Non-Evidence Driven Policy Debate - 2010/2011 Topic

Feel free to use evidence whenever you want. There are some arguments, however, that an analytical will suffice. It's 5 off. Some of the arguments will be applied to case later. 1st off is the ITS TOPICALITY A. "its" definition. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... "belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified" B. Interpretation - The Affirmative plan must own the military that is being reduced. C. Violation - Private Military Contractors are simply contracted to do the United States work but are not specifically owned by them. D. Standards 1. Limits - The topic is exploded beyond research ability. If everyone that aids the United States' international interests were considered part of their military, then the Affirmative could run and unreasonable multitude of plans. Every single ally the United States has in aiding them in any country would now become topical which extends the topic too far. 2. Bright line - The plan is either topical or not. At the point where the only way for the U.S. to get the military to do what it wants is through contracting, then it is clearly not 'its' military. E. Topicality is a voting issue because to allow the Affirmative to run any case and get away with it is an unfair research burden for Negative. 2nd off is the PMC DISADVANTAGE A. UNIQUENESS: PMC's are a necessity for solvency of all military policies. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... "observers of private military and security contractors acknowledge... that military dependence on... contractors is so heavy at this point that the military can't go to war without them... there is now one contractor for every deployed troop. In Iraq, the ratio will double to 2-to-1 as US forces withdraw." B. LINK: PMC's are vital for military operations. http://www.brookings.edu... "There are some 180,000 private military contractors... The vast bulk of these contractors handle military support functions: building and operating military bases, maintaining and repairing military equipment and vehicles, and moving massive convoys of supplies that are... vital to the operations survival." C. IMPACT: If PMC's are withdrawn from Afghanistan, the U.S. military would be split causing massive instability and unnecessary death. D. IMPACT: If PMC's are withdrawn, either there will not be enough ground forces to complete the mission, or the United States will have to devote more of their troops to replace the jobs of the PMC's. This is counterproductive to the overall goal of Afghan withdraw in the next couple of years and is clearly a poor policy option. 3rd off is the IRAN DISADVANTAGE A. UNIQUENESS: Iran will proliferate within the year, creating the most probable scenario for Middle Eastern war, widespread proliferation, terrorist attacks and Israel first strikes. B. LINK: US presence is key to containing a nuclear Iran. http://www.aei.org... "Should the Islamic Republic acquire nuclear weapons, it may become dangerously overconfident as it convinces itself that its conventional, irregular, or proxy forces can operate without fear of serious reprisal from the United States, Israel, or any other regional power. In order, therefore, to contain a nuclear Iran, the United States and its allies in the region will need to enhance their military capability to counter the likelihood of successful Iranian conventional action... If the Pentagon has pre-positioned enough equipment and munitions in the region, this might take three or four days; if not, it could take longer. If U.S. forces are to contain the Islamic Republic, they will require basing...in Afghanistan, Iraq...Without a sizeable regional presence, the Pentagon will not be able to maintain the predeployed resources and equipment necessary to contain Iran...Because containment is as much psychological as physical, basing will be its backbone." C. IMPACT: Israeli first strike causes escalating regional war, devastating US presence in the Middle East and exacerbating instability. D. IMPACT: Proliferation causes global nuclear war. 4th off is the REGULATE PMC'S COUNTERPLAN A. PLAN-TEXT: The United States federal government should regulate private military contractors supported and directed by the United States government, forcing compliance with national and international laws and norms. The United States federal government should ensure sufficient oversight and supervision to ensure accountability. B. COMPETITIVE: You can not end all PMC contracts and refocus their efforts in Afghanistan at the same time. C. NOT TOPICAL: There is no substantial reduction of a U.S. Federal Government military of any kind. D. NET-BENEFICIAL: 1. PMC's provide essential jobs that the regular military doesn't have time for. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com... "The contractors... do the work that makes the war possible, like serving food, driving trucks, constructing buildings, transporting fuel, and more." 2. PMC's do the dirty work with no dangerous political backlash. http://www.brookings.edu... "One side would discuss overall pay versus contracted pay -- ignoring the differences between sunk costs of training, who ends up paying benefits, etc., etc. Second, the use of private military contractors has never really been about financial cost savings. Rather, it's been about political cost savings. No one was able to point to a single decision to outsource some function to Blackwater that happened because of a cost differential analysis. Instead, each of these choices was made because a policymaker wanted to try to avoid spending political capital on an otherwise difficult decision, and a contractor was now there to enable this political cost avoidance." 3. Afghanistan is short on troops... Passing the counter-plan has the advantage of not putting the U.S. into a worse off position. http://www.upi.com... Even with additional U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan, combat levels are inadequate to conduct operations in most key areas, a Pentagon report indicates. The congressionally mandated report released Wednesday said coalition forces decided to concentrate on 121 districts in Afghanistan, but have enough troops to operate in only 48 districts, Stars & Stripes reported. 5th off is the MONOPOLIZATION KRITIK A. MONOPOLIZE DEFINITION: "to obtain exclusive possession of" http://dictionary.reference.com... B. LINK: Affirmative Plan refuses to allow Private Military Contractors to work within the legitimate market of Afghanistan... leaving the only other option to be a monopolized market of power. Power that can be placed in the wrong hands to perform the wrong acts. Having PMC's in the area ensures that a second entity creates a check and balance system of power to where immoral decisions can be refused. C. IMPACT: PMC's can make a governmental body second guess their actions. If an order is handed down, and the PMC's refuse to do it, then the government can rethink it's decision. Such a process is necessary to prevent wars such as World War II with Nazi Germany. Finally, even if the government decides to move forward without the PMC's, they will do so weaker that expected making their initial goal more difficult. D. IMPACT: Passing the Affirmative plan would allow for only one body of power to make all of the decisions unilaterally. Integration of a second point of view is critical in preventing unnecessary wars that could have been rationally resolved. E. ALTERNATIVE: Reject the idea that one source of military power in the worldly hegemony is enough to make our world peaceful by rejecting the Affirmative