The US should discontinue its use of private military contractors

I'm fine if he refutes everything else in next round. I expected that he would just post his case first then refute mine in the next round, but its ok. If he wants to put sources in comments to save space, dont penalize him for it. First his arguments, then mine. ObservationI agree. In this debate I will prove that contractors are worse than the military and that we can function without them. C1) Force multiplierCon brings up how only a minimal amount of military troops can be deployed at once, and that PMC's help maintain bases, cook food, etc.1. The only reason we have a troop deficit is because PMC's siphon them away. If one wants to be in a military profession, why would you go to the military and be subject to constant training, when you could join a PMC and be paid hundreds of dollars a day? According to Schreier and Caparini (1), the military is suffering from an intense "brain-drain" of skilled military workers by PMC's. They offer money to potential and current military members and they leave to go work with contractors. Thats why we dont have enough troops.2. Besides, we have enough troops to do these things anyway. In 2006 we had 140,000 troops in Iraq (2). Now we have 50,000 (3). Thats 90,000 more troops available to perform these non-combat operations.3. There's no impact to this argument. All he says is that without PMC's, "the ratio would be even smaller" and that we would lose some chefs and handymen. He has done so without showing how this impacts the war effort, how it affects conflict solving, how it affects counterinsurgency, or anything. He cannot give impacts next round as it would be adding new arguments to his case. C2: Oversight improvedHe points out that new regulation measures have correlated with less shootings. Lots of problems here.1. Shootings aren't the only abuse PMCs commit. Rape, theft, funding the enemy, and wasting money are plenty of malicious acts that his source doesn't even attempt to claim its reduced. So even if you buy that shootings are reduced by this, its only one wasp out of the hive.2. According to his source, regulation may not have been what reduced the shootings:"DOD and Department of State officials have stated that. .. they cannot determine to what degree the reduction in shooting incidents is the result of their efforts, the general decrease in violence in Iraq, or the military surge"3. Even if they did help, according to his source, regulation may not even be sustainable:"the report expressed concerns regarding DOD’s ability to sustain its staffing and training efforts in managing its PSCs in Iraq"C3: DraftCon says that without PMC's we couldnt operate in Iraq, and may need to do a draft to get more men.1. The first part of the quote is irrelevant to the point. "Without PMC's we cant operate in Iraq". That means we pull out of Iraq, not institute conscription. 2. A draft wont be passed, it violates every democratic principle America was founded upon. 68% of Americans oppose conscription (4). To make this argument, my opponent must prove that Obama or any future president is willing to undermine the democratic principles America is proud of.3. Even if we had a draft, it wouldn't be effective. People who didnt want to join would just claim to be Conscientious Objectors; they cant join because they feel war is "immoral". C4: CostHe says a PMC is $15,000 cheaper per person. My opponent completely misconstrues his source. It actually says:"$15,000 savings per person per year through the use of civilian employees rather than a military person of comparable pay grade in peacetime—none of these studies has analyzed the cost efficiency of prolonged, intense conflicts"None of this applies now; there is still conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. C5: Humanitarian operationsHe says we can use PMC's to stop genocides, since the gov. won't use troops.1. Extend Sierra Leone and Afghanistan examples from my C2. PMC's were hired by the gov. to stop the genocide and terrorism. Some of them funded the enemy instead. They are not reliable options to perform this duty. 2. Most places where PMC's are used for Humanitarian reasons are in Africa. Expect abuses to be even more rampant here, as these third-world nations have extremely weak governments and authorities to regulate them. C6: Security guardsMy opponent says we need Backwater to protect diplomats in Iraq.1. Backwater has been involved in 56 shootings of Iraqi civilians while guarding diplomats (5). We can find guards that don't shoot the locals.2. Now that the Iraqi police force and military has been trained by US forces, they can act as these guards instead. Not only will they not want to kill their countrymen, they are also nationals, so his blending in argument is non-unique. C7: Air supportHe says we need more troops to rely less on destructive air strikes1. In 2009 there were over 68,000 contractors in Afghanistan, the location of his source (6). His evidence says that excessive air strikes are a big problem, even with those 70,000 PMC's. So his impact is happening even though contractors are there. They don't solve this problem.2. Also extend C1 argument. We dont have enough military troops because PMC's drain them away. Onto my arguments. C1: US Credibility1. He uses the same argument as his C2. Extend my response.2. He cites an instance where rules of engagement for the military weren't followed in Iraq. At least the military has rules of engagement, even if it has been broken in this one example. There is none of these for contractors, enabling the abuses and allowing them to escape prosecution.3A. He claims there is more oversight for PMC's than for the military, citing oversight branches. First, con fails to prove his point. Just because there is supposed oversight for contractors doesn't mean there is more oversight than the military. He gives no evidence about oversight regarding the normal armed forces, so he can't compare them to contractors. Second, his Oversight Branch evidence already stated that their efforts to regulate PMC's may be in vain, and that they can't even sustain their efforts.3B. Con says PMC's will crack down on employees who commit abuses. Ok, so contractors can get fired for raping someone. Members of the military are discharged, tried in a criminal court, and sent to prison. Contractors are virtually immune from prosecution. I'm not 100% sure, but I think there's more incentive to commit abuses on the first option. RapeCon essentially argues that the military rapes people as well, namely women within its ranks. There's a simple way to solve this. Put them in separate barracks. I understand that this shouldn't be necessary, but nevertheless, it would help solve the problem. Also, my opponent refers to the military raping natives, yet he gives no evidence, statistics, or examples substantiating how often this actually happens, so Con has no access to this argument anyway. Kill CiviliansHe says the military kills civilians as well.1. My opponent gives two examples of the military committing crimes and uses that to say they are worse than contractors in general. This is an extremely exaggerated claim given the warrant he had.2. My evidence indicates that contractors have been involved in hundreds of shootings in Iraq alone. This far outweighs the two examples my opponent gave. Unless my opponent can prove that the military has shot or killed more people, I'll win this argument. I await my opponent's response.1. . http://tinyurl.com...2. . http://tinyurl.com...3. . http://tinyurl.com...4. . http://tinyurl.com...5. . http://tinyurl.com...6. . http://tinyurl.com...