SCFI - Appeasement DA - Retrenchment DA SCFI 10 PreCamp...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Retrenchment DA SCFI 10 PreCamp Starter Set Arsht Notes This disadvantage is extremely generic, so you can run it against any affirmative. The American military presence overseas is indicative of our overall international prestige and hard power. If we start to retreat, that emboldens nations who are looking to take advantage of our decline. The key is establishing that withdrawal from one country will be perceived as total retrenchment. There isn’t too much offense in the affirmative answers section because your 1AC advantages are reason why your specific portion of US deployment is bad. 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Retrenchment DA SCFI 10 PreCamp Starter Set Arsht 1NC Obama is barely holding onto our forward presence – troop withdrawal triggers a catastrophic loss of confidence Guardiano 10 (John R., writer and analyst for the American Spectator, “Obama's Defense Budget”, February 4, http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/04/obamas-defense-budget ) Historical perspective and contextual understanding also are required. Obama , remember, inherited two wars, an omnipresent terror threat, and the greatest military in the history of the world. So it is not surprising that as president, and as commander-in-chief, he hasn't simply and recklessly dismantled and disarmed the U.S. military . Yet, that seems to be the ridiculous and ahistorical standard against which the media judge the president. And, of course, given this standard (or grading curve), the president looks like a stellar performer and a strong commander-in-chief. Give Obama credit for not being reckless; he is not. If he were reckless, then he would have foolishly and precipitously withdrawn troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama , however, has not done that ; in fact, quite the opposite: He has sent tens upon thousands of more troops to Afghanistan and is adhering , essentially, to the Bush administration's deliberative, conditions-based plan for troop withdrawals from Iraq . The president recognizes that a sudden and precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan would be an unmitigated national security disaster for the United States. But while Obama is not reckless, neither is an internationalist who believes in the importance of American global leadership. Obama's defense budget , moreover, reflects his unwillingness to exercise U.S. military power . How else to explain a defense budget that, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), ranks among the smallest we have seen since before World War II? How else to explain the refusal to significantly expand the size of our ground forces for this era of persistent military engagement, which requires "boots on the ground"? How else to explain the failure to seriously modernize a legacy military -- and especially our ground forces -- for 21st century conflicts? How else to explain killing key weapon systems -- like the Army's Future Combat Systems and the Air Force's C-17 jet transport aircraft -- which are absolutely essential to today's conflicts (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti), as well as likely future
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 35

SCFI - Appeasement DA - Retrenchment DA SCFI 10 PreCamp...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online