team list! Please fill in what you know :)

 

Central 4- Japan, PMCs

Marshfield 4- New, Japan, Night Raids

Nixa 3- Afghanistan,

West Plains 2- ?

Greenwood 2- Afghansitan

Waynesville 2- ?

Camdenton 2- Afghanistan

Ozark 1- ?

Parkview 4- SoKo, TNWs

Log Rog 2- Kuwait, TNWs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Team list! Please fill in what you know :)

 

Central 4- Japan, PMCs

Marshfield 4- New, Japan, Night Raids

Nixa 3- Afghanistan,

West Plains 2- ?Okinawa

Greenwood 2- Afghansitan

Waynesville 2- ?

Camdenton 2- Afghanistan

Ozark 1- ?I heard Counternarc at MSHAA but idk anymore.

Parkview 4- SoKo, TNWs

Log Rog 2- Kuwait, TNWs

 

Additional text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Team list! Please fill in what you know :)

 

Central 4- Japan, PMCs

Marshfield 4- New, Japan, Night Raids

Nixa 3- Afghanistan,

West Plains 2- ?

Greenwood 2- Afghansitan

Waynesville 2- ?

Camdenton 2- Afghanistan

Ozark 1- ?

Parkview 4- SoKo, TNWs

Log Rog 2- Kuwait, TNWs

I beleive Waynesville is TNWs. Ozark also has a TNW case, but they say they are breaking new

Edited by leap_of_faith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final Team List

 

Central 4

Camdenton 2

Marshfield 4

Parkview 4

Nixa 4

West Plains 2

Ozark 2

Waynesville 2

Log Rog 2

Gloria Deo 1

Greenwood 3

Houston 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...