USGF should substantially reduce its military presence in Kuwait, Afghanistan, South Korea, Turkey

ASPEC: A/T- Counter Interp 1.Not real world—no policy is implemented by all three branches at the same time. 2.Not an answer—Even if their interpretation is correct that the USFG is all three branches it doesn't change that fact that immigration policy is not implemented by the judiciary. Instead they have to prove that their use of a particular branch is key to solvency of the plan 3.Crushes CP grd—Lack of specification crushes out ability to use on of those agents that is critical neg ground 4.Crushes DA ground—means we can't run judicial activism, court stripping, congressional stripping or any other branch specific DA A/T OSPEC 1. Turn: Increase PIC grd— over-specification ensures an increase PIC ground and PIC grd is key to negative ground 2. Over-spec is better than under specification—even if we force you to spec the agency and other parts of your aff it only increase your chance of solvency and gives us all a chance at a unique form of debate education—the process of implementation. 3.Over-spec is inevitable—K's prove that when you read the aff there every word you say is a form of specification. No unique offense. Doesn't meet education 1.Key to education—critical to policy making education because it allows policy makers to map and navigate organizations Elmore 80 Richard Elmore, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979-1980), pp. 601-616 Defining implementation analysis as a choice between market and nonmarket structures diverts attention from, and trivializes, an important problem: how to use the structure and process of organizations to elaborate, specify, and define policies. Most policy analysts, economists or not, are trained to regard complex organizations as barriers to the implementation of public policy, not as in-struments to be capitalized upon and modified in the pursuit of policy objec-tives. In fact, organizations can be remarkably effective devices for working out difficult public problems, but their use requires an understanding of the reciprocal nature of authority relations. Formal authority travels from top to bottom in organizations, but the informal authority that derives from expertise, skill, and proximity to the essential tasks that an organization performs travels in the opposite direction. Delegated discretion is a way of capitalizing on this reciprocal relationship; responsibilities that require special expertise and proximity to a problem are pushed down in the organization, leaving more generalized responsibilities at the top. For purposes of implementation, this means that formal authority, in the form of policy statements, is heavily dependent upon specialized problem-solving capabilities further down the chain of authority. Except in cases where a policy requires strict performance of a highly structured routine (for example, airline safety inspections), strong hierarchical controls work against this principle of reciprocity. To use organizations effec-tively as instruments of policy, analysts and policymakers have to understand where in the complex network of organizational relationships certain tasks should be performed, what resources are necessary for their performance, and whether the performance of the task has some tangible effect on the problem that the policy is designed to solve. Analysts and policymakers do not need to know how to perform the task, or even whether the task is performed uniform-ly; in fact, diversity in the performance of the task is an important source of knowledge about how to do it better. Plan text doesn't specify the agent the abuse begins then. 1.Strategy skew—lack of specification has already jacked the 1nc—it forced us to run this argument instead of our sick agency tradeoff DA's 2.Also crushes CP grd 3.Finally its not about what you do—its what you justify—which is vague plan writing and death of policy debate Extend the voters and you can not win a round bc you follow the rules RVI doesn't apply. Funding spec. 1. Doesn't specify who in the USFG will fund it. He has two options 1. Concede that he doesn't specify funding in the 1AC or 2 he raises taxes to fund his plan each of them are bad. He must specify who is going to fund the plan and how much it'll most failure to do this is a voters issue. No one in the real world would vote for a plan that doesn't have funding, or raises taxes and neither should you.