Non-Evidence Driven Policy Debate - 2010/2011 Topic

TOPIC: Resolved: The United States government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one of more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey. I will present my case as the thesis, taglines w/sources, and planks. The thesis of this case is that the United States mission in Afghanistan is greatly impaired by the existence of United States Private Military Contractors, but has contracts with 90% of the PMCs within Afghanistan. Not only do these PMCs negatively affect the mission in Afghanistan, but also the safety of our soldiers and the security of our economy. It is of utmost important for the United States to stop hiring PMCs in Afghanistan therefore my partner and I affirm todayï¿½€™s resolution. OBSERVATION 1: Significance/Harms A. US hired PMCs in Afghanistan are ineffective and inefficient at accomplishing their contractï¿½€™s goal and detrimental to other US entities in Afghanistan. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee ï¿½€" INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session) B. PMCs in Afghanistan help fund the Taliban with US taxpayer dollars. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee ï¿½€" INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session) C. PMCs abuse US capital, an activity that could drastically impair the US economy. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee ï¿½€" INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session) D. PMCs in Afghanistan recklessly endanger the lives of innocent civilians and US military troops. Chaterjee 10-24-10 (http://www.alternet.org...) E. The PMCs in Afghanistan differ from PMCs in other countries. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee ï¿½€" INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session) OBSERVATION 2: Inherency A. The United States government has not and likely won't for a long while consider the report the SASC brought to light. Feral Jundi 2010(Main Author of online magazine "Industry Talk", http://www.feraljundi.com...) B. The United States overlooks the situation in Afghanistan. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee – INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th C. The US currently holds contracts with approximately 23,400 PMCs in Afghanistan. July 2nd, 2010 (Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis) PLAN In order to solve for the previously mentioned harms, my partner and I present the following plan. Plank 1: Void all contracts with PMCs within Afghanistan. Plank 2: The enforcement will be the Department of Defense. Plank 3: The affirmative reserves the right to legislative intent. OBSERVATION 4: Solvency A. Removing PMCs from within Afghanistan will solve the problems attributed with them. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee – INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session) B. The United States Military can more effectively complete the Afghan mission than PMCs. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee – INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session) OBSERVATION 5: Advantages A. A removal of Afghan US PMCs will consequently result in a US economic stimulus. US Census Facts, 2010 [http://quickfacts.census.gov... ] B. The removal of US PMCs in Afghanistan will create a safer environment in which US Armed forces can operate. SASC 2010 (Senate Armed Services Committee – INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY IN AFGHANISTAN, 111th Congress, 2nd Session) C. The removal of PMCs allow for better relations with the Afghani government, and an overall quicker completion time of the US mission. July 2nd, 2010 (Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, in summary, the mentioned private military contractors in Afghanistan are causing significant problems whilst still failing to do their job. We are therefore nulling their contracts, which will eliminate the problem at hand as shown in Solvency. I only included the taglines b/c my opponent has said this doesn't need to be driven by evidence, but if he wants the context of the card all he needs do is ask. Thank you.