Straight Up Politics

Straight Up Politics - Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 1/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POLITICS MICHIGAN DEBATE INSTITUTES 2010 Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 2/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW CLIMATE BILL (APA) 1NC SHELL American Power Act will pass lots of momentum and confidence Platts June 24th 2010 [http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews.aspx? xmlpath=RSSFeed/HeadlineNews/ElectricPower/6140390.xml, Democrats buoyed to move 'comprehensive' US energy, climate bill] Senators John Kerry, DemocratMassachusetts, Independent Joe and Lieberman of Connecticut joined Reid in speaking with reporters and echoed those sentiments I have more confidence than I've had in a long time . " that we're going to be able to pass a strong, comprehensive, clean energy bill that makes polluters pay ," Lieberman said. "If this caucus gets together and presents such a proposal on the floor in July, we're going to challenge some of our Republican colleagues to do what I know they know is the right and necessary thing for America we're going to get 60 votes or more and for a better, safer American future." Kerry and Lieberman have proposed a broad climate change bill that creates a carbon capandtrade system for the power sector in 2013, brings large industrials into the plan in 2016 and sets a fee for oil producers and refiners linked to the emissions allowance market. An idea under discussion by several senators would involve limiting the price on carbon to the electric power sector but whether that idea is gaining traction remains to be seen. When asked about an electricityonly carbon price, now and put the pieces together," Kerry said. "You'll see in the final product we come out with how each of these principles is embraced." A major driver cited by the senators for cohesion on a bill is the fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency plans to begin regulating industries for carbon dioxide emissions early next year using the Clean Air Act, a move that is expected to fail to give businesses the certainty they need for investments and growth. As a result, Kerry noted many companies have "come to the table" to support action by Congress "We have gas and coal and nuclear and renewable and alternative and energy efficiency . and many others, all of whom believe this is the moment to create these jobs in our country and secure our energy future," he said. " We're convinced that we can do it." Insert Specific Link: Obama political capital key to passage of APA CNN 6/22/10 [http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/22/energy.bill.senate/"Sources Say meeting on white house energy bill postponed" by the CNN Wire Staff, ] Kerry said specifics of legislation were not discussed. "My sense is that each of senators made their statements. Harry Reid is going to take this President Barack Obama called Tuesday for the Senate to "stand up and move forward " on the issue in the aftermath of the Gulf oil disaster. "This has to be a wakeup call to the country, that we are prepared and ready to move forward on a new energy strategy that the American people desperately want but for which there has been insufficient political will," Obama told reporters after a Cabinet meeting at the White House. However, two Senate leadership aides told The White House had portrayed the talks as a chance for all participants to pitch their best ideas, similar to the health care summit earlier this year that emboldened Democrats to push through a Senate bill with no Republican support. However, sharp differences between the two parties are evident, as well as some infighting among Democrats over what kind of final proposal would have a realistic CNN later Tuesday that the White House abruptly postponed a planned meeting Wednesday with senators from both parties to try to reach agreement on a proposal that can pass the Senate. The Senate aides, one from each party, did not know why the meeting was called off. chance of getting the 60 Senate votes needed to pass. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday it was up to Obama to put his support behind a specific proposal. "I think it's pretty clear we have to do something; the question is, what do we do?" Reid, DNevada, told reporters. " And a lot of that depends on what the White House is going to do to help us get something done." Impact: APA bill creates jobs and solves warmingincentivizes greener strategies Light & Caperton 6/15 (Andrew and Richard, 6/15/10, EPA modeling shows American Power Act brings economic and climate benefits, http://www.grist.org/article/20100615epamodelingshowsamericanpoweractbringseconomicandclimat/) Sens. John Kerry (DMass.) and Joe Lieberman (IConn.) released analysis today of their American Power Act, or APA, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's analysis definitively demonstrates that we can reduce our carbon pollution and jumpstart the clean energy economy at a very small cost to American consumers. This analysis is also consistent with several other studies showing that the A merican ower ct P A would create jobs, reduce consumer energy prices, and help the United States lead the world toward stabilizing carbon emissions at safe levels by 2050. The EPA concluded that the APA would be affordable for American families if it is enacted. The average family will have to spend less on energy if this important legislation passes, primarily because ***APA CLIMATE BILL 1NC Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 3/210 of increases in energy efficiency mandated and stimulated by the legislation. EPA projects that passing the APA would reduce Americans' annual energy expenditures by 10 percent by 2020. The agency also finds that Americans will be more prosperous in 2020 than we are today. While families will on average consume $79 to $146 less per year in 2020 if the bill passes, this pales in comparison to how much consumption will increase from 2010 due to predicted economic growth. The EPA also concluded that the bill's consumer protection programs work so well that CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW those who can least afford a decline in consumption lowincome households will actually be better off under this bill than in a future without it. In fact, the poorest 10 percent of the population would be almost $160 better off in 2010 under the APA. It's important to note, however, that the EPA analysis is primarily focused on environmental modeling, which means it doesn't include everything one would want to know about the bill's economic effects. The Center for American Progress has previously argued, for example, that any analysis of climate legislation's economic impact is incomplete without discussing climate change's devastating effects. EPA does not explicitly model the economic benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but they do recognize the importance of this issue, stating, "Economic effects of these impacts are likely to be significant and largely negative, and to vary substantially by region ..." Among other things, EPA also doesn't study how the bill would affect jobs and employment, the federal budget, or oil consumption. But fortunately the EPA analysis is not the only study of how the APA would affect the United States. Recent work from the independent Peterson Institute (using a U.S. Energy Information Administration model) and ClimateWorks (using a McKinsey model) both show that the APA would lead to new jobs for American workers. These studies find that it would create an average of 203,000 to 440,000 more jobs per between 2012 and 2020 than would exist without the bill The Congressional Budget Office found that year similar climate legislation would generate revenue for the federal government . Upcoming CBO analysis of the APA will also likely show that passing this bill will actually reduce the government's budget deficit. The Peterson Institute analysis further shows that Americans will use less gasoline and import far less oil in 2030 if the Senate passes the APA than under a businessasusual scenario. Despite the oil industry's claims that climate legislation will make gasoline unaffordable, the EPA finds that this legislation will only increase the price of gasoline by about a dime by 2020 well within gasoline's normal price volatility. The APA will also encourage American businesses to invest in clean energy technologies that will power our lowcarbon future, it and will drive significant increases in renewable energy What's more, the EPA predicts that there will be sevenandahalf times more generation from coal with carbon capture and . storage if the Senate passes this bill. Finally, the EPA convincingly answers an old criticism leveled by many who are opposed to U.S. action on this global problem: If the United States acts to reduce its emissions will it make any difference in global levels of carbon pollution? EPA's answer is a resounding yes. High levels of unemployment risk nuclear war. Mead, 1994 [Walter, Senior Fellow at Council on Foreign Relations, "ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE SEMINAR AND NEWS CONFERENCE REGARDING G7 JOBS CONFERENCE IN DETROIT," Federal News Service, Mar 11, LN] Okay, well, as I listened to people talk this morning, I was very happy to hear that we're saying that unemployment is more than a national problem and more than a simple economic problem, that the question of mass unemployment concentrated primarily among younger people and having an inevitable consequence of falling wages and work opportunities for the general population is also, in the long run, a threat to the democratic there. This really goes to the heart of the question of the longterm survival of a lot of the values that we have and a lot of the institutions that we care legitimacy of Western governments. This is not simply a technocratic, economic problem that we want to adjust 2 percent here or 1 percent about. I'd like to add to that that unemployment is not unrelated to the question of world peace . We've had today hanging over us a couple of times mentions of hundreds of millions of people in developing countries who would like to join the advanced industrial democracies in their standards of living. We've spoken of the former communist states of Europe, all of whom are looking for a place at this table. Our modern economic system originated after the second world war with some very important insights, where people looked at why did the world get into World War II. And big answer was the mass unemployment of the '30s that led to fascism, a that led to a climate of international confrontation, and ultimately led to . And the idea that full employment was central to concept of war building peace after the second world war. Today we tend to say that if you can get full employment at all it will follow free trade, if you you know, except for low interest rates and GATT there is essentially no Western program today for jobs. This is putting the cart before the horse in the view of the people who sort of originally designed the postwar system, where they said that free trade was actually a consequence of full employment rather than a cause of it. And I think you can still see that in that the ink is hardly dry on the Uruguay Round agreement when the United States and Japan are firing opening volleys in a trade war. So government and we are talking about world peace when we are talking about unemployment . What is so interesting is we are talking about the viability of our democratic systems of the and alarming, is the enormous gap between the gravity and intractability of the problem and the very small scale measures being proposed to deal with it. I suspect that we will see out of this job conference a very few recommendations coming forward on improving the efficiency of labor, sort of marginal improvements, and there will be essentially a throwing up of the hands in despair about this thing. All of us have spoken more or less this morning about the need for some kind of G7 cooperation, international cooperation here. We've been talking about this for a long time, really since the Bretton Woods system broke down in the early 1970s. There have been a whole series of efforts to create some kind of international economic cooperation among the leading economies, and they have generally ended either in disaster or in platitude sometimes in both. I think there is a reason for this; the reason is the fallacy of composition, a fallacy of composition similar to the one that Keynes looked at, talking about how a nation can save itself into poverty, that when times are bad what makes sense for the individual household or firm is to cut back on expenses, to draw in your horns; if you're a firm to defray any new investments, and so on. This exacerbates the national problem as people stop consuming and investing. In the same way, when you have a difficult global economic climate, I makes sense for each country to try to bolster up its own finances, its own balance of trade. We've seen plenty of competitive devaluation. Indeed, here we are sitting in the international capital of competitive devaluation, widely considered in the '30s to Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 4/210 be the most evil of all protectionist schemes, today endorsed and praised to the skies by people who enjoy reputations, even among financial journalists, if I can say so, as free traders. Competitive devaluation is a tariff, it is an attack on free trade. And yet somehow today this has become a normal part of international economic planning. What is needed? Just as Keynes argued that you needed a macroeconomic policy agency looking at what is good for the entire national economy, you also need to have agencies in the world economy, in the global economy, whose mandate is for the health of the overall global economy. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the EBRD, the InterAmerican Development Bank can all, I think, play a constructive role in this, although they need to have somewhat larger resources and to take a broader view of their mandates in some cases. But I think we need to clearly get beyond this notion of ever six months finance ministers sit down and issue a platitudinous communique saying, you know, basically all bad things should be reduced and all good things should be increased, and then we all go home. If we can't provide institutional, ongoing agencies for international cooperation, then we might as well just write the whole thing off. People have spoken about ideas like a global central bank. I would simply like to suggest here, rather than prescribing a lot of things, that there are ways in which a more demandoriented, expansionaryoriented program can also be a more marketdriven program and can reduce trade tensions as well as employment tensions among advanced countries. To give you just a quick example, that instead of the advanced countries spending their time squabbling with each other over agricultural subsidies, it might be interesting to look at consumption subsidies for developing countries for hungry people, underfed people in the developing world. The same money now spent, essentially wasted, on agricultural subsidies for producers, if pumped onto the consumption side of the equation could reduce regulation, free up agricultural trade, and even potentially raise incomes of farmers in developed and developing countries. There are ways in which institutions with a global mandate and whose basic charter is concern for the health and growth of the overall global economic system can relieve us of some of our problems and address even some of our particularly pressing political problems, such as the chaos and desperation that is threatening to turn Eastern Europe into an arena of, God forbid, nuclear war but to make Yugoslavia, to make the Bosnian mess look like nothing, like an English soccer riot CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW , Warming causes extinctino Tickell, 2008 [Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Guardian, 811, "On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction", http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange] We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the , beginning of survival" for umankind. Or perhaps the h beginning of our extinction. collapse of The the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing longterm sea level rises of 80 metres 70 . All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly . Watson's call was die supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a fourdegree rise it is quite possible that we world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the and the more the Arctic warms. And sea, as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 5/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Energy Bill will pass, the Dems are unified, the GOP will fold, and there's a bipartisan consensus The Atlantic 6/25/10 [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/06/democratsstarttoplayhardballonclimate/58743/, "Democrats Start to Play Hardball on Climate" Nicole Allan] WILL PASS MUST READ Thanks to BP's oil spill, significant climatechange legislation now has a real shot at passing, though not because it will gain votes for the Senate's struggling energyreform bills. Democrats have another tactic in mind. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest energy strategy is to fold a comprehensive climate bill in with bipartisan legislation reforming the oil industry. The "spill bill," a response to the BP oil spill that would impose new safety and environmental rules and reform regulation of offshore oil exploration, is fasttracked for approval in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee next week. Both Democrats and Republicans have rallied behind the need for refined regulation to ensure that a disaster like the Gulf spill does not happen again. Democrats are hoping that by sneaking energy provisions into the bill, Republicans won't be able to vote against without looking like they're siding with Big Oil. Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for it American Progress Action Fund, lays out the dilemma Democrats are hoping to place in Republicans' laps: People have never been enamored with big oil Oil and block reform or vote with the American people to make our rigs safer, reduce oil use, and reduce oil pollution. Democrats took a similar strategy with financial reform, using the economic collapse to pressure Republicans into voting for more Wall Street regulation. Next week's vote will determine the success of this strategy once and for all, but Democrats are confident that the bill will enjoy bipartisan support. With climate, companies, and now they're even angrier at them. The upcoming debate will pose a choice for senators to either vote with Big however, they'd risk torpedoing vital reforms to the oil industry if the strategy did not work. They'd also risk compromising key energy provisions, not just because of the dualbill strategy but because of the accelerated timeline. Democrats have not yet decided which climate legislation they want to pursue. At caucus meetings yesterday and last week, they debated the merits of three different bills: John Kerry and Joe Lieberman's capandtrade version, Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins' capanddividend one, and Jeff Bingaman's energyonly bill. Emerging from yesterday's closeddoor meeting, Democrats were bizarrely effusive about the proceedings. According to The Hill , Lieberman called the meeting "absolutely thrilling," Reid termed it "very, very powerful" "inspirational, quite frankly," and Kerry said it was "without doubt one of the most motivating, energized, and even inspirational caucuses that I've been part of since I've been here in the Senate in 26 years." Asked about specifics, however, Kerry was mum. Climatewire reported that Chuck Schumer suggested assembling a small group of Democrats to draft compromise legislation and rally the party around it. A similar method was used to pass the health care bill, which, though it did not get any Republican votes, did eventually achieve relatively unified Democratic backing. This kind of party discipline would be vital to passing a joint oil/energy bill and would likely require similar stronghanded maneuvering to achieve. Democrats have been far from united on the climate front, with some refusing to vote for a bill that does not price carbon and others refusing to vote for one that does. Coal and oil state Dems are in a particularly tough spot and will likely require extensive provisions for clean coal technology and nuclear energy as well as a compromise on offshore drilling . Yesterday's caucus meeting did signal a shift in tone, however, and attendees were glowing about a renewed sense of unity and purpose. The decision to lump energy in with the oil bill is a change of strategy, one that shows Democrats are ready to play hardball . If Senate leaders and the White House back this effort with the force they (eventually) put behind health care, it could have its first realistic shot in a long time at passage this year . ***UNIQUENESS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 6/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASS REID/OBAMA Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman's climate bill has support of the Harry Reid and Obama Lehmann 5/13 /2010 (Evan writer for climatewire) "Now Launched, The Climate Bill Faces Period of Hard Work" http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/05/13/13climatewirenowlaunchedtheclimatebillfacesperiodo17963.html President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry (DNev.) Reid could push the legislation forward with muscular persuasion , Kerry and Lieberman said. Obama provided an early push. "For too long, Washington has kicked this challenge to the next generation," Obama said in support of the bill yesterday. "This time, the status quo is no longer acceptable to Americans. Now is the time for America to take control of our energy future and jumpstart American innovation in clean energy technology that will allow us to create jobs, compete and win in the global economy." Reid is expected to meet with committee chairs early next month to discuss reconciling provisions in the American Power Act with other bills, including an energy bill by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (DN.M.) that offers a renewable electricity standard The president and Harry Reid are . " with us, a nd I heard several Republicans tell me privately in these last days they're encouraged by what's in this bill and they're anxious to review it and work on it ," Kerry said. But the sponsors, it appears, will also have to bridge divides with other senators before the bill can be assured of reaching the chamber's 60vote threshold. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 7/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASSPUBLIC There is public support for an energy bill LA times 6/21 /2010 (an editorial) "The Country's Behind a Climate Bill" http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/21/opinion/laedclimate20100621 You can't fault Obama's political instincts. He can count votes as well as anybody, and it's clear that the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster on a climate bill just aren't there. Yet the president's habit of leading from the rear is in part responsible for that. By using his considerable oratorical gifts to explain the reality of climate change and the urgency of taking action before it causes an environmental and economic catastrophe that would dwarf what's happening in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama might be able to pressure some senators into his camp . Indeed, there is evidence that the public would back him. Obama's pollster Joel Benenson recently found that of likely 63% 2010 voters support charging energy companies for the carbon pollution released in electricity production or gasoline use. Another recent survey by Pew Research had strikingly similar results, with 66% of Americans supporting a bill that would put limits on greenhousegas pollution. And Stanford communications professor Jon Krosnick reported poll results in the New York Times earlier this month showing 76% approval for government limits on business' greenhousegas emissions. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 8/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW The energy bill is popular in the Senate and will likely pass with democratic support Meckler and Boles 6/18 Laura & Corey (both are staff writers for the Wall Street Journal) "Democrats Divided On Energy Bill" WILL PASSDEMOCRATS http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313122834326414.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond On Thursday, Senate Democrats met to hear competing proposals from senators but emerged without a decision on a way forward. They will gather again next week, and key senators will meet Wednesday with Mr. Obama at the White House. Their goal is to bring a bill to the Senate floor in just a few weeks,after senators return from their July 4 break, Senate leadership aides said. " We have no one saying no [to an energy bill]; we have everyone saying yes," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) tol d reporters after the Democrats ' hourlong meeting. "I am committed to getting [a bill] to the floor in the next work period. " Vice President Joe Biden predicted an energy bill would pass this year. " It's going to be difficult. It's going to be hard ," he said. " There is a clear possibility we'll get a solid bill." If the Senate does pass energy legislation this summer, Democrats plan to spend the fall merging it with the sweeping measure passed last year by the House. They would bring the compromise back to both chambers for a final vote in a lameduck session after the midterm elections, leadership aides said. That is partly because the fall legislative calendar is already tight, and partly to allow vulnerable House Democrats to avoid a vote that could open them to new attacks before the election. Whatever emerges from the Senate is expected to include provisions responding directly to the oil spill, such as tougher regulations on the oil industry and higher liability caps. Democratic unity over a climate bill now NYT, 6/25 [Senate Democrats Plot 'Impenetrable' Path to Victory for Unwritten Climate Bill, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/25/25climatewiresenatedemocratsplotimpenetrablepathtov66658.html] A spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNev.) declined to comment on the strategy, but Democrats were not shy about touting the oil spill response legislation as a key pillar of their energy plans. " Whatever form it takes, we're going to move forward," Reid said directly after yesterday's meeting. "We agree we must deal with the catastrophe in the Gulf, we must create millions of new jobs, we must cut pollution, and we must strengthen our national security and energy independence." Democrats have been attempting to tie the need for sweeping energy and climate legislation to the ongoing BP PLC oil leak since it began, but the new plan appears to go a step further. By including drilling safety reform in the bill, they hope to make the case that a vote against the package is a vote for BP and "Big Oil." "It will be an opportunity for senators to vote for oil safety ," Lieberman said. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 9/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASSAT: MIDTERMS Will pass, despite midterms LA Times 6/27 (Lisa Mascaro and Richard Simon, 6/27/10, Senate Democrats poised to start energy bill, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/lanaenergycongress20100627,0,4030045.story?track=rss) With the gulf oil spill creating political opportunity, Senate Democrats will begin crafting a sweeping energy bill this week that could include a firstever, though more modest, cap on globalwarming pollution, believing they must act now despite differences within their ranks and political jitters in an election year. Instead of regulating all sources of greenhouse gas emissions as originally proposed, lawmakers are considering placing a carbon cap initially only on utility companies. That idea was once dismissed by environmentalists as too incremental, but now is seen by some as better than no cap at all. President Obama will meet Tuesday with a bipartisan group of senators to push for a new energy policy. " We are prepared and ready to move forward on a new energy strategy that the American people desperately want but for which there's been insufficient political will," Obama said recently. "It is time for us to move to a clean energy future." <read pop public> Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 10/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASSAT:BIG BUSINESS Bill will pass private parties agree energy in the status quo is unsustainable and Obama has empirically drawn support from Big business Time on CNN, 6/14 [Can Obama Regain the Backing of Big Business?, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1996350,00.html? xid=rsstopstories] The opportunity to fix , or, at least ameliorate, the problems between the President and Big Business is actually coming to a head just as Obama is tackling the issue of energy reform while the monstrous crisis of the BP oil spill looms large ( over the debate ). Just as on health care, many forwardthinking CEOs understand that the status quo on energy is unsustainable , both for them and the country. Early on the in health care legislative fight, Obama corralled and touted a lot of support from the private sector for reform . He lost some of that backing during the meandering process, but he kept enough on board to keep the final deal from being seen as unambiguously antibusiness ***LINKS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 11/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW FOREIGN MILITARY AID UNPOPULAR Plan is Partisan Foreign Military Aid is empirically partisan The Weekly Standard, Jan 2007 [January 1st 2007, The Peace Party vs. the Power Party; The real divide in American politics., Lexis] And because the peace party wishes to scale back domestic military spending, it is unsurprising it would also want to reduce foreign military aid. "Compared to Republicans ," write Shapiro and BlochElkon, "Democrats have been more supportive of cutting back military aid to other nations." They found that the difference in opinion among Democrats and Republicans on this question doubled between 1998 and 2004, with substantial majorities of Democrats supporting cuts in military aid . As America cuts back on its financial commitments abroad, so, too, should it reduce the number of its military bases on foreign soil. In 2004 large majorities of Republicans supported the American base at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba; substantially less than a majority of Democrats felt the same way. In 2004, 57 percent of Republicans supported bases in Afghanistan; 44 percent of Democrats felt the same way. GENERIC REDUCTION Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 12/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW TROOP REDUCTION UNPOPULAR: NO GOP Republicans oppose troop level reductionprevious endorsement of troop increases proove Soraghan et al 10/6/ 2009 (Mike Soraghan, Molly K. Hooper and Sam Youngman, political analysts at the Hill, "Republicans ready to support president on Afghanistan troop increase," The Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/61955gopisreadytosupportobamaonafghan troops) In an unusual twist, Republicans sought to provide Obama with political cover should he increase troop levels. Democrats, however, were reserved and nuanced in their statements after a bipartisan, bicameral meeting at the White House. The meeting demonstrated that if Obama decides not to seek additional troops, he and the Democrats who back him will be criticized for not supporting the decisions of his commanders on the ground. Republican leaders are firmly backing the recommendation by Gen. Stanley McChrystal to send another 40,000 troops, which would be nearly 20,000 more than President George W. Bush sent to Iraq two years ago. Democratic leaders are split, with some endorsing McChrystal's recommendation and others much more skeptical. AFGHANISTAN Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 13/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WITHDRAWAL POPULAR PUBLIC Withdrawal popular Americans no longer endorse deployment in Afghanistan Leaver, 09 research fellow with the peace and security program at the Institute for Policy Studies (10/2/09, Erik, IPS, "How to Exit Afghanistan," http://www.ipsdc.org/articles/how_to_exit_afghanistan) The divide over the next steps in Afghanistan extends outside of Washington as well with a new USA Today poll indicating that 50% of Americans oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan, a 15% drop in support from March, when Obama ordered more troops. And where perhaps it matters most, in Afghanistan, support is even lower. A February 2009 ABC/BBC/ARD poll found that only 18%of Afghans support increasing the number of U.S. troops in their country. Withdrawal popular with public Americans and analysts are warweary http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/obamasexitstrategyforafghanistan1655347.html) Usborne & Starkley, 09 (3/27/09, David and Jerome, The Independent, "Obama's Exit Strategy for Afghanistan," simultaneously trying to lower expectations about what constitutes "victory ". Notably absent will be expressions of the utopian goals favoured by his predecessor, George Bush, about forging a Westernstyle democracy. Obama has to explain why beefing up US commitments remains crucial to root out the alQa'ida threat while The decision to take a firmer grip of the tiller in Afghanistan will meet mixed reactions from other troop contributors, including Britain. It reflects American frustration both with the reluctance expressed by Nato allies to maintain troop numbers as well the shortcomings in coordination between the Nato contingents on the ground The war is now in its . seventh year and recent polls have shown fastshrinking American support for it. Public supports pullout, despite GOP's support for Obama's Afghan policy Rashid, 09 former Pakistani revolutionary and journalist (10/27/09, Ahmed, The National Interest, "Trotsky in Baluchistan," http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22352) Lawmakers have begun to compare Afghanistan to the U.S. debacle in South Vietnam and to the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. An ABC poll said that 51 percent of Americans want U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. The most bizarre turnaround has come from rightwing Republicans who now back Obama and urge more troops, while leftwing Democrats from Obama's own party are pushing for a pullout. Public supports withdrawal Karl and wolf 09 senior congressional correspondent in November 2008. In this role, he is responsible for covering Capitol Hill AND reporter who covers the U.S. Senate, ( Sept 11, Jonoathan and Z. Bryon, "War in Afghanistan Faces Looming Political Battle in Congress" http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/afghanistanwarfacesbattlecongressdemocratspushingwithdrawal/story?id=8547211&page=1 ) As for public opinion, the latest ABC News poll on the question suggests that Pelosi is correct and that Obama will have to work hard to build public support for the war effort. In the poll, released Aug. 17, 51 percent said the war wasn't worth fighting. And those favoring reducing troop levels (45 percent) far outnumbered those favoring an increase (24 percent). ^^^POP Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 14/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW COUNTERTERRORISM POPULAR Maintaining the policy of killing alQaeda's leadership is vital to sustaining domestic support if the U.S. withdraws Simon, and Stevenson, 9 * adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, AND **Professor of Strategic Studies at the US Naval War College, (Steven and Jonathan, "Afghanistan: How Much is Enough?" Survival, 51:5, 47 67, October 2009 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a915362559&fulltext=7132409) Given the tenuous relationship between instability in Afghanistan and the graver threat posed by instability in Pakistan, the typically long duration of insurgencies and infrequency of indecisive outcomes, and the daunting list of prerequisites to US counterinsurgency success in Afghanistan, Washington should quietly develop a fallback strategy. Such a strategy should play to demonstrated US strengths. From the standpoint of the US domestic constituency to which American policymakers are ultimately answerable, the core concerns are still alQaeda and allied militants and the threats they pose to Americans. Accordingly, Washington might continue its current policy of eliminating alQaeda's leadership through targeted killing. Although it is a controversial policy, the Obama administration's position in the freighted domestic policy debate on the nature of counter terrorism is entirely consistent with it. Despite its declared post11 September national security policy, which acknowledged roles for both law enforcement and military force in combating terrorism, in practice the Bush administration gave short shrift to law enforcement and strongly favoured military measures. Obama, both during the presidential campaign and after assuming office, decried what he and others viewed as the excessive militarisation of counterterrorism in practice, and endorsed a more fluid, openminded and pragmatic approach. While he would prefer to fight transnational terrorists with lawenforcement tools, he understood that that could not always be done effectively. In particular, he realised that the United States could not, practically speaking, dispatch FBI special agents to Pakistan's anarchical tribal areas and other ungoverned spaces in an unmarked Ford Crown Victoria to arrest alQaeda suspects and bring them back to federal district court in Washington for trial, so measures like targeted killing from drones were needed. Thus, Obama continued and in fact ramped up the targetedkilling policy when he became president. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 15/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW COUNTERTERRORISM POPULAR BIPARTISAN Bipartisan support for counterterrorism and reduction in presence Littlepage, 09 (Dec 3, Mary" Bipartisan Group of Legislators Opposes Increasing Troops in Afghanistan " http://www.truthout.org/1203099) A bipartisan group of legislators wrote a letter to President Barack Obama to oppose his call to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. The group consists of Sen. Russ Feingold (DWis.), Rep. Jim McGovern (DMass.) and Rep. Walter Jones (RN.C.). Feingold, McGovern and Jones said they think that Congress should debate and vote on an increase in troops for the eightyear war in Afghanistan. The bipartisan group also opposes the increase because the three men said they think it could undermine the United States' ability to address the global threat posed by al Qaeda, and they expressed concern for the loss in lives and resources from the war, as well as concern that the war creates many mental health troubles such as posttraumatic stress disorder and suicide among many soldiers. In the letter, the members wrote,"Congress should vote on whether to continue an armed nationbuilding campaign in Afghanistan that has already cost the lives of over eight hundred brave American men and women and hundreds of billions of dollars." When President Obama gave his presidential address on Tuesday night, he said that we owe our people and troops a complete review of the war in Afghanistan and that it is a vital necessity to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, starting in early 2010, to target the insurgency and secure key population centers. "I do not make this decision lightly," Obama said. Obama estimated that $30 billion would be spent this year on the war in Afghanistan, and he said the security of not only Americans but also people in Afghanistan and Pakistan is at stake. He said he aims for the troops to disrupt and dismantle al Qaeda and to deny al Qaeda a safe haven for violent extremism in Afghanistan. Obama also said he aims to start sending troops home after 18 months and hopes for a "responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan." Feingold, McGovern and Jones wrote the president, "We appreciate your thoughtful deliberation on this topic and commend you for saying when you will begin to reduce our largescale military presence in Afghanistan.But we cannot support your decision to prolong and expand a risky and unsustainable strategy in the region. "While we support ongoing civilian engagement in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts in the region, we do not believe more American lives should be risked to support an illegitimate, corrupt government fighting what is largely a civil war." Obama said that extra troops in Afghanistan would increase the United States' ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghanis can get into the fight and so that the troops will help create the conditions for the US to transfer responsibility to the people in Afghanistan. The three congressmen said that sending more troops to Afghanistan is "unlikely to help, and could hurt, our efforts to address al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan."Also, they said al Qaeda and its affiliates are also located in Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and other places around the world."Rather than investing so many of our resources in Afghanistan, we should pursue a comprehensive, global counterterrorism strategy," they said. Feingold, McGovern and Jones expressed doubt that the US military objectives that the Obama administration has identified may not be achievable and that a troop buildup could be counterproductive. "There is a serious danger that the ongoing, largescale US military presence will continue to provoke greater militancy in the region and further destabilize both Afghanistan and nuclear armed Pakistan," they said. "The pursuit of unrealistic nationbuilding goals is making it harder to isolate members of al Qaeda from those who do not have an international terrorist agenda." The group of congressmen also expressed concern for the strain that sending extra troops to Afghanistan would put on people in the military and their communities. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 16/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW COUNTERTERRORISM POPULAR/BIDEN The plan has Biden's and other highlevel support Bailey 09 former White House Correspondent for Newsweek, (October 10, Holly, "An Inconvenient Truth Teller" http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/09/aninconvenienttruthteller.html Back in March, Biden stood alone. When Obama announced that he was launching a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan--to develop the country and make its civilians safe from the Taliban--Biden was the only one of the president's top advisers to seriously question the wisdom of this course . The vice president even authored a short paper, called "CounterterrorismPlus," outlining his case for a betterdefined, more limited mission. The president listened but promised to review his policy again only after the Afghan election in August. Biden "didn't get a lot with the debate who did not want to be named discussing internal deliberations. In the early days of the administration, Biden of traction internally," says a White House staffer familiar was a bit of a joke in some quarters of the White House. He was never the buffoonish character portrayed by late-night comics, but his off-message blurts were the source of eye-rolling and some irritation among the president's men and women. None of the gaffes was particularly damaging, but aides who'd been with Obama through the campaign knew that the president valued very tight control. Biden himself seemed wounded by the sniggering. Asked about his gaffes by a NEWSWEEK reporter last spring, he responded a little defensively, "A gaffe in Washington is someone telling the truth, and telling the truth has never hurt me." Biden can still be irrepressible and longwinded. But in the Oval Office he has learned to be more disciplined without losing his edge. His persistence and truth telling have paid off, and he's found a role for himself . On Afghanistan in particular, the vice president's once lonesome position now has high-level support. The president himself seems to be looking for a middle way--not pulling out of Afghanistan, but at the same time not sending in the more than 40,000 troops requested by the U.S. ground commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Biden has also played the gadfly on health care. He Emanuel. hasn't advocated a particular course of action, but rather has challenged the assumptions of others. "He says the things that others at the table don't want to talk about, or which they find uncomfortable," says White House chief of staff Rahm Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 17/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW BIDEN KEY TO AGENDA Biden is key to the agenda Bailey 09 former White House Correspondent for Newsweek, (October 10, Holly, "An Inconvenient Truth Teller" http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/09/aninconvenienttruthteller.html ) Across the board, Biden's real value to the president is not really his specific advice. It's his ability to stir things up. Senior government officials who have participated in small meetings with the president and vice president have noticed Obama and Biden engaged in a duet. Biden will then question someone, make comments, and the president just leans back and seems to be taking it all in before he speak Obama is one of the world's greatest listeners; you can't tell what he is thinking. He's able to watch the VP ask tough questions and doesn't have to do that himself. [In that way] he doesn't have to reveal what he's thinking. That's very valuable." . Presidents can soon come to feel embattled and besieged; the natural inclination is to surround the presidency with yes men and true believers. Biden is a truth teller, almost congenitally so, but he is no backstabber. There is an appealing, slightly vulnerable quality about his eagerness to please. He may run off at the mouth, but he is known for his loyalty . It is significant that when Biden dissented on Afghanistan policy in the spring, he did not go running to the press with his opinions, and he quickly got on board with administration policy. "The president will lean over, and they will quietly talk to each other. s," Attorney General Eric Holder tells NEWSWEEK. Ron Klain, Biden's chief of staff, describes the interaction like this: "President After the election, Obama spoke of wanting a "team of rivals" in the White House. That sounds very Lincolnesque, but in the wired world of cable and bloggers, rivals (or, more typically, their staffers) can quickly become leakers and troublemakers . "If there were no gaffes, there'd be no Joe. He's someone you can't help but like," says Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina Biden and Obama did not instantly bond. As a junior senator, Obama was not an intimate of Biden, a sixterm veteran and committee chairman. The two men were rivals for the Democratic nomination until Biden dropped out in the early primaries, and Obama chose Biden as his running mate partly because he was a safe political choice, reassuring to Joe SixPack voters who might find Obama a little haughty. But Obama knew that Biden could be a shrewd and pointed questioner, particularly on foreign policy. In the spring of 2008, when candidate Obama was regarded as a greenhorn on foreign policy, he surprised and impressed the pundits by deftly probing Gen. David Petraeus on Iraq policy at a congressional hearing. No one but Obama knew at the time that Biden had advised him on his line of questioning. Offered the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket that August, Biden hesitated before saying yes. He was well aware of the professional dangers of the office--from the pronouncement of John Nance Garner, FDR's first vice president, that the job was "not worth a bucket of warm piss" to Dick Cheney's attempts to run a kind of shadow presidency. Neither prospect beckoned to Biden. That fall he told The New Yorker that his model was Lyndon Johnson, who wanted to help the young John F. Kennedy navigate the shoals of Congress. It was an odd choice: LBJ was miserable, mocked by the Kennedys as "Uncle Cornpone," and Biden risked repeating his fate with the ambitious, smart guys around Obama. More wisely, Biden consulted Walter Mondale, the former senator who became Jimmy Carter's veep and was the first to insist on an office inside the White House, near the Oval Office. Mondale advised Biden to stake out his claim, to decide what he really wanted. Biden did not want an agenda or an assigned policy task or a big staff. But he did want to be in the room when the decisions were made. Obama agreed and told him he wanted Biden's "unvarnished opinion." The answer was access. Recounting this moment to a NEWSWEEK reporter, Biden opened his arms wide and mockbellowed, "You've got it!" At first Obama may have felt that he'd gotten more than he bargained for. The two men are Mutt and Jeff, warm and a little verbose versus precise and a little too cool. After serving as a committee chairman, wielding his own gavel, Biden had trouble adjusting to the bureaucratic strictures of the vice presidency. "This is the first time I've had a boss in 37 years," he told NEWSWEEK in May. To his staff, he would sometimes confess that he had talked too long or said the wrong thing at a meeting with the president--that he had to sharpen his approach. Less than a month into the Obama presidency, Biden forthrightly, if unwisely, declared that the new administration's economic plan had a "30 percent chance" of failure. Asked about this at a press conference, Obama smiled thinly and answered, "You know, I don't remember what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly." Obama's staffers, who were lined up along the back wall at the presser, snickered along with the press. Biden felt insulted. Through staffers, Obama apologized, protesting that he had meant no disrespect. But at one of their regularly scheduled weekly lunches, Biden directly raised the incident with the president. The veep said he was trying to be more disciplined about his own remarks, but he asked that in return the president refrain from making fun (and require his staff to do likewise). He made the point that even the impression that the president was dissing him was not only bad for Biden, but bad for the administration. The conversation cleared the air, according to White House aides who did not want to be identified discussing a private conversation. To demonstrate their palship (and dampen the rumors of disaffection between them), the president and vice president were photographed at one point, sleeves rolled up, eating hamburgers together. Biden worked on discretion. Asked by NEWSWEEK as he flew on Air Force Two in the spring if he could describe any moments when he had influenced the president's thinking, Biden stared down at his hands for a few seconds. "I think I should let him tell you that," he finally said. "Good answer!" exclaimed his relieved communications director, Jay Carney. Biden can get carried away gushing on about all the time he spends with the president ("Four hours a day!") and his close relations in the administration. ("Hillary Clinton!" Biden exclaims, throwing an arm in the air. "We've been friends for 20 years! Confidants!") But in fact his many friendships forged over the years are highly useful to Obama, who had spent just four years in Washington before becoming president, and half of that on the road campaigning. Biden "knows all the players," says Emanuel. On a trip to Europe and the Middle East this summer, Biden joked and guffawed with political leaders across two continents. He was also able to privately deliver bad news and the occasional scolding in a way the president never could. With the Russians in particular, the president and vice president played good copbad cop. Obama publicly declared that he wanted to establish a new era of good feeling with the Kremlin while Biden reminded the Russians that Washington was watching their territorial ambitions and humanrights record. Biden is especially useful with his former colleagues in the Senate, where he showed an unusual willingness to reach across the aisle. He is still a regular in the Senate gym and dining room He also brought a dose of reality to the internal discussions over how far the administration could go. By stating the uncomfortable--or stating the obvious if you've spent time in Congress--he helped people see with better clarity what the choices were, and the consequences of those choices . "I've seen him so much, it's like he never left," says Sen. Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania. Though Biden initially suggested that Obama might not want to try for healthcare reform in his first year in office, the veep has been conscientiously rounding up votes for months. everywhere. He was the one saying you need to make choices--choices within the healthcare system and choices between that and other initiatives. ." Emanuel likes to say that government is often a choice between bad and worse, and suggests Biden understands that as well as anyone in the administration. "He's been asking, 'What are the tradeoffs here?'" says Emanuel. "Early on in the administration everyone thinks you can do everything That description perfectly captures the president's options on Afghanistan. In March, when Obama made his decision to back a counterinsurgency strategy, there was not a searching examination in the White House over the potential cost--in bodies, money, or political capital--or the real prospects for success. During the presidential campaign, Obama had declared that Afghanistan, not Iraq, was the right war, and so the assumption at the White House was that the president would have to make good on his words. He had a request for at least 30,000 more troops on his desk, and he wanted to get enough of them to Afghanistan in time to be of use for the August election. (He ultimately approved a troop increase of 21,000, to a total of 68,000.) Only Biden vigorously questioned whether America would have the patience or resources for a fullscale counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan over the long run. Obama said he'd review the situation again after the election. In June, Obama appointed General McChrystal commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan (relieving Gen. David McKiernan, who was deemed to be insufficiently creative and forwardleaning by the Pentagon high command). The general was given 60 days to make a recommendation on how to implement the counterinsurgency strategy. McChrystal wrote a classified 66page report (later leaked to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post) calling for more than 40,000 additional troops and a rigorous attempt to cut down on civilian casualties. McChrystal warned that the situation was "deteriorating" and that, without reinforcements, "failure" was a real possibility. In Washington, Biden "appeared to grow uncomfortable with the administration rushing to double down without thinking it through," says Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who served both Presidents Bush. Haass, who had opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, had written an oped in The New York Times on Aug. 20 arguing that Afghanistan was a "war of choice," not a "war of necessity"--refuting Obama's characterization in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that same week. Biden called Haass and began quizzing him, later inviting him down to dinner in Washington. "By late August, early September," says Haass, "Biden was pressing his case with the president and the other principals." Biden has been incorrectly characterized as a dove who wants to pull out of Afghanistan. In fact, according to his "CounterterrorismPlus" paper, he wants to maintain a large troop presence. He also favors a greater emphasis on training Afghan troops--and defending Kabul and Kandahar--than on chasing the Taliban around the countryside, and he wants more diplomatic efforts to try to peel away those Taliban who can be bought with money or other inducements (like political power). He is leery of massive attempts at nation building and more hopeful that the United States can work with local warlords than with the corrupt and inept central government in Kabul. On a grander strategic level, he wants to tilt the administration's efforts more toward Pakistan (to "make the problem PakAf, not AfPak"), reasoning that Al Qaeda--the real threat to the United States--is hiding out not in Afghanistan but in nucleararmed Pakistan. Biden was once a liberal interventionist. During the 1990s he pushed to use force in the Balkans to stop Serb territorial aggression and genocide. But he has always been a member of the Vietnam generation, and, unlike some younger members of the administration, including the president, he has a firsthand memory of American defeat. "There are a lot of differences [between Vietnam and Afghanistan]," says Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator from Nebraska and a Vietnam vet who often talks to Biden, "but one of the similarities is how easily and quickly a nation can get bogged down in a very dangerous part of the world. It's easy to get into but not easy to get out. The more troops you throw in places, the more difficult it is to work it out because you have an investment to protect." Long Washington experience has made Biden a political realist, if not a bit of a cynic. Shortly after 9/11, he described to NEWSWEEK's Michael Hirsh how he had been summoned to the White House for a hearttoheart with George W. Bush. Bush reassured him that the United States would not abandon Afghanistan after routing Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Bush 43 even indirectly criticized Bush 41, who had turned away from the Afghans in 1989--after the United States had covertly helped the mujahedin rout the Soviet invaders. Biden warned Bush that the commitment would cost billions and take years and a large multinational force, but he was encouraged by the president's enthusiasm. As Biden was leaving the White House, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer asked him to stop outside at the press stakeout to show that Bush's policies had bipartisan support. Biden agreed, but then Fleischer hesitated. "You're not going to say anything about 'nation building,' are you?" he asked. Biden dryly retorted, "You mean, what the president talked about for the last hour?" For Biden, the story encapsulated all the "phoniness" of the endless debate of America's role overseas. The Republicans had slammed Bill Clinton for years over nation building, but now that they were engaging in some of it themselves, they wanted to do it by another name. On trips to Afghanistan with congressional delegations, Biden gradually grew disillusioned with President Hamid Karzai, who had seemed like such a heroic and hopeful figure in 2002. At a dinner Biden attended with Karzai and several other senators in early 2008, Karzai obstinately refused to concede that his government was riddled with corruption. Exasperated, Biden threw down his napkin and walked out. Obama also had doubts, dating back to when he met Karzai during the campaign. But this August, as it appeared that Karzai or his followers had committed vast fraud in the election, other Obama administration officials also began to seriously doubt whether Karzai was worth the candle. Biden's earlier warnings began to take on more resonance in the White House war councils. Biden, it should be noted, has not always showed the most cleareyed judgment. In 1990 he voted against American involvement in the first Gulf war, which turned out to be a relatively lowcost success, whereas he voted for the invasion of Iraq, which turned into a near fiasco. He opposed the 2007 Iraq surge, which rescued the American effort from near defeat. The president relies on Biden's judgment, but he may be more interested in having his veep play the devil's advocate. One senses, from both his track record and his recent remarks, that Obama is comfortable with having Biden push from one side and General McChrystal push from the other. Last week the president told congressional leaders that he did not plan on drawing down troops in Afghanistan, but by the same token he was rethinking the fullscale counterinsurgency strategy proposed by McChrystal. Obama has shown a penchant for splitting the difference, for finding the middle way on tough policy issues. Some administration officials, led by Biden, appear to hope that American forces can rely more on counterterrorism operations week. But the presidentwill have confidence that whatever he decides, he will have challenged all assumptions and thrashed out all views. He can also be confident that he won't be secondguessed by his vice president. --attacks by Predator drones and small elite units on terrorist hiding places--to hold Afghanistan together and defeat Al Qaeda. But critics call this "splitting the baby" and say it'll never work. As a senior civilian Pentagon official points out, "No one has more experience with counterterrorism than McChrystal," who ran black ops in Iraq and Afghanistan for five years. "If there was an easier, better way, he'd be pushing for it," says this official, who would not be quoted discussing internal deliberations. Opinions within the intelligence community are split, according to current and former operatives. Some back McChrystal's view that the only way to obtain the intelligence necessary to conduct counterterror operations is by a counterinsurgency campaign that protects civilians. Yet a significant minority of intelligence officials, at the CIA and elsewhere, doubt that more troops will make much difference; some think the additional forces could be counterproductive. Senior military officials backing McChrystal have not given up hope that Obama will fully support the general, not Biden, and order tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan. It is impossible to know with certainty where Obama will come out on this; the strategy meetings will go on until atleast next Biden is determined to be a Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 18/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW "team player," says a close friend who asked for anonymity while commenting on Biden's motivations. "He wants to help the president get with Joe." . Joe is someone who is probably not going to run again. This is the apex of his career, and there is no separate agenda. There are people close to the president who are driven crazy by Joe's candor," says the friend. "But that's what you Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 19/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW AT: DRAWDOWN CONTROVERSIAL No link current political climate means move from COIN strategy will not be as vulnerable to backlash IISS 10 International Institute for Strategic Studies, (April, "Obama's presidency bolstered by political success" http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategiccomments/pastissues/volume162010/april/obamaspresidencybolsteredbypoliticalsuccess/ ) As a consequence, the US has adopted a policy of qualified escalation, seeking to pacify Afghanistan through coercive and expansive counter-insurgency (`clear, hold, build') operations and a concerted statebuilding effort to bring order to its politics, contain regional militancy and ensure stability in Pakistan. The US plans to bring the American troop presence in Afghanistan to a peak of 100,000 by late summer 2010, which would represent an increase of nearly a third over the mid2009 number. Obama's intention is to begin drawing down the American presence in Afghanistan in July 2011. Yet the coalition effort in Afghanistan appears increasingly problematic. Despite effective US-led offensives in early 2010 notably in Marja, in Helmand Province the Taliban is proving to be resilient. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has resisted US pressure to root out corruption, and is growing more distant from Washington, but his authority remains hard to sidestep. US-led training programmes for the Afghan army and especially the national police have been revealed as flawed, wasteful and ineffectual. At the same time, the `drone war' against al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the tribal areas of Pakistan has continued to be highly effective, and a stepped-up effort over the past three months appears to have discouraged them from building up operational bases. Accordingly, it may transpire that the full-blooded counter-insurgency and state-building effort embodied by Obama's current Afghanistan policy is not, in fact, necessary to protect vital American interests in establishing sufficient regional stability and denying alQaeda a safe haven in Central and South Asia. In that case, after the healthcare success, the Obama administration might judge that readjusting Afghanistan policy to set less ambitious goals might prove less vulnerable to conservative retaliation particularly if the US public becomes uneasy with sustained American casualties and little progress to show for them. Given the central importance of an acceptable result in Afghanistan to Obama's foreign policy, it is conceivable that he could again change course there. However, since he has already hedged the existing policy by building in the date of July 2011 for deescalation to commence, he may wait until then to take stock. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 20/210 [insert will delay] CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NO LINK UNIQUENESS FIGHTING Delaying withdrawal will cost Obama capital Goodman, 10 *former producer for NBC Nightly News author for The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Columbia Journalism Review (Sandy, "From McChrystal to Petraeus: From Fry Pan To Fire?", Huffington Post, 6/24/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandygoodman/from mcchrystaltopetrae_b_623846.html) However, delaying that timeline would surely have political consequences, as well as miring us more deeply in a bottomless pit. One would be to outrage Obama's base and anyone else who doesn't believe the war can be won , just 15 months before the president runs for re-election. But if Obama is still determined to hold to his timeline, I doubt he can expect much help from the new general he's put in charge, a man even more popular with Republicans than with Democrats, a man who could just end up running against him in 2012. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 21/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NO LINK UNIQUENESS AGENDA Afghanistan will inevitably tank Obama's agenda Boyle, 10 1 Lecturer in International Relations and a Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St Andrews (3/10/10, Michael, International Affairs, "Do counterterrorism and counterinsurgency go together?" http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123318677/abstract) On the other side of the Atlantic, however, the debate was framed differently. In September 2009, General Stanley McChrystal delivered a classified report to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates which stated that without a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy and an additional 40,000 troops for Afghanistan the mission would `likely result in failure'.4 This call for additional troops to salvage a military campaign that was not going well--and the memories of Vietnam that it evoked--rattled the warweary American public and caused unease in Washington. Aware that escalating the war in Afghanistan could lead to a quagmire and derail his domestic agenda, President Obama called for a full review of his options before making a decision on troop deployment. Almost immediately, his critics attacked him for dithering and portrayed the decision facing him as a stark choice between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency.5 His administration was also divided on this issue. While Robert Gates and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, were reportedly in favour of General McChrystal's expanded counterinsurgency plan, the US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, expressed reservations about deploying more troops in such a capacity.6 VicePresident Joe Biden was even more sceptical about a renewed counterinsurgency campaign and authored a proposal called `Counterterrorism Plus' to convince President Obama that the mission should be limited to targeting AlQaeda operatives in Afghanistan.7 Those advocating a counterterrorism approach pointed out that since the US had no legitimate local partner after the flawed elections which returned Hamid Karzai to power, no comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy could be implemented. Staying the course in Afghanistan will cost political capital Biddle 09 Roger Hertog Senior Fellow for Defense Policy, (JulyAugust , Stephen, "Is It Worth It? The Difficult Case for War in Afghanistan" http://www.theamericaninterest.com/article.cfm?piece=617 Obama, by contrast, heads a Democratic Party that is already divided on the Afghan war and likely to grow more so over time. He also faces a series of domestic crises that will require him to spend political capital in order to win support for his governing agenda. Republicans have shown little willingness to cooperate on anything else, and the Administration's new ownership of the Afghanistan war gives the GOP another opportunity to retreat into opposition as the news from the front gets worse. Obama could face a situation in which a bipartisan antiwar coalition threatens the majority he will need to maintain funding for an increasingly unpopular war . His ability to impose party discipline could be limited by competing priorities, depending in part on how long and how deep the economic crisis turns out to be. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 22/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PUBLIC OPPOSES COIN No public support for COIN CSM, 10 (6/26/10, Christian Science Monitor, Brad Knickerbocker, "Quagmire? Nine years on, Americans grow weary of war in Afghanistan; Americans approve of Gen. David Petraeus as the new US commander in Afghanistan. But after nine years and with mounting US casualties, support for the war itself is waning," Lexis Academic ) Meanwhile, 53 percent of those polled by Newsweek disapprove of how Obama is managing the war a sharp reversal since February when 55 percent supported Obama on Afghanistan and just 27 percent did not. (Put another way, the percentage of Americans who disapprove of Obama's Afghan policy has nearly doubled in four months.) The same Newsweek poll finds that "46 percent of respondents think America is losing the war in Afghanistan (26 percent say the military is winning). A similar plurality think the US is losing the broader war on terrorism (43 percent vs. 29 percent)..." Part of this has to do with the nature of a counterinsurgency (COIN) effort a phrase and acronym which has been around at least since the early days of Vietnam. Even when it works, counterinsurgency can take years. And the two most recent major examples France in Algeria and the United States in Vietnam hardly worked. Hearts and minds must be won, not only in the war zone, but at home as well. In naming Gen. David Petraeus as McChrystal's replacement, President Obama emphasized that there would be no change in war policy or strategy. The goal is still to defeat the Taliban, develop Afghan army and police forces, and seriously consider withdrawing US forces in little more than a year from now. But as Tony Karon at time.com points out, "the mounting difficulties facing that strategy were certainly a primary driver of the internecine backstabbing that was laid bare by the Rolling Stone article that got McChrystal fired." "Violence is on the increase, the Taliban is hardly in retreat, both Pakistan and Afghan President Hamid Karzai continue to hedge their bets, and NATO allies want out," Karon writes. "The idea that the war can be handed over to Afghan security forces anytime soon appears fanciful. And prospects for turning things around by next summer, the administration's putative target date to begin drawing down, are looking grim." Unsettled public opinion on the conflict in Afghanistan where US combat casualties have been increasing is reflected in Congress, which must approve war funding. "The president and congressional critics, long on a collision course over the war in Afghanistan, are hurtling ever faster toward each other since the ouster of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and doves on Capitol Hill are feeling a little tougher right now," reports Politico. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan predicts that conservatives may "start to peel off" as well. "Not Washington policy intellectuals but people on the ground in America," she wrote this week. "There are many reasons for this. Their sons and nephews have come back from repeat tours full of doubts as to the possibility of victory, 'whatever that is,' as we all now say." COIN lost public support long ago NYT, 10 (6/26/10, New York Times, Bob Herbert, "Worse than a Nightmare," Lexis Academic) President Obama can be applauded for his decisiveness in dispatching the chronically insubordinate Stanley McChrystal, but we are still left with a disaster of a war in Afghanistan that cannot be won and that the country as a whole will not support. No one in official Washington is leveling with the public about what is really going on. We hear a lot about counterinsurgency, the latest hot cocktailhour topic among the BlackBerrythumbing crowd. But there is no evidence at all that counterinsurgency will work in Afghanistan. It's not working now. And even if we managed to put all the proper pieces together, the fiercest counterinsurgency advocates in the military will tell you that something on the order of 10 to 15 years of hard effort would be required for this strategy to bear significant fruit. We've been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade already. It's one of the most corrupt places on the planet and the epicenter of global opium production. Our ostensible ally, President Hamid Karzai, is convinced that the U.S. cannot prevail in the war and is in hot pursuit of his own deal with the enemy Taliban. The American public gave up on the war long ago, and it is not at all clear that President Obama's heart is really in it. For us to even consider several more years of fighting and dying in Afghanistan at a cost of heaven knows how many more billions of American taxpayer dollars is demented. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 23/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PUBLIC OPPOSES COIN COIN alienating public support for the war Asia Times, 10 (6/12/10, Jim Lobe, "US counts cost of tough Afghan week," http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LF12Df01.html) Even senior military officials are conceding privately that their muchtouted new counterinsurgency strategy of "clear, hold and build" in contested areas of the Pashtun southern and eastern parts of the country is not working out as planned, despite the "surge" of some 20,000 additional US troops over the past six months. Casualties among the nearly 130,000 US and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops now deployed in Afghanistan are also mounting quickly. Four US troops were killed on Wednesday when Taliban fire brought down their helicopter in the southern province of Helmand, the scene of a major US offensive centered on the strategic farming region of Marjah over the past several months. That brought the death toll of NATO soldiers this week alone to 23, including 10 killed in various attacks around the country on Monday, the deadliest day for NATO forces in two years. "It's been a tough week," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Wednesday. Seventeen of the 23 were US soldiers, bringing the total US death toll in and around Afghanistan since the US intervened to oust the Taliban from power in late 2001 to more than 1,100, according to the independent iCasualties website. While senior military officials attributed the steadily rising toll toWashington's surge of a total of 30,000 additional troops by next month, as well as the beginning of the Taliban's annual spring offensive, none other than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned that the US and its NATO allies were running out of time to show results. "The one thing none of the [alliance's] publics ... including the American public, will tolerate is the perception of stalemate in which we're losing young men," he said in London on Wednesday on the eve of a key NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels this week at which Afghanistan will top the agenda and Gates himself is expected to prod his interlocutors to fulfill pledges to provide more troops. "All of us, for our publics, are going to have to show by the end of the year that our strategy is on the track, making some headway," he said. Obama, who last November set a July 2011 as the date after which Washington would begin to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, has said his administration will conduct a major review of US strategy and whether it is working at the end of this year. The latest polling here shows a noticeable erosion of support for Washington's commitment to the war compared to eight months ago when Obama agreed to the Pentagon's recommendations to send the 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to bring the total US presence there to around 100,000. Public support waning BBC Monitoring South Asia, 10 (7/4/10, "General's exit is "fall" of the US Afghan Policy made in "vacuum"," Lexis Academic) Especially when casualties of occupation forces are on the rise and public support for war effort is waning in most of the Western capitals. It is amply clear that the counterinsurgency strategy that was envisaged to turn around the Afghan war by July 2011 has collapsed, both conceptually as well as structurally. Powerful actors in the Obama administration widely disagree on the counterinsurgency strategy of weakening the Taleban, securing major population centres, bolstering the Afghan government's effectiveness and rushing in aid and development. Critics often argue whether a strategy aimed at bolstering the Afghan government can ever succeed in a country with ethnic divisions and a history of tribal rule. Afghanistan is in disorder and it is because of an American policy mired in fatal contradictions. Split between the US civilian and military teams in Afghanistan has not disappeared with McChrystal's departure. Fissures, exposed in derogatory remarks to 'Rolling Stone' magazine would continue to haunt Petraeus. The public supports a troop decrease Karl and Wolf 09 (Jonathan and Bryon, "War in Afghanistan Faces Looming Political Battle in Congress" 9/11, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/afghanistanwarfacesbattlecongressdemocratspushing withdrawal/story?id=8547211&page=1 ) As for public opinion, the latest ABC News poll on the question suggests that Pelosi is correct and that Obama will have to work hard to build public support for the war effort. In the poll, released Aug. 17, 51 percent said the war wasn't worth fighting. And those favoring reducing troop levels (45 percent) far outnumbered those favoring an increase (24 percent). Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 24/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PUBLIC SUPPORTS TROOP WITHDRAWAL Majority of Americans oppose troops in Afghanistan Aiyar 9 Cato Institute (Swaminathan S. Anklesaria, September 20, "Coming Triumph of the Taliban and Pakistan?", http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10572), Even as US military commanders seek a troop increase in Afghanistan to check a resurgent Taliban, US voter support is fast eroding . A CNN poll in September showed that 58% of Americans oppose the war while only 39% support it. Among Democrats, only 23% support the war, and the number keeps falling. President Obama initially called the war in Afghanistan one of necessity, and Democratic Congressmen say in private that US withdrawal is a matter of time. One told me, "The British couldn't pacify Afghanistan, the Russians couldn't, and we can't either." proposed a big US troop increase . But with voter support slipping, Obama now says he will not rush the decision . Public hates Afghan war troop withdrawal popular Naiman 9 Cato Institute (Robert, November December, "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?", http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n63.html) The U.S. public does not support the war in Afghanistan . Since the majority of Americans don't support the war, the U.S. prosecution war, it never turned back. Some say the war is making Americans safer. But the American public is the highest judge on this question. Since the of the war should not continue. Some say such important decisions can't be made according to the vagaries of public opinion polls. But the most important decisions should be decided democratically, and U.S. public opinion is not volatile on questions of war and peace. Once the public turned against the Iraq American people oppose the war, they must believe it is not making them safer, or that whatever contribution the war is making to their safety is too small to justify the human and financial costs. Some argue against a "precipitous" withdrawal. In practice, this is a straw argument. The probability of a "precipitous" U.S. withdrawal is minuscule. The overwhelming likelihood is that as the U.S. moves towards withdrawing its troops, it will do so gradually, as it is doing in Iraq . Public Fear Outcome of Withdrawal Michael Cohen, 6/11/10. Senior Fellow at the American Security Project (Why Has the Left Been So Silent on Afghanistan?) www.cbsnews.com Second, in contrast to the war in Iraq, liberals generally support the objectives of the war in Afghanistan and for a good part of the past seven years have been calling on the U.S. to devote more attention to the war there, rather than Iraq. They recall Afghanistan's role in the planning of September 11 and are aware of the continued presence of al Qaeda in the region. And many fear that a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan would subject Afghans, and in particular Afghan women, to a return of the human rights abuses that defined previous Taliban rule. That makes even those with serious misgivings about the Obama administration's strategy more willing to give it the benefit of a doubt . Majority of the public wants troops to stay in Afghanistan Montopoli 9 (Brian, December 9, " CBS News/New York Times Poll", http://www.cbsnews.com/8301 503544_1625955120503544.html) President Obama said he would begin troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011, but on this a majority disagrees with the president. 55% of the public thinks setting a deadline for troop withdrawal is a bad idea ; just 41% think it is a good idea. President Obama's partisans agree with him on this point. Democrats support a timetable for troop withdrawal, while Republicans and independents do not. Majority of the public wants troops to stay in Afghanistan Montopoli 9 (Brian, December 9, " CBS News/New York Times Poll", http://www.cbsnews.com/8301 503544_1625955120503544.html) Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 25/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW President Obama said he would begin troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011, but on this a majority disagrees with the president. 55% of the public thinks setting a deadline for troop withdrawal is a bad idea ; just 41% think it is a good idea. President Obama's partisans agree with him on this point. Democrats support a timetable for troop withdrawal, while Republicans and independents do not. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 26/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW DEMOCRATS SUPPORT Democrats support the plan Kornblut, 10 (Anne, Washington Post, "McChrystal article renews attention to split with Biden over Afghanistan," 6/23, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2010/06/23/AR2010062301109.html) The underlying tension between the two men dates to last fall's strategy review, in which Biden argued for a narrower counterterrorism approach that would focus on targeting alQaeda leaders. McChrystal argued for a broader counterinsurgency strategy one requiring many more troops, with a mission of securing the civilian population and reinforcing the government. In the end, Obama sided mostly with McChrystal. Six months later, questions abound about whether that plan is working. Administration officials stress that it is still being implemented and that no revisions to the strategy will Washington for remaining in Afghanistan, especially among Democrats, has waned. be considered before a planned review in December. But progress has been slow, with missions in Marja and Kandahar behind schedule. Political support within Biden scored two victories during the policy debate: the December review of the policy, and a start date of July 2011 for withdrawing troops. The military has resisted both, suggesting the dates may slip only adding further to the sense of conflict between the vice president's office and the McChrystal command on the ground. But even before the Rolling Stone article appeared, Biden's viewpoint was regaining traction, with Democratic members of Congress suggesting that it would soon be time to revisit Biden's idea of a targeted counterterrorism strategy . Now, even critics of that strategy believe that Biden's hand will be strengthened by McChrystal's misstep s. "The Rolling Stone piece puts these issues back on the table ," said Bruce Riedel, who conducted Obama's original Afghanistan review in early 2009 and opposes the counterterrorism approach. More generally, Riedel said, "The description that it portrays of how our commander in the field is operating, and how some of the people around him are behaving, will definitely undermine support for the war." Congressional Democrats want troop reductions Karl and Wolf 09 (Jonathan and Bryon, "War in Afghanistan Faces Looming Political Battle in Congress" 9/11, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/afghanistanwarfacesbattlecongressdemocratspushing withdrawal/story?id=8547211&page=1 ) Sen. Carl Levin's announcement today that he opposes sending more U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan is a big deal, but President Obama's Afghan policy faces even greater challenges in Congress, where there is growing group of Democrats who aren't just opposed to sending more troops but would like to reduce the amount already there. Levin's position is more nuanced. The Michigan Democrat said he opposes more combat troops but is open to sending more U.S. trainers. And he doesn't rule out send more combat troops in the future after first increasing the size of the Afghanistan security forces. But if you look at Levin's reasoning, he is ultimately making a case of shrinking the U.S. military presence because, he argues, it is counterproductive. "The larger our own military footprint there, the more our enemies can seek to drive a wedge between us and the Afghan population, spreading the falsehood that we seek to dominate a Muslim nation," Levin said, echoing the case he and others made against the surge in Iraq. Growing Sentiment Among Democrats to Force Withdrawal Timetable Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California was more unequivocal when she ruled out sending more troops not just more combat troops on Thursday, saying, "I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or the Congress." She was actually understating the political sentiment among House Democrats. There is growing sentiment among the liberals who are both Pelosi's and Obama's base of support to force on Obama something he tried to force on President Bush in Iraq: a timetable for withdrawal. Afghanistan pullout popular democrats RTT News 6/29 (RTTNews, 6/29/2010, "Most Americans Back Timetable For Withdrawing Troops From Afghanistan," http://www.rttnews.com/Content/PoliticalNews.aspx?Id=1346623&SimRec=1) (RTTNews) A new Gallup poll released Tuesday showed that most Americans favor President Barack Obama's timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. According to the poll, which surveyed 1,044 adults June 25 26, 58% of Americans favor the President's timetable, which calls for troops to begin withdrawing from the country in June 2011. Another 38% oppose the timetable . Of the 38% who disapprove of the timetable, about threequarters feel that the U.S. should not set a timetable for withdrawing. Obama's timetable is very popular among Democrats, with 81% of those surveyed voicing support for it. Among Independents, 57% favored the timetable. Republicans, meanwhile, were very much against the timetable, with only 31% approving of it. In terms of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, Americans were split. According to the poll, 50% believe Obama has done either a good or very good job at handling the situation, while 44% believe he has done either a poor or very poor job. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 27/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Again, Obama's support among Democrats was highest, with 79% saying he has done a good or very good job at handling Afghanistan. Independents were more split, with 48% saying he has done a good or very good job compared to 45% stating he has done a poor or very poor. Among Republicans, meanwhile, only 21% said he has done a good or very good job. Plan is massively popular with democrats Holland 7 Reuters (Steve, May 30, "Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea", http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3041621320070530), The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years. Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea in which "you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support model." "The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement he believes it is time for Bush to "recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq," that U.S. troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and a change in course is urgently needed. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 28/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Bipartisan support for troop reduction in Afghanistan Carmichael 7/16 /2010 (Lachlan, reporter for AFP, "US insists exit strategy in Afghanistan on track," Agence FrancePresse, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_FrancePresse) BIPART SUPPORT Senator Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the commission, said he was glad to hear of the general's "support for that July 2011 beginning of US troop reduction decision. "I continue to strongly believe that it is essential for successes in Afghanistan for everyone to understand the urgency for the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security," he told the general. Obama's fellow Democrats support the 2011 deadline for beginning a withdrawal following a surge of tens of thousands of troops this year and are anxious to avoid an openended commitment of troops. Senator John McCain, the Republican senator, welcomed the general's remarks that conditions on the ground would determine when US troop withdrawals begin. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 29/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW DEMOCRAT SUPPORT Democrats support military reduction--opposed to the war Agiesta and Cohen 8/20 /2009 (Jennifer and Jon, Washington Post Staff Writers, "Public Opinion in U.S. Turns Against Afghan War," The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081903066.html) That position gets the backing of 24 percent of those polled, while nearly twice as many, 45 percent, want to decrease the number of military forces there. (Most of the remainder want to keep the level about the same.) In January, before President Obama authorized sending an additional 17,000 troops to the country, public sentiment tilted more strongly toward a troop increase. Should Obama embrace his generals' call for even more forces, he would risk alienating some of his staunchest supporters. Although 60 percent of Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped, and majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels. Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 30/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PETRAEUS SUPPORTS SUPPORT FROM THE MILITARYPETRAEUS IS ONBOARD LA TIMES 615 [Julian Barnes, Staff Writer, "Debate grows over Afghanistan withdrawal plan" http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/15/world/lafgusafghan 20100616/2] Reporting from Washington -- Recent setbacks in Afghanistan have intensified debate over the wisdom of the Obama administration's plan to begin withdrawing U.S. military forces next summer and highlighted reservations among military commanders over a rigid timeline.At a Senate hearing Tuesday, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees U.S. forces in the Mideast and Afghanistan, offered "qualified" support for President Obama's plan to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011. "In a perfect world, Mr. Chairman, we have to be very careful with timelines," Petraeus said under questioning by Sen. Carl Levin (DMich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who wanted to know whether he supported the plan. Petraeus explained that the drawdown would be based on conditions in Afghanistan at the time. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 31/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW ANGERS GOP/UNIFIES DEMS Banning COIN will unify Democrats and alienate the GOP NewtonSmall, 9 congressional correspondent for TIME. (Jay, "Congress Tackles Afghanistan Strategy" 9/29, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1926578,00.html) "Many Democrats will say that we need to wait for the President to submit a plan," said a Democratic leadership aide. "Republicans will say, 'You didn't mind secondguessing George Bush on Iraq.' " Obama's dilemma is this: If he chooses to send more troops, he will have near united Republican support but will divide his own party; if he decides against a counterinsurgency strategy, he will be reversing a campaign promise uniting Democrats, the majority of whom are opposed to an expanded U.S. footprint in Afghanistan. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 32/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW 1NC REDUCING PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN KILLS THE AGENDA Reversal on Afghanistan will destroy Obama on balance its politically worse than staying the course Biddle 09 Roger Hertog Senior Fellow for Defense Policy, (JulyAugust , Stephen, "Is It Worth It? The Difficult Case for War in Afghanistan" http://www.theamericaninterest.com/article.cfm?piece=617 However, reversing policy and disengaging would be no easier for Obama. It would be the wrong course on the merits. Politically, it would commit the Administration to a policy now supported by only 17 percent of the electorate. It would play into the traditional Republican narrative of Democratic weakness on defense, facilitate widespread if illfounded Republican accusations of the Administration's leftist radicalism, and risk alienating moderate Democrats in battleground districts whose support the President will need on other issues. However bad the news may look if the United States fights on, withdrawal would probably mean a Karzai collapse and a Taliban victory, an outcome that would flood American TV screens with nightmarish imagery. ^^^UNPOP Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 33/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGY CONTROVERSIAL Plan is extremely devisive Republicans and Democrats are split NewtonSmall 09 congressional correspondent for TIME. Born in New York, she spent time growing up in Asia, Australia and Europe following her vagabond United Nations parents. A graduate of Tufts University and Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism, Jay previously covered politics for Bloomberg News (Sep 29. Jay, "Congress Tackles Afghanistan Strategy" http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1926578,00.html) President Barack Obama is taking out a blank sheet of paper this week as he weighs his options in Afghanistan, and Congress stands more than willing to fill it in. The Senate on Sept. 29 is expected to debate amendments to the 2010 defense appropriations bill that are likely to include everything from timelines for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan to proposals to send upwards of 40,000 more. But, unlike healthcare reform, this isn't a decision Obama can leave in the hands of the Legislative Branch -- however undecided he remains today. Six months ago Obama called for a new strategy in Afghanistan, but the President now appears to be wavering in the wake of a report by his top commander there, General Stanley McChrystal, that says 10,000 to 40,000 more troops are needed or the mission "will likely result in failure." With his advisers split between advocating a full-scale counterinsurgency, which some Democrats say amounts to nation-building, and a more limited counterterrorism approach against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, Obama will now hold five more meetings of the National Security Council on the issue before making up his mind, National Security Adviser James Jones told the Washington Post. Jones emphasized there's no set deadline and that the President will "encourage freewheeling discussion" and "nothing is off the table." (See pictures of the U.S. Marines new offensive in Afghanistan.) The Administration spent much of last week distancing itself from McChrystal's recommendation. "There are other assessments from very expert military analysts that have worked on counterinsurgencies that are the exact opposite," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told PBS's NewsHour. But with Centcom commander General David Petraeus and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen lining up behind McChrystal, some Republicans are accusing the President of risking the lives of the nearly 68,000 troops already in Afghanistan by "dithering," as the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, Kit Bond, put it on Fox News Sunday. And there are inherent political dangers for Obama if he chooses to buck the advice of his military commanders. Fox News Sunday's host, Chris Wallace, went so far as to ask his guests if Obama could follow the Harry Truman mold that led to the firing of General Douglas MacArthur. "A half measure does not do justice," Senator John McCain said on ABC's This Week. "And time is important, because there's 68,000 Americans already there. And casualties will go up." (See TIME's photoessay "A Photographer's Personal Journey Through War.") Along those lines, Republicans are expected to introduce a spate of amendments to this week's fiscal 2010 Defense Appropriations Act in the Senate. One will probably be a demand to have McChrystal testify before Congress -- a move the Defense Department has so far resisted until after the Administration sets its policy. Other potential amendments include one to increase funding for troop training, an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate in support of troop increases and maybe even one expressly supporting McChrystal's recommendations. On the Democratic side, an amendment is expected, perhaps from Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, that would set a timeline for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. (See pictures of the battle in Afghanistan's Kunar province.) "Many Democrats will say that we need to wait for the President to submit a plan ," said a Democratic leadership aide. he chooses to send more troops, he will have near united Republican support but will divide his own party; if he decides against a counterinsurgency strategy, he will be reversing a campaign promise uniting Democrats, the majority of whom are opposed to an expanded U.S. footprint in Afghanistan. (Read "Afghanistan: Looking for the Way Ahead.") "Republicans will say, 'You didn't mind secondguessing George Bush on Iraq.' " Obama's dilemma is this: If Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 34/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGY CONTROVERSIAL The Strategy debate is extremely partisan party lines and public are split Wilson 09 Washington staff post writer, (Oct 7, Scott "Afghan Strategy Divides Lawmakers" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2009/10/06/AR2009100603817.html Congressional leaders left a rare bipartisan meeting with President Obama on Tuesday divided over what strategy the administration should adopt to fight an increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan and how quickly it must do so to protect U.S. forces already on the ground. Obama called congressional leaders to the White House at a key moment in his Afghanistan policy review, which will determine whether the United States pushes deeper into a war that military officials have warned will probably be won or lost over the next 12 months. Congress must approve any additional resources that Obama would need if he accepts the recommendations of to build a stable national government. But much of the president's party is resisting calls for more combat troops after Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who favors a broad expansion of the effort on the battlefield and the push eight years of war, forcing him to seek support from Republicans who favor McChrystal's strategy . "I think a lot of senators and congressmen need to ask themselves how much money they are willing to put on the table, for how long and for what strategy," said Sen. John F. Kerry (DMass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who attended Tuesday's meeting. " This is a tough set of interrelated questions. And I think there have been some unfortunate straw men set up." Obama told congressional leaders that he is not contemplating reducing troop levels in the near term under any scenario, according to several participants, and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated Tuesday that withdrawing from Afghanistan is "not an option." A complete U.S. troop withdrawal is one of the straw men to which Kerry and the president, in the meeting referred. The partisan split evident after the meeting, which 30 lawmakers attended, illustrated the political challenge Obama faces in Congress over this conflict. Opinion polls show that only a minority of Americans believe the battle is worth fighting, and much of that opposition is rooted in the Democratic Party. Although lawmakers sought after the meeting to express bipartisan support for Obama as he makes the most farreaching foreign policy decision of his tenure, Democrats questioned whether the Afghan government remains a viable political partner after the flawed Aug. 20 presidential election, and Republicans challenged the administration's determination to defeat the Taliban. In recent weeks, Obama has made clear that defeating alQaeda is the goal of his policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the group's leadership is believed to be operating in the largely ungoverned tribal areas. His national security team will assemble Wednesday at the White House for a meeting focused on Pakistan, whose nucleararmed government has shown more willingness recently to take on the Taliban within its borders. In a speech at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean earlier Tuesday, Obama said: "We will target alQaeda wherever they take root. We will not yield in our pursuit, and we are developing the capacity and the cooperation to deny a safe haven to any who threaten America and its allies." The president completed an initial Afghan strategy review in March by deploying 21,000 additional troops to the country. By the end of the year, 68,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines are scheduled to be on the ground there. Obama also named McChrystal as the commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, now numbering about 100,000. In his recent assessment of the war, McChrystal said the next 12 months would probably determine whether U.S. and NATO forces could regain the initiative from the Taliban. Although he has yet to submit a specific request, he is expected soon to ask for as many as 40,000 more troops. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (DNev.) predicted that Obama's review would last "weeks, not months." But Sen. John McCain (RAriz.) said, "It's pretty clear that time is not on our side," and he recommended that Obama give "great weight" to recommendations by McChrystal and Gen. David H. Petraeus , the regional commander. "The president has made clear that no one has a greater sense of urgency about this than he does, and he underscored that in the meeting," said a senior administration official who participated in the session and discussed it on the condition of anonymity. "But that's not going to get in the way of the due diligence that he needs to do. The urgency is not to make a decision, but to make the right decision." According to participants, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) asked whether the administration believed that a return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan would translate into a new sanctuary for alQaeda, as the country was before the 2001 U.S. invasion toppled the Taliban government. Senior White House officials raised the same question last week in the first of several meetings planned to discuss McChrystal's assessment. Those officials are building a case internally for a narrower counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan that would maintain roughly the current troop level and rely on expedited training of Afghan troops, steppedup Predator drone strikes against alQaeda operatives and support for Pakistan's government in its fight against the Taliban. "We all know that if the Taliban comes back, then alQaeda will come back," McCain said after the meeting Tuesday. McCain said that Iraq, not Vietnam, should be the model for how to proceed in Afghanistan. He said "halfmeasures" would fail in Afghanistan as they did in Iraq, until Petraeus argued successfully for additional combat forces and a counterinsurgency strategy. Petraeus has endorsed McChrystal's plan. But Democratic leaders raised questions that may help determine what course Obama will choose . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) asked whether "we have an able partner in President [Hamid] Karzai." Karzai's legitimacy is important because McChrystal's strategy relies in part on a national government that is more popular than the Taliban. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 35/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW "There are areas that must be addressed as this decision" is made, Pelosi said. "Whether we agree with it or vote for it remains to be seen, depending on what the president puts forward." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 36/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WITHDRAWAL UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS Withdrawal plans causes massive infighting Karl and wolf 09 senior congressional correspondent in November 2008. In this role, he is responsible for covering Capitol Hill AND reporter who covers the U.S. Senate, ( Sept 11, Jonoathan and Z. Bryon, "War in Afghanistan Faces Looming Political Battle in Congress" http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/afghanistanwarfacesbattlecongressdemocratspushingwithdrawal/story?id=8547211&page=1 ) The looming battle in Congress over the Afghan War may prove to be as tough and consequential perhaps tougher and more consequential for President Obama than the battle over health care reform. Sen. Carl Levin says no to sending more US combat troops to Afghanistan Sen. Carl Levin's announcement today that he opposes sending more U.S. combat troops to Afghanistan is a big deal, but President Obama's Afghan policy faces even greater challenges in Congress, where there is growing group of Democrats who aren't just opposed to sending more troops but would like to reduce the amount already there. Levin's position is more nuanced. The Michigan Democrat said he opposes more combat troops but is open to sending more U.S. trainers. And he doesn't rule out send more combat troops in the future after first increasing the size of the Afghanistan security forces. But if you look at Levin's reasoning, he is ultimately making a case of shrinking the U.S. military presence because, he argues, it is counterproductive. "The larger our own military footprint there, the more our enemies can seek to drive a wedge between us and the Afghan population, spreading the falsehood that we seek to dominate a Muslim nation," Levin said, echoing the case he and others made against the surge in Iraq. Growing Sentiment Among Democrats to Force Withdrawal Timetable Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California was more unequivocal when she ruled out sending more troops not just more combat troops on Thursday, saying, "I don't think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or the Congress." She was actually understating the political sentiment among House Democrats. There is growing sentiment among the liberals who are both Pelosi's and Obama's base of support to force on Obama something he tried to force on President Bush in Iraq: a timetable for withdrawal. The last battle over war funding was a tough one. After some hard lobbying by liberal Democrats, the House narrowly approved more funding for the war in June. At the time, 32 Democrats voted no, but many of those who voted yes suggested they wouldn't support the war for long. As Rep. Anthony Weiner DN.Y., put it at the time, " We are in the process of wrapping up the wars. The president needed our support, but the substance still sucks." You can expect liberals in the House to argue for timetable that isn't flexible. Obama can count on Republican support and may need it. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, RKy., has gone out of his way to praise Obama's handling of Afghanistan, calling it a continuation of the Bush policy. This, of course, only further infuriates liberal Democrats . Obama's former rival in the presidential race, Sen. John McCain, RAriz., also expressed his support for troop increase. "I believe it is a false choice to try to grow the Afghan national army while holding back on any additional U.S. combat troops," McCain said on the Senate floor today, reminding his colleagues about "the lesson of Iraq." "It's mentorship at every level ring including partnership in joint operations with U.S. forces that will build a robust and capable Afghan military and pave the way for our eventual successful exit from Afghanistan. And to do this, we need more U.S. combat troops in Afghanistan," McCain said. Withdrawal causes a political firestorm Pena 09 Senior Fellow, The Independent Institute (December 9, Charles, "Can the U.S. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=145 ) To sort of answer part of the first question the President doesn't need to guild a political coalition to decide to withdraw. He can just decide as long as he's willing to weather the political storm that ensues, and that's the problem. The problem is that the President does not want to weather the political storm, and so he is trying to find some sort of consensus on withdrawal. Since we don't need congressional approval any more to go to war and you don't need funding so much to withdraw as much as you need funding to keep troops deployed, he can make the decision. It's all about politics. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 37/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WITHDRAWAL UNPOPULAR IN CONGRESS Pullout requires political capital Obama doesn't want to anger prowar conservatives Abramowitz, 10 senior fellow at the Century Foundation (6/23/10, Morton, The National Interest, "Salvaging Afghanistan," http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23610) To be sure, answering these questions is not as easy as it sounds. In considering what we do in Afghanistan, we have to factor in not only a much diminished alQaeda as the administration claims, but also the instability in Pakistan, the limitations and durability of the Afghan government, the Taliban's prospects, the dangerous emergence of fullfledged rivalry between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan, and the like. Much also depends on when we leave and what we leave behind. It is no wonder that given the difficulties of sorting out these uncertainties one can easily fall back on "staying the course," or looking for a negotiated solution with the Taliban. Finding a different approach is too hard and almost certainly politically costly for the administration . (Ironically, during the campaign, Mr. Obama cast the more winnable war in Iraq as the bad war, so to speak, and the likely unwinnable Afghan war the good one, to show he was tough on national security.) Military views , of course, count for a lot. Indeed, they appear now to be decisive with the president, no matter how hard he pushes them, and they color the politics of the issue . The nationalsecurity apparatus is no easy foe . Quite understandably, most senior military officials want combat forces to remain in Afghanistan until the task of building a working Afghan state has significantly advanced. They will be finding every reason for staying . They won much respect with the surge in Iraq, although there are other ways of explaining the improvement there than the surge. Nor does that success mean that the surge in Afghanistan led by the same military men in Iraq will work. The sad fact is that we don't know what it will take, how long it will take, and what it will cost "to win" in Afghanistan, no matter what our government or military say . That the promised end of the year will bring a conclusive judgment of our prospects is illusory. The Taliban can always decide to fight another day in places and times of their choosing. There are obviously downsides to ending our ground combat role in Afghanistan and they will be heard incessantly--they range from the immeasurable, like the loss of wider credibility, and the concrete in its impact on many Afghans. The certainty of success is also not measurable and rarely set forth. It is not surprising that governments opt for waiting for something to turn up. In the end, one has to make some assessment about our prospects in Afghanistan. Judgments will wildly differ. The basic issues for decision, are how long our ground forces stay and what they can accomplish. The longer we stay, the more likely we will stay longer in the hopes that something good will happen. The administration thus also avoids a fight with the Right , whose hold on the public discourse cannot be believed given their record this past decade . Nor will the American public necessarily tune out on Afghanistan, although polls show them increasingly uncertain about what the administration is doing . Colin Powell was clearly wrong in asserting that the American public could not fight a long war and needed an exit strategy for any future wars. The United States has now fought two bloody wars for over five years with monumental damage to the U.S. economy. And the fighting may well continue with public support or acquiescence. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 38/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PUBLIC SUPPORTS THE WAR The public supports the war in Afghanistan Biddle 09 Roger Hertog Senior Fellow for Defense Policy, (JulyAugust , Stephen, "Is It Worth It? The Difficult Case for War in Afghanistan" http://www.theamericaninterest.com/article.cfm?piece=617 For now, the public still supports both the war and the Obama Administration's approach to it: A February 2022 Gallup poll found 65 percent of respondents favoring the President's decision to send an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, with only 17 percent favoring a total withdrawal. But that support is fragile. Indeed, a nascent Afghan antiwar movement is already visible, and it includes both Democrats and Republicans. It is small now, but if history is any guide, it will grow as losses do, which they surely will. Even a successful counterinsurgency campaign looks bad in the early going. Classical COIN trades higher losses early on for lower casualties later, which will make the coming year in Afghanistan a hard one, regardless of the strategy's ultimate merits. Many of the announced reinforcements will be used to clear areas now held by the Taliban and hold them against counterattack, both of which will increase nearterm casualty rates. As the U.S. troop count increases, so will the violence, and many will associate the former with the latter. Expect the calls for withdrawal to grow apace with the body count. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 39/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW GOP SUPPORTS COUNTERINSURGENCY The GOP supports maintaining a counterinsurgency strategy Dreyfuss, 10 independent journalist, contributing editor to the Nation (Robert, "Obama risks all on flip of a COIN," Asia Times, 6/29, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LF29Df02.html) That seems unequivocal, doesn't it? Vice President Joe Biden, famously dissed as Joe BiteMe by one of the nowdisgraced aides of General Stanley McChrystal in the Rolling Stone profile that got him fired, seems to think so. Said Biden, again according to Alter: "In July of 2011, you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it." In the AliceinWonderland world of the US military, however, things are rarely what they seem. Petraeus, the Central Command chief "demoted" in order to replace McChrystal as US war commander in Afghanistan, seems to be having second thoughts about what will happen next July and those second thoughts are being echoed and amplified by a phalanx of hawks, neo conservatives, and spokesmen for the counterinsurgency (COIN) cult, including Henry Kissinger, the Heritage Foundation and the editorial pages of the Washington Post. Chiming in, too, are the lockstep members of the Republican caucus on Capitol Hill, led by Senator John McCain. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 40/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PRESENCE KEY TO BIPARTISANSHIP Afghan presence key to bipartisanship neocons support Obama's aggressive foreign policy Heilbrunn, 09 (4/3/09, Jacob, The National Interest, "The Obama Concensus," http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21204) President Obama, who pledged to bring bipartisanship to Washington, appears to have found one new ally on the Right: neoconservatives . On Tuesday, at the Mayflower Hotel, William Kristol and Robert Kagan held a maiden conference on Afghanistan to announce the formation of a new organization called the Foreign Policy Initiative. Speakers included John McCain and Jane Harman. Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl moderated one session. The thrust of the conference was to support Obama's pledge to ramp up the fight in Afghanistan --according to Fred Kagan, he, Obama, is sure to come under fire in the future for doing so--and to suppress any latent isolationist impulses that might manifest themselves in coming months and years. Kristol's latest foray into foreign policy has excited much comment. It was first reported by Laura Rozen of Foreign Policy. Since then, Matthew Yglesias has cogently observed that it points to the sway neoconservatives continue to hold in Washington--the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, has added Elliot Abrams to its roster--and that it's mistaken to regard them as either a spent or a trivial force. Stephen Walt, in his blog on Foreign Policy, has bemoaned a lack of accountability among foreignpolicy elites, likening the neocons to doctors who are never held responsible for the outcome of their bungled surgical interventions. But the latest neocon move really shouldn't come as a surprise. Neoconservatism began as a movement within the Democratic Party. Jeane Kirkpatrick remained a Democrat during Reagan's first term. It was only with Reagan that other neocons signed on to the GOP. With the younger generation of neocons, such as Kristol, matters were a little different. They were never Democrats. Nevertheless, they occupied a somewhat ambiguous position in the party. In the 1990s, Kagan was closer to Bill Clinton's foreign policy of intervention in the Balkans than he was to antiinterventionists among the Republicans in Congress. Ditto for Kristol. What's more, the Iraq War saw the formation of a de facto alliance between liberal hawks, on the one side, and neocons, on the other. They are conjoined twins. Might that alliance, then, be replicated in the Obama administration? Certainly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the battle over head of the policyplanning staff, and Russia hand Michael McFaul . It would be an interesting development if the State Afghanistan, championing an increased force. Other strong liberalhawk voices include AnneMarie Slaughter, Department turns into the locus of arguments for humanitarian intervention, while the Defense Department and National Security Council oppose them. The truth, as I was reminded in attending a "Historical Retrospectives Symposium" held by Nicholas X. Rizopoulos at the Carnegie Council in New York on April 1, is that these arguments between realists and neoconservatives never go away. At the Council, the historian John Lukacs bracingly expounded upon his belief that Winston Churchill had consistently taken a realist view towards Russia. Lukacs was arguing, in essence, that Churchill was not an early neocon (as many neocons argue). He was someone who recognized that Stalin was a canny adversary, but not a crusading Bolshevik. He had more in common with Ivan the Terrible than with Lenin. Whereupon military historian and neocon Max Boot countered that this was nonsense. Churchill, Boot argued, had it right early on in 1919 when he declared that Bolshevism needed to be strangled in its cradle. Think, Boot suggested, of the tragedies--the rise of Nazism, the subjugation of Eastern Europe, Mao's brutal rule--that would have been avoided had Churchill's admonitions been heeded. In essence, Boot was arguing that a military surge should have taken place--the Western allies should have gone allout to assist Lenin's opponents during the Russian Civil War--the Whites, the Greens, and so on--and extirpate communism. Lukacs listened to Boot in disbelief. He snorted that he had always disagreed with William F. Buckley, Jr. and James Burnham who believed that history had "changed gears" in 1917. "History is not an automobile," said Lukacs. Lukacs thundered that he, not Buckley, was a true conservative. In my view, Lukacs was wrong. The Bolshevik revolution may have been a product of World War I, but it was a hingepoint in history. Lukacs wants to write ideology out of history, turning Stalin into a mere Russian nationalist. Boot had it right in maintaining that the Western democracies would have been far better off if they could have crushed Bolshevism. No Lenin, no Hitler. But the real question is: could they have? Had Woodrow Wilson sent even more troops into Siberia, would the allies have successfully stopped Trotsky and Co.? Or would America and the British, not to mention the Czechs, who fought their way out of Russia, been dragged into a morass they could never escape? This is the same conundrum that Obama confronts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does realism dictate bailing out of Afghanistan or upping the ante? Obama has chosen the latter, which is why neoconservatives are, for the moment, backing him. But dissenting voices can be heard, both inside and outside the Democratic Party. Thus, in his perspicacious new book Power Rules, Leslie H. Gelb suggests that a more restrained approach may preserve American preeminence. He has little patience for what he sees as the flights of fancy by neoconservatives and liberal internationalists who have joined, in his words, to form a new group that advocates a concert of democracies or some kind of institutional alliance to consolidate likeminded democracies. . . . they make little room in their concert for Russia and China, which aren't democracies but matter more than almost all those other democracies put together when it comes to diplomatic coalitions and power. But perhaps Obama, in his quest for unity at home and abroad, will prove a foreign policy alchemist who can transcend these eternal debates, amalgamating realism, liberal internationalism and neoconservatism into one potent strategy that leaves everybody feeling wonderful . Obama doesn't believe in chestthumping, but seduction and reassurance. Just look at the way he's wooing the Queen of England. His gift to her at Buckingham Palace was an iPod and a signed Richard Rodgers songbook. Maybe the iPod even included the lyrics to Rodger's tunes, "Can't You Do A Friend A Favor?" as well as "We're Going to Balance the Budget." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 41/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW GENERIC A TEST WITHDRAWAL BILL FAILED MISERABLY IN THE HOUSE356 VOTED NO 65 YES EPOCH TIMES 511 [Nicholas Zifcak, Staff Writer, "Congress Rejects Early Troop Withdrawal from Afghanistan", http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/31208/] A resolution to withdraw U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan within 30 days failed Wednesday in Congress. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (DOhio) sparked a debate on the issue when he introduced the resolution, which was cosponsored by 21 others. The nonbinding resolution failed with 356 voting against and 65 voting for. The debate was an opportunity to explore members' views on the issue separately from discussion about spending or appropriations legislation. Speaking about the resolution, Kucinich said the executive branch had gone too far and it is time for Congress to "weigh in on the war." He said it was a constitutional issue because the power to authorize war lies with Congress. "We can't afford this war," said Kucinich in a video statement released on his Web site. He said that with 15 million Americans out of work, 47 million without health insurance, and 10 million who could lose their homes, "you would think it would be time for us to focus on things here at home." "America is ready to meet the challenges of global security," he said, acknowledging the need to protect against terrorism, and also "to start taking care of things at home." too wants the U.S. military out of Afghanistan at the "earliest reasonable date," but that accelerating Obama's timetable "could take California Congresswoman Jane Harman (DCalif.) disagreed that immediate troop withdrawal is the answer. She said she grievous risks with our national security." The debate was recorded by cable channel CSpan. Harman commended Kucinich for raising the Afghanistan debate, saying presidential powers had gone too far. She said the authorization Congress gave the president to go to war back in September 2001 has been "overused and abused as the basis for policy." Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee Congresswoman Ileana RosLehtinen (RFla.) disagreed. She said the years of effort by American forces have forced alQaeda and Taliban forces into the mountains, forcing them to worry about their own survival, rather than plan attacks against the U nited States. She said the current strategy to eliminate alQaeda in Afghanistan "is already producing dramatic success." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 42/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW MILITARY REDUCTION IS UNPOPULARSENDS A SIGNAL WE LOST THE WAR LA TIMES 615 [Julian Barnes, Staff Writer, "Debate grows over Afghanistan withdrawal plan" http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/15/world/lafgusafghan 20100616/2] Petraeus did not elaborate on his own reservations and left the hearing moments later after becoming ill. But Sen. John McCain (RAriz.) said he was worried that the timeline had undercut Afghan President Hamid Karzai's support for the U.S.led war effort. Karzai recently fired two key advisors backed by Washington and, according to Afghans, has privately expressed doubts about the war. McCain said the announced drawdown made it harder for uncommitted Afghans to back the United States. The deadline makes it appear that the U.S. is more interested in "leaving than succeeding," he said. "I continue to worry a great deal about the message we are sending in the region," McCain said. The administration is planning a major assessment of the war in December -- another key deadline. After the 2007 troop buildup in Iraq, the military used its first major assessment to buy time from Congress, showing that violence had begun to abate. With Afghanistan, however, some military officials worry that the December assessment deadline doesn't give them enough time to show their strategy is working. Earlier this year, military leaders hoped to have two successes to put before the White House in that review: Kandahar and Marja. But recent developments suggest that results of those offensives may not be clear. AFGANISTAN WITHDRAWAL IS UNPOPULAR PUTS THE MILITARY IN A BAD POSITION LA TIMES 615 [Julian Barnes, Staff Writer, "Debate grows over Afghanistan withdrawal plan" http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/15/world/lafgusafghan 20100616/2] The reservation reflects longstanding uneasiness among military officials over the withdrawal timeline. In December, Obama announced plans for an increase in troop deployment to Afghanistan, which he said would begin to wind down in July 2011. Many military officials have downplayed the significance of the start of the withdrawal and have said the pace would be based on conditions. The U.S. will not leave Afghanistan precipitously, they say.But the timetable has put the military in uncomfortable positions, officials have said, forcing them to reassure skeptical Afghan leaders that the U.S. won't draw down quickly. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 43/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NO GOP SUPPORT GOP will backlashwithdrawal shows weakness Gandelman 9 Joe Gandelman, EditorinChief of The Moderate Voice, December 2, 2009, "Obama's Afghanistan Plan: Recipe for Success or Political and Military Failure?," The Moderate Voice, online: http://themoderatevoice.com/54933/obamasafghanistanplanrecipeforsuccessor politicalandmilitaryfailure/ The long term Republican response: Some Republicans are offering support, but some of it is guarded and Obama can't realistically expect not to come under GOP political fire as 2010 and 2012 approach. Already The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes has called it a disappointing speech for the right policy. And a sign of what is likely to come is this CNN report that Arizona Senator John McCain privately challenged his rival in the 2008 Presidential elections:"Three GOP sources told CNN that Sen. John McCain used the meeting to directly challenge the president on his exit strategy. The sources said that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell deferred to McCain, who questioned the concept of announcing now plans to begin withdrawing in July, 2011 . These sources said the president responded to McCain by promising that the withdrawal would be based on conditions on the ground." The bottom line: unless the war is won during 2010, 2011 and 2012 (which it won't be) the GOP will question Obama's actions and the progress of the war. PLAN UNPOPULAR WITH GOP AND THE MILITARYUNDERMINES US CRED AND BOOSTS TALIBAN RULE AP 620 [Anne Gearan, National Security Writer for AP, "Troop Pullout in Afghanistan set for next summer", Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_afghanistan] The Obama administration reaffirmed Sunday that it will begin pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan next summer, despite reservations among top generals that absolute deadlines are a mistake. President Barack Obama's chief of staff said an Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen. Petraeus, the war's top military boss, said last week that he would recommend delaying the announced plan to begin bringing forces home in July 2011 still holds."That's not changing. Everybody agreed on that date," Rahm Emanuel said, adding by name the top three officials overseeing the policy girding the war: Gen. David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint pullout if conditions in Afghanistan warranted it. Days after the date was announced in December, Gates pointedly said it was not a deadline. Emanuel's remarks reflect the White House view that Obama must offer a warweary American public and Congress a promise that the nearly nineyear war is not openended. The problem, congressional Republicans and some military leaders say, is that a fixed date encourages the Talibanled insurgency and undermines U.S. leverage with Afghan leaders. GOP HATES THE PLANAFGHANISTAN WILL FEEL ABANDONED CBS NEWS 616 ["Petraeus Defends Withdrawal Plan for Afghanistan" http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/16/politics/main6588034.shtml] The commander of U.S. forces in the Mideast tried to reassure worried lawmakers Wednesday that there will be an orderly withdrawal of troops from the war in Afghanistan not a rush for the exits starting July next year. At a Senate hearing, Republican lawmakers questioned President Barack Obama's plan to start withdrawal of U.S. forces in July 2011. Senators complained that Afghans see that as the date they will be abandoned by the U.S. "We are sounding an uncertain trumpet" about America's commitment to Afghanistan, said Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 44/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW GRAHAM (SENATOR) Graham is against a withdrawal from Afghanistan McGreal 10 Guardian's Washington correspondent Chris ("rejects calls to drop deadline for Afghanistan troop exit" Barack, 24 June, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/24/ustroopwithdrawalafghanistan strategy) Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator who sits on the powerful armed services committee and backed Obama's dismissal of McChrystal, said the July 2011 deadline undercut the war effort: "It empowers our enemies. It confuses our friends. And I think it needs to be reevaluated." Graham said McChrystal's replacement, General David Petraeus, who led the US troop surge in Iraq, had testified to Congress that he would urge Obama to delay the pullout if he believed it was unwise. "If the president says, no matter what General Petraeus may recommend, we're going to leave in July of 2011, we will lose the war," Graham said. Graham opposes Afghan withdrawal UPI 10 (June 17, " Special Reports View archive | RSS Feed RSS Feed Receive Free UPI Newsletter Graham blasts Afghan deadlines", http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/06/17/GrahamblastsAfghan deadlines/UPI56831276792546/), WASHINGTON, June 17 (UPI) Lawmakers aren't convinced that the military plans for Afghanistan are the best course of action, U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham told military leaders. U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, testified before Senate Armed Services Committee on the progress of the war effort under way in Afghanistan. U.S. President Barack Obama in his revised war strategy called for an influx of American troops into Afghanistan but noted military forces could begin leaving the country as early as next summer. Top Pentagon officials have called for patience as many of the 30,000 U.S. troops that are slated for the Afghan surge have yet to arrive in the country. Petraeus said war plans were moving in the right direction but cautioned that the July 2011 deadline didn't mean everyone "is headed for exits," the U.S. military quoted the general as saying. U.S. Sen. John McCain , RAriz., expressed concern that standing by the July 2011 date gave insurgents the time they needed to plan activities in the wake of the troop withdrawal. Graham, RS.C., expressed concern that Taliban were "encouraged" by withdrawal deadlines. Petraeus defended his strategy by saying insurgents in Afghanistan were "under greater pressure than at anytime before." Graham, before abruptly leaving the hearing, said he thought the current Afghan strategy was "a huge mistake." Graham won't support a withdrawal from Afghanistan Rosen 10 correspondent for the Fox News Channel (james, Jun 23, "Graham: McChrystal crossed lines you can't cross'", http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/06/23/1190443/grahammcchrystalcrossedlines.html? storylink=mirelated) Sen. Lindsey Graham, RS.C ., said Wednesday that Gen. Stanley McChrystal left President Barack Obama no choice but to accept his resignation, but Graham criticized Obama for sticking to his plans to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan next year. Graham, an Air Force Reserve colonel and a military lawyer who's the only member of Congress to have served active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, stopped just short of accusing McChrystal of insubordination for his derisive comments about Obama and his aides in a Rolling Stone magazine article. "When it comes to why the president had to act, the statements of the general not only were outside the norm, they really did put in question military subordination to civilian control ," Graham said. Graham, though, rebuked Obama for continuing to say that he'll start a drawdown of U.S. troops next summer . "The July 11, 2001, policy is confusing," Graham said. "It undercuts the war effort. It empowers our enemies. It confuses our friends. And I think it needs to be reevaluated." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 45/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW MURKOWSKI (SENATOR) Murkowski would hate a withdrawal-- creates "trust deficit" with Pakistan. Bolstad 2010 (Janurary 14, Erika, Reporter for McClatchy News, " Alaska Sen. Murkowski sees progress during Afghanistan trip", http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/14/82321/alaskasenmurkowskiseesprogress.html) "Republicans have recognized for some time that we needed to add new troops," Murkowski said , but she also emphasized that they thought the buildup in force needed to have come more quickly. "Think about the timelines we're up against ... every day is precious," she said. "If we knew we were going to do this, why didn't we make that announcement and start to move folks in sooner?" She and other Republicans continue to have reservations about announcing a July 2011 drawdown date up front. That, Murkowski said, has led to what she and others called a "trust deficit" on the part of leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They've never seen an occupier finish the job, Murkowski said, and aren't sure the U.S. will eit her. The Taliban "is using that as a tool," she said. "It infiltrates so much of the process," she said. "As the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police are trying to build their ranks, if you are a father who wants to encourage a son to go off and be part of a police force, but if you're not sure this police force is going to continue or have that backing, you might think, 'we want to go with the side that's going to win.' "If the mindset of the people of Afghanistan is 'we don't know how long the coalition forces are going to stick it out here, they may be cutting and running. Maybe our best bet is to stay with the Taliban, stay with the bad guys.' " Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 46/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PC The plan is Obama's political death warrant Fuller, 9 CIA officer for 25 years, former CIA station chief in Kabul and a former vicechair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council (Graham, Christian Science Monitor, 12/2, "Obama speech: kicking the can down the road in Afghanistan", lexis) The first loss of innocence comes with the harsh recognition that "all politics are local" and that overseas realities bear only a partial relationship to foreignpolicy formulation back home. So in President Obama's new policy directions for Afghanistan, what goes down in Washington politics far outweighs analyses of local conditions. I had hoped that Obama would level with the American people that the war in Afghanistan is not being won, indeed is not winnable within any practicable framework. Obama possesses the intelligence and insight to grasp these realities. But such an admission however accurate would sign the political death warrant of a president to be portrayed as having snatched defeat out of the jaws of "victory." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 47/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PC FLIP FLOP Pulling back any troops is perceived as a flipflop Chandrasekaran, 9 associate editor at The Washington Post, covers the war in Afghanistan (Rajiv, "Go AllIn, Or Fold: In Afghanistan, Splitting the Difference May Be Obama's Most Dangerous Choice," Washington Post, 9/27, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502009.html) The idea of sending thousands more troops will be a tough sell to Congress. Pulling back to a far more narrow mission could open Obama to charges of flipflopping he told veterans as recently as last month that the conflict in Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" that is fundamental to American security. Splitting the difference could have the advantage of winning over moderates in both parties, as well as voters who have begun to question the extent of the U.S. commitment there. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 48/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW FLIP FLOP US expressed unconditional commitment to Afghanistan--despite the McChrystal incident. Buel 06/24/10 (Meredith Buel, "Defense Chief Reiterates US Commitment to Afghan Mission," VOA News, http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/DefenseChiefReiteratesUSCommitmenttoAfghanMission 97110334.html) U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that he fully supports President Barack Obama's decision to replace the commander of NATO and American forces in Afghanistan. Gates said the change does not mean a reduction in America's commitment to the war. Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Secretary Gates said he deeply regrets the circumstances leading to the decision to replace Army General Stanley McChrystal. Gates said the move does not signal a change in America's determination in Afghanistan. "No one, be they adversaries or friends or especially our troops, should misinterpret these personnel changes as a slackening of this government's commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. We remain committed to that mission and to the comprehensive civilmilitary strategy ordered by the president to achieve our goals there," he said. Gates said President Obama's decision to replace McChrystal with Army General David Petraeus is the "best possible outcome to an awful situation." The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Admiral Michael Mullen, says he was stunned and physically ill when he read McChrystal's remarks in a magazine article that quoted the general and his aides disparaging members of the Obama administration. Mullen says there is no excuse for McChrystal's poor judgment. "We do not have the right, nor should we ever assume the prerogative to cast doubt upon the ability or mock the motives of our civilian leaders, elected or appointed. We are and must remain a neutral instrument of the state, accountable to and respectful of those leaders, no matter which [political] party holds sway or which person holds a given office," he said. McChrystal was summoned to Washington and submitted his resignation following publication of a profile in Rolling Stone magazine. McChrystal has called the interview a mistake that never should have happened. The developments come as thousands of U.S. troops pour into southern Afghanistan as part of Mr. Obama's strategy to counter the Taliban and defeat alQaida. That strategy has been widely criticized as June has become the deadliest month for international forces since the conflict began in 2001. Military progress has been slower than expected in southern Afghanistan and there are continuing problems with corruption in the Afghan government. Secretary Gates told reporters that the fight is more difficult than originally expected. "I do not believe we are bogged down. I believe we are making some progress. It is slower and harder than we anticipated," he said. Admiral Mullen says the United States should know whether President Obama's military strategy for Afghanistan is working by the end of this year. Mullen says he is leaving immediately for Afghanistan and Pakistan to tell allies and troops that there will be no change in America's mission to win the war. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 49/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NO TURNS NO SUPPORT FOR PLAN No support in the Congress for a drawdown even if they opposed the surge Ackerman, 9 (Spencer, "Obama Faces Rising Anxiety on Afghanistan," Washington Independent, August 12, 2009, lexis) Cohens occasional rhetorical adversary, Andrew Exum of the Center for a New American Security, one of the advisers McChrystal tapped for his review, agrees that the debate is intensifying. oeOne thing Ive noticed since returning from Afghanistan a few weeks ago is the high levels of anxiety about the war in Afghanistan, Exum said, adding that hes noticed an oeespecially high level of worry, anxiety and doubt from the progressive side of the political spectrum. So far, however, not much of it has come from prominent politicians. No member of the Senate has called for an extrication strategy from the eightyear war. The prospect of another troop increase this year has drawn opposition from Democratic senators like Carl Levin (DMich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Russ Feingold (DWisc.), and several senators have pressed the Obama administration to provide Congress with longdelayed metrics for how it measures progress. But neither has argued that the war needs to be brought to a conclusion . Criticism on the right has been limited to the occasional question about whether troop levels are sufficient, with minimal questioning to date of either the wars goals or strategy. oeIt feels like people are raising the questions but not making the next argument, [that] ~this mission makes no sense., Cohen said. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 50/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW GOP The GOP opposes Afghan troop reductions Karl and Wolf 09 (Jonathan and Bryon, "War in Afghanistan Faces Looming Political Battle in Congress" 9/11, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/afghanistanwarfacesbattlecongressdemocratspushing withdrawal/story?id=8547211&page=1 ) Obama can count on Republican support and may need it. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, RKy., has gone out of his way to praise Obama's handling of Afghanistan, calling it a continuation of the Bush policy. This, of course, only further infuriates liberal Democrats. Obama's former rival in the presidential race, Sen. John McCain, RAriz., also expressed his support for troop increase. "I believe it is a false choice to try to grow the Afghan national army while holding back on any additional U.S. combat troops," McCain said on the Senate floor today, reminding his colleagues about "the lesson of Iraq." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 51/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW MILITARY The military overwhelmingly supports COIN in Afghanistan Ackerman, 9 (Spencer, "Obama Faces Rising Anxiety on Afghanistan," Washington Independent, August 12, 2009, lexis) But the Defense Department official said that there was practically no talk within the administration about shifting away from a counterinsurgency strategy. oeWe tried for seven and a half years to have an almost exclusively counterterrorism strategy and that pretty manifestly was not working, the official said. oeIt was not achieving either counterterrorism results nor doing a heck of a lot for Afghan stability or security. Political appointees, career civil servants and serving military officers all demonstrated oe very wide buyin for counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, the official said. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 52/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW MONEY (MIDTERMS) High military costs could turn voters away from the Democrats. US News 06/22/10 (http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/5keyissuesinthe2010elections/) With his December decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, President Obama made the war his own. And what a war it has become: The U.S. military marked a grim milestone in Afghanistan this year with more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed there since October 2001. Roadside bombings are on the rise, causing double the number of fatalities in 2009 that they did in 2008. And 2010 is on track to be even worse by that measure. While Afghanistan has faded from the public consciousness in the wake of economic collapse and healthcare reform, this summer promises to put it back on the front pages. As the last of Obama's surge troops arrive on the ground in Afghanistan, most in the volatile south, the Pentagon has made no secret of the fact that it is planning a major offensive. The target will be Kandahar, the spiritual heartland of the Taliban, and senior U.S. military officials have already told members of Congress to brace their constituents for a tough period of fighting, with more casualties. As troops surge, of course, so too does the cost of the war. The price tag for Afghanistan alone is more than $300 billion to date, with another $100 billion expected to be spent in 2010, according to the Obama administration's supplemental budget request. The president has promised to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by July 2011, conditions permitting. But U.S. military officials currently engaged in a brutal war against a committed network of Taliban insurgents warn that, indeed, conditions may not permit. As the midterm elections approach, the fiscal cost of war in Afghanistan may draw the ire of a public increasingly mobilized against government spending--and of those, too, weary of the human toll of war. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 53/210 Majority of Americans oppose troops in Afghanistan CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PUBLIC Aiyar 9 Cato Institute (Swaminathan S. Anklesaria, September 20, "Coming Triumph of the Taliban and Pakistan?", http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10572), Even as US military commanders seek a troop increase in Afghanistan to check a resurgent Taliban, US voter support is fast eroding . A CNN poll in September showed that 58% of Americans oppose the war while only 39% support it. Among Democrats, only 23% support the war, and the number keeps falling. President Obama initially called the war in Afghanistan one of necessity, and proposed a big US troop increase . But with voter support slipping, Obama now says he will not rush the decision . Democratic Congressmen say in private that US withdrawal is a matter of time. One told me, "The British couldn't pacify Afghanistan, the Russians couldn't, and we can't either." Public hates Afghan war troop withdrawal popular Naiman 9 Cato Institute (Robert, November December, "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?", http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n63.html) The U.S. public does not support the war in Afghanistan . Since the majority of Americans don't support the war, the U.S. prosecution war, it never turned back. Some say the war is making Americans safer. But the American public is the highest judge on this question. Since the of the war should not continue. Some say such important decisions can't be made according to the vagaries of public opinion polls. But the most important decisions should be decided democratically, and U.S. public opinion is not volatile on questions of war and peace. Once the public turned against the Iraq American people oppose the war, they must believe it is not making them safer, or that whatever contribution the war is making to their safety is too small to justify the human and financial costs. Some argue against a "precipitous" withdrawal. In practice, this is a straw argument. The probability of a "precipitous" U.S. withdrawal is minuscule. The overwhelming likelihood is that as the U.S. moves towards withdrawing its troops, it will do so gradually, as it is doing in Iraq . Dems want withdrawal Lachlan Carmichael, 6/16/10. AFP's State Department corresponden (US insists exit strategy in Afghanistan on track) afp.com Senator Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the commission, said he was glad to hear of the general's "support for that July 2011 beginning of US troop reduction decision. "I continue to strongly believe that it is essential for success in Afghanistan for everyone to understand the urgency for the Afghans to take responsibility for their own security," he told the general. Obama's fellow Democrats support the 2011 deadline for beginning withdrawal following a surge of tens of thousands of troops this year and are anxious to avoid an open-ended a commitment of troops. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 54/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POPULAR: BIPART SUPPORT New Withdrawal plan means bipart support Schake 10 research fellow at the Hoover Institution and an associate professor of international security studies at the United States Military (Kori, June 23, "Iraq still needs helping hands, and ours are now tied", http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/Iraq_Withdrawal) So to say that Obama's plan is basically identical to the one he announced two years ago is true on the face of it. But for reasons he opposed , the context in which he will now implement that withdrawal is totally different . Obama has been consistent. It's just that reality has come to him. And a plan that would have unfolded under conditions of mounting failure (and quite possibly exacerbated them) will now occur from a position of strength and increasing success (and quite possibly reinforce them). Hence the large degree of bipartisan support for withdrawal that now exists. Indeed, the context in Iraq is so different today that one almost wonders whether it is even accurate to call the plan Obama announced yesterday the same plan of two years ago. Iraq withdrawal Is popularoverwhelming support from both sides Sargent 9 editor of Election Central (Greg, 30 6, Poll: Three Quarters Of Republicans Back Withdrawal From Iraq's Cities, http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/presidentobama/pollthreequartersofrepublicansfavorobamasiraqwithdrawalplan/) Anyone else catch this stunning number in the new CNN poll on whether Americans favor withdrawal from Iraq's cities? "This plan has widespread bipartisan support," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Seventy two percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans favor this move." Can it really be that less than a year ago, one of the central arguments in American In narrow technical terms, it probably isn't, so I've edited the above to clarify. That said, the basic point stands: Obama's call for a politics was over whether Obama's plan to pull out of Iraq, rather than secure "victory" first, signaled that he was defeatist, weak, possibly unpatriotic, and generally unfit to defend the country? Update: There seems to be some debate over whether it's fair to call the current withdrawal plan Obama's plan. withdrawal timetable -- one that got him attacked relentlessly by Republican leaders during the campaign as weak, unfit to defend the country, and possibly antitroops -- helped produce today's plan, and it now has the support of three fourths of Republicans. That's the core point here, and we shouldn't be distracted from it. Update: The poll actually asked about the plan to withdraw from Iraqi cities, so I've edited the above, but again, the broader point stands: This is a major step on the road to withdrawal, and threefourths of Republicans back it. Plan is bipartisan Obama's backing guarantees Davis 10 Hanson (Victor, april 15th, "So What Happened to Iraq?", a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/15/so_what_happened_to_iraq_105186.html) Many on the left no longer oppose the BushPetraeus plan of slow, graduated withdrawal from Iraq, as this strategy is now sanctioned by President Obama. In the words of Vice President Biden, Iraq may well become one of the Obama administration's "greatest achievements." It's true that many original supporters of the threeweek removal of Saddam Hussein underestimated the ordeal of establishing a constitutional state in his absence. But it's also evident that many who damned the war did so mainly to embarrass thenPresident George Bush. We see all of this mostly in hindsight. Dire assertions about Iraq did not come to pass. Antiwar passion cooled once warcritic Barack Obama was no longer a presidential candidate but became president and commanderinchief. And, most importantly, a successful democracy finally did arise after the fall of Saddam. IRAQ Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 55/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POPULAR: CONGRESS & OBAMA Iraq Withdrawal supported by both congress and Obama Jarrar 10 (Raed, February 25, Senior Fellow on the Middle East for Peace Action, The Iraq Withdrawal: Obama vs. the Pentagon http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/250) Conditions on the ground in Iraq are horrible. After seven years under the US occupation, Iraqis are still without water, electricity, education, or health care. Iran's intervention and control of the Iraqi government stays at unprecedented levels. Iraq's armed forces are still infiltrated by the militias and controlled by political parties. But so far, the Obama administration has not attempted to use any of these facts as a reason to change the combat forces withdrawal plan, or to ask the Iraqi government to renegotiate the bilateral security agreement. This week's calls to prolong the occupation are surprising because they expose a conflict between the Pentagon on the one hand and the White House and Congress on the other hand. In fact, the executive and legislative branches in both the US and Iraq seem to be in agreement about implementing the timebased withdrawal, but the Pentagon is disagreeing with them all. Obama should not forget that he is the CommanderinChief, and should stand up to the Pentagon . Iraq is broken, but the US military occupation is not a part of the solution. We cannot fix what the military occupation has damaged by prolonging it , neither can we help Iraqis build a democratic system by occupying them. We cannot protect Iraqis from other interventions by continuing our own. The first step in helping Iraqis work for a better future is sticking to the timebased withdrawal plan that Obama has promised and the two governments have agreed upon. President Obama should send a clear message to the Iraqi people to confirm that he is going to fulfill his promises and abide by the binding security agreement with Iraq, and this message must also be clear to the American people in this pivotal elections year. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 56/210 Public sides with democrats to withdraw troops from Iraq CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POPULAR PUBLIC Murray 7 Deputy political director at NBC News (Mark, April 26, "America siding with Dems against Bush", http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/#storyContinued) WASHINGTON As the Democratcontrolled Congress and the White House clash over an Iraq spending bill , with President Bush vowing to veto it because it contains withdrawal deadlines, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats. In addition, a nearly equal number believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible, and about only one in eight think the war has improved in the three months since Bush called for a troop increase there. "They don't see the surge working," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. Instead, they are saying "we need to get out." With those opinions, it's perhaps not surprising the poll also shows that the Democratic presidential frontrunner who opposed the Iraq war from the start -- Sen. Barack Obama, DIll. -- has gained ground on Sen. Hillary Clinton, DN.Y., who voted to authorize the war and hasn't apologized for it, despite her increasingly antiwar rhetoric. And the candidate whose fortunes seem to be tied the most to the situation in Iraq -- Sen. John McCain, RAriz. -- continues to trail former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani by double digits. In favor of a troop deadline The poll -- which was taken of 1,004 adults from April 2023, and which has an overall margin of error of 3.1 percentage points -- comes as Congress considers an supplemental spending bill that would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq no later than Oct. 1, with the goal of having all combat troops leave by March 2008. The House on Wednesday passed the bill containing the troop withdrawal timetable. The Senate was expected to follow suit on Thursday. Bush opposes the bill and has threatened to veto it. "They know I'm going to veto a bill containing these provisions, and they know that my veto will be sustained," the president said on Tuesday. "But instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement. That's their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country." Yet the poll shows that withdrawal , versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline. 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 57/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR: 1NC LINK Troop reduction is massively partisan in Congress. Ferrechio 2009 (Susan, Chief Congressional Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, March 1st 2009, Battle building amongst Dems over Iraq troopreduction plan in http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/BattlebuildingamongstDemsoverIraqtroopreductionplan40478382.html) Congressional Democrats' misgivings about President Barack Obama's plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq has set the stage for potentially major conflicts between Capitol Hill and the White House in the months ahead. Obama's announcement Friday that he will leave between 35,000 and 50,000 troops in Iraq after August 2010 brought lukewarm responses from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DCalif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, DNev. Both leaders have publicly questioned the decision to leave that many troops there indefinitely. Also causing consternation is the president's decision to finish the drawdown in 18 months. As a candidate, Obama had promised a complete withdrawal within 16 months. The response from the most liberal wing of the Democratic caucus which has been fighting for years to end the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan was swift and stern. California Rep. Lynn Woolsey, head of the 70odd member House OutofIraq Caucus, called Obama's announcement "totally unacceptable." Woolsey, like other members the OutofIraq Caucus, believes leaving any large presence in the country would signal that the United States intends to remain "as an enduring occupational force." Woolsey, in a statement responding to the proposal, also reminded Obama, "The American public supported him in record numbers last November in large part due to his pledge to finally end our occupation of Iraq, and bring our brave men and women home to their families." Many other Democrats in addition to Woolsey are also upset by the proposal, according to Democratic aides. There will likely be an effort to by House and Senate Democrats to reduce the number of troops proposed in the plan before the White House asks Congress for supplemental money needed to fund both wars. Such a request is expected some time in the spring, according to Democratic aides. "I don't think we should leave any troops there," Rep. John Murtha, DPa., who heads the defense appropriations subcommittee that allocates war funds, told The Examiner. "What I have suggested is we move out of Iraq and we leave a force in Kuwait and I hope we will be able to convince the administration of that." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 58/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR: NO GOP SUPPORT Plan unpop opposition from the GOP and march elections O'Brien 10 Head reporter for The Hill and assembling a staff of three fulltime legislative assistants Americans split on Iraq withdrawal if conditions for pullout aren't right (Michael, 31 10, http://thehill.com/blogs/blogbriefingroom/news/100719americanssplitoniraqwithdrawalifconditions arentright) Obama announced in February of 2009 a staged drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq set for August of this year, though his administration has left wiggle room in that timetable based on conditions on the ground. The current plan would withdraw all but 35,000 to 50,000 troops from Iraq in August, the remainder of which would steadily leave Iraq through the end of 2011. Republicans had criticized such a timetable when it was first announced, arguing it would put terror and political groups in Iraq that oppose the United States on notice about the military's intentions. Also making the withdrawal more difficult were the controversial March elections, which were marked by violence and allegations of fraud. Iraq withdrawal unpopular GOP will block and past bill proves Reuters 7 (Nov 18, "Senate Republicans bar Iraq withdrawal plan", http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1424770620071118) (Reuters) Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion Iraq war bill that included a troop pullout plan, killing the latest Democratic attempt to end the war while keeping up the fight over its funding. World Despite passionate appeals by Democrats, who noted that 2007 had been the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq so far, Republicans stopped the proposal that had passed the House of Representatives on a largely partisan vote on Wednesday. The measure needed 60 votes to pass under Senate rules; it only got 53 votes, with 45 senators voting against, all but two of them Republicans . The bill would have given President George W. Bush about a quarter of the $196 billion he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal 2008, while setting a goal that all U.S. combat soldiers withdraw from Iraq by December 15, 2008. "What will it take to end this war? How many lives, how many limbs, how many broken families, how many innocent victims?" the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, asked. Over 850 U.S. soldiers have died this year. "We know the president will not do this, but it is within our power" to start bringing U.S. troops home, Durbin argued. Republicans responded that the Pentagon needed the money and this was the wrong time to meddle in Iraq military strategy just when levels of violence there were falling. Democrats have tried repeatedly to limit the war this year, and Republicans promised to keep blocking their attempts. The narrowly divided Senate, where 60 of 100 votes are often required to advance legislation, has been the graveyard for most efforts. "It's telling our soldiers, you're losers, when they're winners. So we're going to defeat it, now and forever," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said. Plan is unpopular sparks battles with GOP Reuters 7 (Jun 18, "Newly empowered Democrats draw wrath of voters" http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1827620920070618) (Reuters) The new Democraticled Congress is drawing the ire of voters upset with its failure to quickly deliver on a promise to end the Iraq war. Politics This is reflected in polls that show Congress plagued by partisan bickering mostly about the war at one of its lowest approval ratings in a decade. Surveys find only about one in four Americans approves of it. "I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high." In winning control of Congress from President George W. Bush's Republicans last November, Democrats told voters they would move swiftly to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. But they now say voters must understand they need help from Republicans to clear procedural hurdles, override presidential vetoes and force Bush to change course. Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said he explained this recently to antiwar demonstrators. "'We know. We know,'" he quoted them as replying. "But we are so disappointed.'" Biden, seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, said: "Voters are going to be mad with us until we end the war." House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said some Democrats understand "we can only do so much." "Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them," Pelosi, of California, told The New York Times. Republicans have increasingly voiced their own concerns. Yet most have stood by Bush at least for now and given him the votes he needed to block timetables for withdrawal. Republicans also are tweaking Democrats on other fronts, such as stalled efforts to upgrade health care and reduce the cost of college and energy. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 59/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR: PARTISAN SPLIT No universal consensus on Troop Reductionpartisan split Roberts 8/10/ 2005 (Joel, writer for CBS news online, "Poll: Fading Support For Iraq War," CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml) Most Americans also would like to see U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. Now, 59% want U.S. troops to leave, up from 52% last month and 40% earlier this year. Only 36% think troops should stay in Iraq as long as it takes for that country to become stable. Democrats and Republicans find themselves on different sides of the issue. 61% of Republicans want the U.S. to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes, while 73% of Democrats want U.S. troops out as soon as possible 62% of Independents also want U.S. troops to leave. It is noteworthy, however, that 36% of Republicans, and 45% of . conservatives, would like to see U.S. Huge partisan splits in congress prevent withdrawal statistics prove Rauch 8 (Jonathan, February, "Our inevitable withdrawal from Iraq could poison American politics for a generation.", http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/01/partisanretreat/6561/) No one showed surprise or discomfort. The session flowed on. But wait. Unless we are betrayed from within? Unpack that phrase, and then unpack the bland reaction to it, and you have a glimpse of one of the ugliest potential outcomes of an already plenty ugly war: a longterm, lowlevel, persistent civil conflict--not in Iraq, but in America. In the annals of modern polling, the Iraq War has been unique in the degree to which it has split America along party lines. "There's nothing even close," says Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego. We think of the Vietnam War as controversial, but it was much more controversial within the two parties than between them. The partisan gap in support for the war rarely exceeded 10 percentage points, and averaged closer to 5. The Korean conflict in the 1950s, the military action in Kosovo in the 1990s, and the use of force in Afghanistan were barely more controversial, with the parties usually only 10 to 15 points apart. Even the Gulf War, for all the Democrats' misgivings, saw partisan disagreement averaging only about 20 percentage points. The Iraq War has been something else again. It got off on a partisan footing, with support from virtually all of the Republicans in Congress but only a minority of the Democrats. Then it turned even more partisan. By mid2004, the difference between Republican and Democratic public support for the war had reached about percentage points. Indeed, many of the partisans were living in separate realities. In 60 2006 polling, only about a fifth of Democrats recalled ever having supported the war, though in fact, almost half had supported it before the invasion. Meanwhile, almost a third of Republicans thought weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and another third said the weapons existed but hadn't been found. Ideas of withdrawal escalate unpopularity partisan fights Rauch 8 (Jonathan, February, "Our inevitable withdrawal from Iraq could poison American politics for a generation.", http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/01/partisanretreat/6561/) As painful and polarizing as partyline warfare has been, however, a partyline retreat would be worse . Many Republicans believe victory (however defined) is a matter of American resolve. Quite a few think that President Bush's new strategy is working but that Democrats won't admit it. They think Democrats are intentionally undermining the war effort, in order to improve their own political prospects by giving President Bush and the Republicans-- oh, and the country--a black eye. So begins the narrative of betrayal: the "stab in the back" narrative, as its historical precedents (most famously in interwar Germany) have been called. "We never really lost," goes this narrative. "We defeated ourselves." Or, in the really toxic version: "Some of us defeated the rest." This kind of narrative, if it develops a popular following, can poison politics for a generation. We can assume that if the Iraq War ends badly, some Republican hard liners, amplified by conservative talk radio, will accuse the Democrats of perfidy. The question is: Will the betrayal narrative find traction with the broader American public? In particular, will mainstream Republicans buy into it? Or will cooler heads prevail, so the country can heal and move on? Iraq withdrawal uniquely shifts interparty blame increases partisanship Rauch 8 (Jonathan, February, "Our inevitable withdrawal from Iraq could poison American politics for a generation.", http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/01/partisanretreat/6561/) Yet if the Democrats were to rush for the exit with Republicans unified against them, they would be blamed by Republicans for whatever subsequent disasters befell Iraq and, for that matter, the whole disasterprone Middle East. For years, they would face charges of having "cut and run," which could reinvigorate the debilitating stereotype of Democratic weakness. On the other hand, a policy with significant twoparty support would be less contentious, more sustainable, and thus more likely to succeed. Running the whole government, Democrats would need to care about succeeding. The crucial decision the next president will make is not whether to withdraw forces from Iraq--that is baked in the cake--but how. As a corollary, if Democrats win both branches in the fall, their biggest challenge will not be leaving Iraq; it will be keeping America in one piece on the way out. Having Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 60/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW felt flicked aside by the Republicans through Bush's presidency, victorious Democrats will be tempted to return the favor. Before succumbing, they might recall how badly partisan warfare has gone. Then they might ask themselves why a partisan retreat would go any better. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 61/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR: GRAHAM (SENATOR) Graham opposes withdrawal from Iraq Hickman 6 (Wes, 13 11, Press Secretary for US Senator Lindsey Graham, http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4f49203b98c14c48bde9 9456c781b857&Region_id=&Issue_id=7926d5becd2043bfab15d33f725d02f6 Graham Does Not Support Troop Withdrawal from Iraq ) WASHINGTON According to published reports, the Democratic leadership in Congress will begin pushing for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in the coming months. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (RSouth Carolina), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today said he would oppose such a move and work to defeat such a proposal. "I will adamantly oppose any efforts by a Democratcontrolled Congress to mandate troop withdrawals or set deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq," said Graham. "To start withdrawing troops would be equivalent to surrendering in the central battle front in the War on Terror. A misguided proposal such as this should hit a wall in the Senate. "This is not the time to withdraw from the fight," said Graham. "It's time to recommit ourselves to the moderate forces in Iraq and redouble our efforts to defeat the foreign fighters and insurgents. The terrorists know what is on the line in Iraq. They view Iraq as the central battle front. We must meet the challenge headon and defeat them." Graham has supported sending additional troops to Iraq to improve the security situation, enlisting sympathetic nations in the region to take ownership of the outcome and pushing the Iraqi leadership to move quickly to take over control of the country. He has also argued failure in Iraq empowers Iran and will lead to regional chaos. "I do believe we need to push the Iraqi government to disarm the militias and come up with political compromises allowing the country can move forward," said Graham. "However, nothing can be achieved until the violence is reduced. That should be our goal in the coming months, to provide a better security situation on the ground. "The war in Iraq is front and center in our efforts to win the Global War on Terror," concluded Graham. "We need to make a World War IIlike commitment to winning in Iraq and ensure the American people fully understand what is on the line should we fail." Graham fully against withdrawal from Iraq CNN 7 (May 13, "cnn late edition with wolf blitzer", http://transcripts.cnn.com/transcripts/0705/13/le.01.html) GRAHAM: Well, the people in South Carolina want me to use my best judgment, and I'm up for election in 2008. And if I'm not using the judgment that the people of South Carolina believe makes sense, then I'll lose my job. I'm very much willing to lose my job to make sure we don't lose this battle in Iraq, which is part of a global struggle against terrorism . Al Qaida's there for a reason. But if the Shia extremists win the day and align with Iran, we're going you have a bigger war. If the Sunni extremists topple this government and there's an allout civil war, the Sunni Arab states are not going to sit on the sidelines and watch their brothers -- Sunni brothers and sisters get killed or slaughtered. If the Kurdish north breaks away from Iraq, the Turks are not going to sit on the sidelines. So, the consequences of a failed state for the region, for the world, and our national security interests are huge and great . And the surge is in its infant stages. Everyone's not on the ground yet. It's our last best chance. Let's don't undercut it. Let's don't declare this war lost, because you're telling Petraeus and all these soldiers that Barbara just talked about they're losers. They have not had the opportunity... BOXER: Oh, I've just got to straighten out the record on this. GRAHAM: ... to implement this strategy. BLITZER: All right. GRAHAM: And if I may finish my thought, if I may finish my thought, those who, no matter how wellintentioned, are calling for our withdrawal, deadlines and timelines that inform the enemy about how to beat us, are in fact the authors of a greater war. The Bush administration screwed this up early on by not having enough troops. I support the surge. I'll take the consequences of its failure. Give it a chance. But if it all fails we're going to have a bigger war. JAPAN Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 62/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR OKINAWA MOVE: BIPART OPPOSITION BIPARTISAN HOUSE SUPPORT FOR PRESENCE IN OKINAWAPROVIDES STABILITY MAINICHI DAILY 625 ["U.S. House Offers Thanks to Okinawa for Hosting U.S. Forces", Mainichi Japan, http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20100625p2g00m0in018000c.html] The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday offered thanks to the people of Japan, especially in Okinawa, for continuing to host U.S. forces, which it says provide the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and the maintenance of peace, prosperity and stability in AsiaPacific region. The House passed the resolution in the day's plenary session by an overwhelming majority of 412 to 2 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the revised Japan U.S. security treaty, which went into force on June 23, 1960. It apparently passed the bipartisan resolution with the intention to help restore bilateral ties between Japan and the United States, which deteriorated over plans to relocate a key U.S. Marine Corps air station in Okinawa, political sources said. Okinawa, an island prefecture in southwestern Japan, hosts much of U.S. military presence in Japan and is hoping to reduce its burden.Congress also hopes to enhance ties with the Japanese government of new Prime Minister Naoto Kan, who succeeded Yukio Hatoyama earlier this month. The House "recognizes Japan as an indispensable security partner of the United States in providing peace, prosperity, and stability to the AsiaPacific region," the resolution says.It also "recognizes that the broad support and understanding of the Japanese people are indispensable for the stationing of the United States Armed Forces in Japan, the core element of the United StatesJapan security arrangements that protect both Japan and the AsiaPacific region from external threats and instability." The House "encourages Japan to continue its international engagement in humanitarian, development, and environmental issues; and anticipates another 50 years of unshakeable friendship and deepening cooperation under the auspices of the United StatesJapan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security." The resolution notes that the United States and Japan "reconfirmed" a commitment to relocate the Marines Futenma base in the densely populated area in Ginowan, Okinawa Prefecture, to a less populated coastal area in Nago, also in the prefecture. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 63/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR OKINAWA MOVE Withdrawal from Japan unpopular, US is obliged to protect Japan AP 5/28 (Malcolm Foster, 5/28/10, Deal Stuck to Keep US Marine Base on Okinawa, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/usjapanto keepusmilit_n_593158.html) "In Asia, there still remain unstable and uncertain factors, including the sinking of a South Korean warship by North Korea," he said. "I had to give the JapanU.S. agreement the priority because maintaining the trust between Japan and the U.S. serves the best deterrence," Hatoyama added. In Okinawa, around 1,000 people gathered in front of the city hall in Nago, the nearest city to Henoko, to voice their anger at the agreement, with some holding up banners emblazoned with the Japanese character for "rage." The decision also rattled Hatoyama's Cabinet. He dismissed Gender Equality and Consumer Affairs Minister Mizuho Fukushima, head of the Social Democratic Party, because she refused to accept the agreement. "I couldn't betray the Okinawans," she said. "I cannot be a part of an agreement that imposes a burden on Okinawans." Her party, a junior member in the ruling coalition, will hold an executive meeting Sunday to decide whether to stay in the coalition. Because of the party's small size, its possible withdrawal from the coalition most likely would not cause Hatoyama's Democratic Party of Japanled government to fall. But his poor handling of the Futenma issue could hurt the Democrats' performance in upper house elections, to be held around July. Under a 1960 security pact, American armed forces are allowed broad use of Japanese land and facilities. In return, the U.S. is obliged to respond to attacks on Japan and protect the country under its nuclear umbrella. The U.S. and Japan "recognized that a robust forward presence of U.S. military forces in japan, including in Okinawa, provides the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and for the maintenance of regional stability," said the joint statement, which was issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa . Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 64/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR TROOP REDUCTION: SOFA PROVES GOVERNMENTAL OPPOSITION TO TROOP REDUCTION IN OKINAWA UNDER SOFA AVERY, MANYIN, AND COOPER 6 [Emma, Mark, William, Specialists in Asian Affairs for the Congressional Research Service, "JapanU.S. Relations: Issues for Congress" CRS Issue Breif for Congress, March 31st 2006, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/64977.pdf] The reduction of marines from about 18,000 to 11,000 on Okinawa seeks to quell the political controversy that has surrounded the presence of U.S. forces on the island for years. Public outcry against the bases has continued since the 1995 rape of a Japanese schoolgirl by American servicemen, which galvanized underlying resentments. Though constituting less than 1% of Japan's land mass, Okinawa currently hosts 65% of the total U.S. forces in Japan. Okinawan politicians have called for a renegotiation of the JapanU.S. Status of Forces Agreement ( SOFA) and a reduction in U.S. troop strength. The U.S. and Japanese governments oppose revising the SOFA. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 65/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Plan is not bipartisan Empirically, intervention in Kuwait was partisanPolls prove The Weekly Standard, Jan 2007 [January 1st 2007, The Peace Party vs. the Power Party; The real divide in American politics., Lexis] contras and Central America policy in general, missile defense, and moralistic rhetoric in foreign policy. Yet the more substantial and UNPOPULAR: BIPART SUPPORT The Reagan era included acrimonious debates over missile deployment, a nuclear freeze, the bombing of Libya and intervention in Grenada, aid to the interesting partisan divergences occurred during the presidency of Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush . In one sense, this might be unexpected. In many respects Bush and his advisers repudiated Reaganite foreign policy in favor of a classic "realist" approach to the world. But on the question of forcespecifically, the use of force to eject Saddam Hussein's army from KuwaitDemocrats and Republicans still held widely divergent views . Overall, of course, the public favored the Bush administration's policies toward Saddam. But Ho lsti, in a survey of Gallup data from before, during, and after Operation Desert Storm, found "rather substantial partisan differences" over the military deployment to Saudi Arabia and subsequent invasion of Iraq. On many questions, the typical divergence between Republican and Democratic opinion was somewhere around 20 percentage points . In fact Holsti found "only three" Gallup questions that "failed to yield significant differences." Two of these questions were related to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq; the third asked respondents whether peace protests ought to be banned during the conduct of the war. KUWAIT Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 66/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POPULAR: CONGRESSIONAL PERCEPTION Withdrawal popular--legislators see Korea as antiAmerican and ungrateful. Shepard 2009 (October 18, Kevin, AsiaPacific Analyst for BizTechReport, "Changing Tides of the USAKorea Alliance", http://www.biztechreport.com/story/254changingtidesusakoreaalliance, IW) The U.S.ROK reliance arguably hit its lowest point during the George W. Bush and Roh Moohyunera. With President Roh running a presidential campaign steeped in nationalism and leaning toward antiAmericanism, and President Bush taking a hardline policy of shunning North Korea and refusing to negotiate the denuclearization of the peninsula, Roh's election in 2002 foreshadowed a shift in relations. The nationalism stoked by President Roh ran high through the South's hosting of the 2002 World Cup, and then quickly turned dark as the pumped up public sought avenues for release once the soccer games were over. The accidental death of two South Korean schoolgirls crushed by an American armored vehicle provided that avenue, and calls for the withdrawal of the USFK and the selfdeterminant right to control military forces on the peninsula grew. When Roh called on Washington to hand over wartime military control by the year 2012, the Pentagon responded by saying it would be ready by 2009. This was an indication of Washington's confidence in the professionalism of South Korean troops, but also reflected a growing dissatisfaction in Congressional circles over the appearance of an ungracious South Korea. SOUTH KOREA Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 67/210 The public wants troops out of South Korea CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POPULAR PUBLIC Horween 9 (Matt, August 29, " Opinion: Time to Remove U.S. Troops From South Korea", The Street, http://www.thestreet.com/story/10555800/opiniontimetoremoveustroopsfromsouthkorea.html) South Korea is my first example of our total disregard of any strategy in deploying 20,00030,000 troops in a country that does not allow most of our products to be imported and where a large part of public opinion is unhappy with us for various reasons dating back to our support of the dictatorship of Syngman Rhee. Not satisfied with our present untenable situation in Korea, with our troops held hostage to the fear of a massive North Korean surprise attack, our Department of Defense now wants to send the dependents of our troops that were formerly at the DMZ in South Korea to live with the troops in South Korea. Of course, this would lead to more balance of payments deficits and deprive the domestic U.S. economy of the spending the dependents now make in the USA. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 68/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Withdrawal will crush Obama's political capital with the GOP Feffer, 04 contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of North Korea, South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis (6/23/04, John, "Bring Our Troops Home (from Korea)," http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/feffer1.html, JMP) North Korea has argued that it is under threat of U.S. attack and considers U.S. troops in South Korea a longstanding provocation. So let's try UNPOPULAR 1NC something new by putting U.S. troop presence on the negotiating table. With the advice and consent of our South Korean allies, the Bush administration should offer a timetable for the removal of all U.S. troops from the peninsula. A Democrat would be hard pressed to offer such a deal. When Jimmy Carter tried to withdraw U.S. troops from the peninsula, hit major resistance he from Washington insiders. Only the hawks in Washington have the political capital to push through a complete withdrawal. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 69/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR OPCON PROVES Opcon has be delayed and common perception is now is not the right time. US troops are seen as a long term commitment to South Korea. Bruce Klinger 9 (senior research fellow Heritage Foundation) "It's Not Right Time To Discuss OPCON 0 Transfer"http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2009/06/ItsnotrighttimetodiscussOPCONtransfer U.S. officials in the Bush administrations were strongly opposed to reversing the decision and it appears that the Obama administration will maintain U.S. resistance. U.S. officials have expressed exasperation if not hostility to South Korea's repeated attempts to undo the OPCON decision. Transferring operational command requires Seoul to implement a series of improvements to South Korean military forces. Although not totally synonymous with South Korea's defense Reform 2020 initiative, that program provides a metric for assessing progress in implementing necessary defense programs. The ambitious military modernization plan is to develop a smaller, technologically oriented defense force by upgrading technology, improving command and control systems, and procuring more capable weapons. Funding shortfalls have already delayed the program by five years. South Korean inability or unwillingness to fund its military requirements raises U.S. concerns over Seoul's resolve to fulfill its alliance obligations. Deferring the OPCON transfer decision at this time would be seen by the United States as removing a necessary catalyst for South Korea to maintain its commitment to deploying the forces necessary to assume wartime command. South Korean advocacy for reversing the decision also risks calling into question the U.S. pledge to defend its ally . U.S. officials have repeatedly affirmed Washington's unwavering commitment to defend the Republic of Korea. Washington has emphasized that U.S. troop levels will remain at 28,500 in Korea. The introduction of extended accompanied tours, in which families will move to South Korea with service members, is also highlighted as another sign of a longterm U.S. presence. Because the OPCON transfer won't occur for three more years, there is no need to fight a battle over it now. To do so unnecessarily risks introducing tension into the bilateral relationship, particularly at a time when the two allies should be focused on close policy coordination on a number of more urgent issues. The U.S. message to South Korea would be to choose your battles wisely and don't fall on your sword before it is necessary . In 2011, both countries may very well be in agreement to either delay or not delay the transfer. Allaying South Korean security concerns The negative impressions of OPCON transfer can be mitigated to some degree by careful bilateral planning in coming years. Washington and Seoul should seek common ground in transforming the bilateral alliance to incorporate enhanced South Korean military capabilities while maintaining an integrated U.S. role . A key facet of this is for the two countries to engage in a more proactive and transparent public diplomacy effort. Troops in South Korea are popularOPCON is being delayed Raymond F. DuBious 5/4/2010 (Writer for Center For Strategic and International Studies) "Transferring Operational Control of South Korean Forces" http://csis.org/publication/transferringoperationalcontrolsouthkoreanforces Recent events have reignited the debate over the planned transfer in April 2012 of operational control (OPCON) of the Republic of Korea's armed forces (ROK) in the event of a conflict with North Korea. This debate has existed for decades, but recently the political players both in South Korea and the United States have been shifting away from OPCON transfer (to ROK), which was planned by and agreed to by the previous administration in 2006. With the new conservative government in Seoul, and the continuing uncertain events in North Korea, fears have been raised that the transfer would be perceived as a U.S. withdrawal. This perception has created political momentum to preserve U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC) OPCON in the event of a conflict . I believe that moving forward with transferring CFC OPCON to the ROK, as planned in 2006, is the right policy. Delay does nothing for the interests of the United States on the peninsula or in the region, either militarily or politically. When the previous administration negotiated the withdrawal of the 2nd Infantry Division, the removal of the remaining U.S. forces to the south of the Han River, the return of the Youngsan Garrison, the expansion of the Camp Humphrey/Osan Air Base complex, and the timetable for OPCON transfer, it was based on discussions begun in 1988 when it was agreed that the strategy was to transition eventually from "leading to supporting." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 70/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR TNWS Unilateral reduction of US TNWs from Europe is politically unpopular Sokov 9 Nikolai Sokov, Senior Research Associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Four Emerging Issues in Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation: Opportunities for German Leadership", Edited by Dennis Gormley, July, 2009, p. http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/090717_german_leadership/german_leadership_full.pdf Thus, when the issue becomes ripe for decision, it is likely to provoke considerable controversy in Washington. Given such political constraints, it is likely that the Obama administration will not want to act unilaterally, but rather will seek to take action in the context of the upcoming decisions on a new NATO Strategic Concept -- the first such document in a decade. Indeed, NATO has been preparing for this task for some time having authorized in 2007 an internal review of nuclear deterrence requirements for the twentyfirst century.38 Working through this process would allow the United States and selected other allies (most likely the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent France ) to find means for reassuring the most concerned states that their Article V protections will remain intact without the forward deployment of TNW. Some European sources indicate that the United Kingdom in fact has been pushing for such discussions to take place, but has been held back by Germany, which wants to postpone any discussion until after its September 2009 national elections. NO DOMESTIC SUPPORT TO WITHDRAWAL US TNWS FROM EUROPE Sokov 97 Dr. Nikolai Sokov, Senior Research Associate at Center for Nonproliferation Studies, TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS ELIMINATION: NEXT STEP FOR ARMS CONTROL, Nonproliferation Review, December, 1997, p. http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/sokov42.pdf The only way out of the conundrum is to formalize the current regime, make it legally binding, and broaden its scope to include complete elimination of TNW worldwide. However, deeply entrenched assumptions about the value of TNW for security hinder progress toward this solution. Until these assumptions assumptions are challenged, serious initiatives in the area of TNW will always lack the necessary domestic support. Considerable political will required to withdraw US TNWs from Europe Pikayev 9 Alexander Pikayev, Head of Department for Disarmament and Conflict Resolution of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations at the Academy of Sciences, and Member of International Institute of Strategic Studies, TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS, Alexander Pikayev, 2009, p. http://www.icnnd.org/research/Pikayev_Tactical_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf THE AREA OF A FUTURE MUCH MORE RADICAL AND COMPREHENSIVE PHASE OF DISARMAMENT BUT EVEN TO REACH INITIAL AGREEMENTS ON TNW SIMILAR TO THOSE PRESENTED ABOVE agreements that would be achievable in practice and useful for mutual security considerable political will and interest from the parties would be required. It is obvious that THIS PROBLEM IS MUCH WIDER THAN THE REDUCTION OF TNWS THEMSELVES, AND IS IN TURKEY Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 71/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW UNPOPULAR TNWS: REPUBLICANS CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS OPPOSE WITHDRAWING US TNWS FROM EUROPE Sokov 9 Nikolai Sokov, Senior Research Associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Four Emerging Issues in Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation: Opportunities for German Leadership", Edited by Dennis Gormley, July, 2009, p. http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/090717_german_leadership/german_leadership_full.pdf If some in the Obama administration support withdrawal of the weapons once the arms control agenda allows the issue to come forward, some politically powerful figures outside the administration are taking the opposite point of view. The bipartisan congressional commission on the U.S. strategic posture in its report referenced above stressed the value of "extended deterrence" and said that this mission could force the United States to retain weapons it does not need for its own security. The report gave considerable weight to the opinion of those allies in Europe who consider these weapons essential to prevent coercion by Russia and . It should be Iran noted that recent studies and interviews with representatives of these countries challenge the accuracy of this representation of their countries' views by the commission. 35 The strong emphasis on the argument that some European countries are staunchly opposed to the withdrawal of TNW is widely attributed to commission cochairman James Schlesinger, who has been championing this theme of late.36 Still, the political salience of this message, particularly among congressional Republicans is undeniable . Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 72/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Many Congressional Democrats oppose unilateral withdrawal of US TNWs from Europe Withington 8 Thomas Withington, Research Associate at the Centre for Defence Studies, King's College, "Tactical nuclear weapons game", August 13, 2008, p. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/CurrentAffairs/SecurityWatch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0B3DB146198B9 E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=89456 Moreover, the two main parties in the US have indicated that they want to revisit the European tactical nuclear weapons issue. McCain made his UNPOPULAR TNWS: DEMOCRATS statement to that effect in May, and, according Ingram; "there's some form of debate [in the Democratic Party] between those who say that they should be withdrawn unilaterally, and those who say they should be used as a negotiating tool" by which the US and Russian governments could negotiate a bilateral agreement to eliminate tactical nuclear weapons from the European continent. \ More LINKS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 73/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW SOUTH KOREA WITHDRAWAL POPULAR Public think South Korea should defend itself Hanson 08 (Victor Davis, military historian, Ph.D. from Stanford University, and recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal, The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute, "That Old Isolationist Tug" 3/25/08 http://american.com/archive/2008/marchaprilmagazine contents/thatoldisolationisttug/ LM) But there are new dangers to this internationalism, and they don't just come from the far left and right. The mainstream of the Democratic Party sees political advantage in damning George W. Bush for his post9/11 commitment to spreading democracy. Republican realists agree, and want to deal with the world as it is, rather than what it might become. There is also another new isolationist impulse--growing American anger at Europe. The European Union's economy, population, and territory are getting larger than our own. Yet the EU spends little on its selfdefense, preferring instead to invest billions in entitlements and in protecting European agriculture. In the heart of the most ardent internationalist there now grows the feeling that it might just be good for Europe or South Korea to defend itself--and for once take the flak that concrete action, not armchair moralizing, invites. Americans of every persuasion are beginning to think that a reduction in our global profile might be both profitable for ourselves and also good medicine for our friends--like when 30somethingyearold children are finally asked to move out of the house and make their own car payments. Public against military in South Korea Gordon Cucullu, 10/27/05. (author of Separated at Birth: How North Korea became the Evil Twin and is a columnist) Military.com Many Americans are angry and frustrated by what they perceive as South Korean ingratitude for the 56,000+ casualties that the US alone took in keeping that country free. But it is important to realize that South Koreans are not monolithic in their political beliefs. The present incumbent party of President Roh Moo Hyun is decidedly antiAmerican in tone, and proappeasement in behavior. Roh and his predecessor, Kim Dae Jung, made conscious decisions to abandon human rights considerations for their fellow Koreans in the North in favor of "stability," however false, and retention of political power. The public wants troops out of South Korea Horween 9 (Matt, August 29, " Opinion: Time to Remove U.S. Troops From South Korea", The Street, http://www.thestreet.com/story/10555800/opiniontimetoremoveustroopsfromsouthkorea.html) South Korea is my first example of our total disregard of any strategy in deploying 20,00030,000 troops in a country that does not allow most of our products to be imported and where a large part of public opinion is unhappy with us for various reasons dating back to our support of the dictatorship of Syngman Rhee. Not satisfied with our present untenable situation in Korea, with our troops held hostage to the fear of a massive North Korean surprise attack, our Department of Defense now wants to send the dependents of our troops that were formerly at the DMZ in South Korea to live with the troops in South Korea. Of course, this would lead to more balance of payments deficits and deprive the domestic U.S. economy of the spending the dependents now make in the USA. Plan's Popular WooCumings 03 (Meredith, professor of political science at the University of Michigan and a member of JPRI's Board of Advisers, "South Korean Anti-Americanism", July 2003, http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp93.html) In the United States, the reaction to the alleged South Korean "anti-Americanism" was one of shock, and petulance --above all, because more than 53,000 Americans lost their lives during the Korean War. Soon, American reporters were sending dispatches back from Seoul, dismayed that South Korean students did not seem to know much about their own history, including the fact that it was actually North Korea that invaded the South in 1950, and that the United States was the deus ex machina that saved South Korea from communist invaders. Instead the students seemed resentfully focused on the fact that it was the United States that divided Korea in half, in the first place, before the Korean War. If South Koreans couldn't Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 74/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW figure out who their friends and enemies were, some Americans argued, it was about time that the U.S. and South Korea called it quits. "South Korea has tired of the Americans," columnist Robert Novak wrote on January 6, 2003, "and the Americans have grown impatient with South Korea." Perhaps the U.S. should pull the plug on South Korea, bring home its 37,000 troops home, and make ungrateful Korea "responsible for itself, at long last." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 75/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW SOUTH KOREA WITHDRAWAL UNPOPULAR Only small amount of Americans support troop withdrawal Rasmussen Reports 05/26/10 ("47% Say U.S. Should Aid South Korea Militarily," Wednesday, May 26, 2010, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/north_korea/47_say_u_s_should_ai d_south_korea_militarily, Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.) As the saberrattling increases on the Korean Peninsula, 47% of U.S. voters think the United States should provide military assistance to South Korea if it is attacked by its Communist neighbor to the north. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 25% oppose U.S. military assistance to South Korea if it is attacked by North Korea, but another 28% are undecided. Fiftysix percent (56%) say it is at least somewhat likely there will be a war between the two Koreas in the near future, but only 14% say it's Very Likely. Twentynine percent (29%) say war between North Korea and South Korea is not very or not at all likely any time soon. These findings are little changed from a year ago when tensions between the two countries last heightened. The United States now has roughly 30,000 military personnel stationed in South Korea, mostly U.S. Army troops. Tensions have been mounting in recent days over charges that North Korea sank a South Korean naval vessel, and the Obama administration is pushing for United Nations action against North Korea. However, U.S. voters have little confidence that the UN will take effective action against North Korea. (Want a free daily email update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook. The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on May 2425, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/ 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Voters have little question which side they're on. Sixtyfour percent (64%) view South Korea as an ally of the United States. Just four percent (4%) see South Korea as an enemy, while 22% rate it as somewhere in between the two. By contrast, 66% say North Korea is an enemy of the United States. Two percent (2%) view North Korea as an ally, and 21% place it somewhere in between. Still, Iran remains at the top of the list of countries seen as the biggest threats to U.S. national security, with China second and North Korea third. Seventyfive percent (75%) of voters say they are following recent news stories about the two Koreas at least somewhat closely. Twentythree percent (23%) are not following very closely, if at all. Male voters are twice as likely as female voters to think the United States should provide South Korea military assistance if it is attacked by North Korea. Most Republicans (61%) and the plurality (48%) of voters not affiliated with either party agree that America should assist South Korea militarily. Democrats are evenly divided on the question. Republicans and unaffiliateds believe more strongly than Democrats that North Korea is an enemy of the United States. But there is little disagreement that South Korea is an ally. The Political Class is much less convinced than Mainstream voters that war between North Korea and South Korea is likely in the near future. But most Political Class voters (58%) favor military assistance to South Korea in the event of such an attack, a view shared by just 48% of Mainstream Americans. Most Americans are willing to militarily defend only five countries around the globe Great Britain, Israel, Germany, Canada and Mexico. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 76/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW SOUTH KOREA WITHDRAWAL UNPOPULAR MONEY High military costs could turn voters away from the Democrats. US News 06/22/10 (http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/5keyissuesinthe2010elections/) With his December decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, President Obama made the war his own. And what a war it has become: The U.S. military marked a grim milestone in Afghanistan this year with more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed there since October 2001. Roadside bombings are on the rise, causing double the number of fatalities in 2009 that they did in 2008. And 2010 is on track to be even worse by that measure. While Afghanistan has faded from the public consciousness in the wake of economic collapse and healthcare reform, this summer promises to put it back on the front pages. As the last of Obama's surge troops arrive on the ground in Afghanistan, most in the volatile south, the Pentagon has made no secret of the fact that it is planning a major offensive. The target will be Kandahar, the spiritual heartland of the Taliban, and senior U.S. military officials have already told members of Congress to brace their constituents for a tough period of fighting, with more casualties. As troops surge, of course, so too does the cost of the war. The price tag for Afghanistan alone is more than $300 billion to date, with another $100 billion expected to be spent in 2010, according to the Obama administration's supplemental budget request. The president has promised to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by July 2011, conditions permitting. But U.S. military officials currently engaged in a brutal war against a committed network of Taliban insurgents warn that, indeed, conditions may not permit. As the midterm elections approach, the fiscal cost of war in Afghanistan may draw the ire of a public increasingly mobilized against government spending--and of those, too, weary of the human toll of war. Pulling troops out of Japan could save the US over $4 billion per year The Institute for Policy Studies May 2010 (http://closethebase.org/usmilitarybases/japan/) There are approximately 90 U.S. military facilities including major military bases throughout mainland Japan and Okinawa, with an area total of 3,130,000 sq.meters, 75% of which are in Okinawa. They are concentrated in a few areas (prefectures), 37 in Okinawa, 15 in Kanagawa, 11 in Nagasaki, and 7 in Tokyo. About 52,000 U.S. troops are stationed in these bases, 26,000 in mainland and 25,000 in Okinawa (2001). In mainland Japan, the largest contingent is the air force with 6,600 and that in Okinawa marines (15,500).The main U.S. bases in mainland Japan include Misawa airbase in Aomori Prefecture up in the north of Honshu Island, Yokota Airbase in Tokyo, Yokosuka naval base in Kanagawa Prefecture, Atsugi base in the same prefecture, Iwakuni marine base near Hiroshima, and Sasebo naval base in Nagasaki Prefecture. Also there are munitions depots, communication bases, port facilities, warehouses, military barracks, and residential estates....Unlike most other countries that host U.S. military bases, Japan shoulders most of the cost of maintaining them: more than $4 billion per year in direct or indirect support. U.S. troops in Japan are hardly something new. Some 50,000 of them are spread among 73 bases on the main islands and Okinawa, and the Japanese shell out $2.6 billion yearly to keep them there. Maintaining 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan requires millions of dollars each year to rotate GIs for threeyear tours, which includes shipping their children, pets, and household goods. In addition, mainland Japan is an unpopular duty station because of cold weather, high costs, and polite yet unfriendly locals. Since housing costs for military families and American civilian employees are twice that of the USA, the U.S. military also spends millions of dollars for additional housing costs and "locality" pays. Operation costs of bases in South Korea are near 223 billion per year Hani 06/23/08 (The Hankyoreh, http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/300292.html) South Korea and the United States held their first round of negotiations with highlevel officials on July 21 in Washington to sign a special agreement on how to share the cost of maintaining U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.During the day long talks, the United States was believed to have demanded that South Korea increase its costsharing ratio to 50 percent, from the current 42 percent. It was also reported that the United States had asked South Korea to divert its share of the burden toward funding the expansion of the U.S. military base to Pyeongtaek, about 65 kilometers southeast Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 77/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW of Seoul. Instead, South Korea was reported to have said that it wanted to pay for the cost of maintaining U.S. troops in goods, rather than in cash. The talks were led by Cho Byeongje, the director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's U.S. bureau, and Jackson McDonald, the ambassador for defense costsharing negotiations at the U.S. State Department. The South Korean government has financed the U.S. military presence here since 1991. Defense costs are broken down into four parts: wages for South Korean workers hired by the U.S., costs associated with the construction of military facilities, costs related to enhancing the allies' defenses and military supplies. Since South Korea began funding the U.S. military, Seoul has increased its costsharing burden by about 10 percent annually. This year, South Korea was required to pay a total of 741.5 billion won (US$728.6 million). The highlevel talks in Washington were aimed at negotiating how to share the cost from 2010. As for the U.S. request to divert the costsharing funds to help finance the relocation of the U.S. military base to Pyeongtaek, the National Assembly's committee for unification, diplomacy and trade had already demanded in March that the South Korean government "come up with measures to improve the situation because funds for the costsharing program are already being used for relocation of the U.S. base." The parliamentary committee's reaction came as it was giving preliminary approval to a pact to share the cost of stationing U.S. troops for 2007 and 2008. Under a mutual agreement between the two nations on land management planning for the expansion of the U.S. military base to Pyeongtaek, made in April 2003, the cost of relocating the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division to Pyeongtaek is to be shouldered by the U.S. government. In spite of this, however, the National Assembly committee decided to accept that the United States had already begun to use South Korea's portion of the cost sharing burden to finance the expansion of the base. The South Korean government is believed to have made a compromise by letting the United States divert the funds it has already paid for the costsharing program and is beginning to pay its share of the cost in goods, not cash, to improve transparency in spending in the future. In addition, the United States will likely be required to provide details on how the funds are disbursed. However, the United States was reported to have opposed South Korea's proposal, saying it could undermine its freedom to use the funds as necessary. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 78/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW The White House has promised fullon support for South Korea's defense, and continued training and military exercises. Martinez 06/02/2010 (Luis Martinez, Washington, June 2 2010, "U.S. to Join South Korean Military Exercise Off North Korea Coast" ABC News) nd SOUTH KOREA FLIP FLOP LINK The U.S. aircraft carrier USS George Washington will participate in a joint naval exercise with South Korea next week in the Yellow Sea, the same waters west of the Korean peninsula where North Korea is accused of sinking a South Korean warship last March, ABC News has learned. A U.S. official said the carrier, which operates from its home port in Japan, "will be sent to the waters off South Korea within coming days to participate in joint exercises" with the South Korean navy. Slated to begin June 8, the official said this exercise will be "separate and distinct" from an upcoming anti submarine warfare exercise that Pentagon officials had said recently would be occurring "in the near future." The upcoming exercise was first reported by South Korea's Yonhap News Agency. Another U.S. official says additional U.S warships will be participating in the exercise, including a Japanbased Aegis destroyer and a Hawaiibased nuclear submarine. South Korea will also deploy a destroyer, a submarine and F15 fighter jets to participate in the exercise. This won't the first time American aircraft carriers have participated in a major military exercises with South Korea. Last October, the USS George Washington participated in a practice operation in the Yellow Sea with the South Korean navy, and every year in March, the U.S. typically joins its southeast Asian ally for exercises at sea. But the latest involvement of the U.S. military in South Korean exercises comes at a time of heightened tensions between North and South Korea after 46 South Korean sailors died in March when its warship Cheonan sunk under mysterious circumstances near a disputed maritime border. Following a monthslong international investigation that included salvaging the ship from the ocean floor, South Korea accused North Korea last week of using a minisubmarine to launch a torpedo that sunk the warship. In a statement issued by the White House after South Korea announced its findings, the United States said South Korea could count on its full support. It also said "U.S. support for South Korea's defense is unequivocal." Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said last week that as part of that commitment, the South Korean findings had prompted the U.S. and South Korea to hold two military exercises with South Korea in the "near future." He said the U.S. had committed to holding an antisubmarine exercise and was in discussions about conducting a maritime interdiction training exercise. Flipflopping will crush Obama's influence, allowing a Republican takeover in the midterms. Fitts 96 (Michael A., University of Pennsylvania Law Review, January, Lexis) Centralized and visible power, however, becomes a doubleedged sword, once one explores the different ways in which unitariness and visibility can undermine an institution's informal influence, especially its ability to mediate conflict and appear competent. In this context, the visibility and centralization of the presidency can have mixed effects. As a single visible actor in an increasingly complex world, the unitary president can be prone to an overassessment of responsibility and error. He also may be exposed to a normative standard of personal assessment that may conflict with his institutional duties. At the same time, the modern president often does not have at his disposal those bureaucratic institutions that can help mediate or deflect many conflicts. Unlike members of Congress or the agencies, he often must be clear about the tradeoffs he makes. Furthermore, a president who will be held personally accountable for government policy cannot pursue or hold inconsistent positions and values over a long period of time without suffering political repercussions . In short, the centralization and individualization of the presidency can be a source of its power, as its chief proponents and critics accurately have suggested, as well as its political illegitimacy and ultimate weakness. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 79/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WITHDRAWING NUKES POPULAR American public want to reduce nuclear weapons Canseco 4/8 (Mario, Vice President of Public Affairs at Vision Critical, a strategic research organization, "Americans call for global elimination or reduction of nuclear weapons" 4/8/10 http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/04/americanscallforglobalreductionor eliminationofnuclearweapons/ LM) In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,005 American adults, 61 per cent of respondents would endorse a global agreement that would force all nucleararmed countries to eliminate their arsenals. Only 22 per cent of Americans agree with the notion that nuclear weapons are "morally wrong" and the United States should get rid of its arsenal regardless of what other nations do. Twoinfive respondents (43%) think that the U.S. is in a strategically sound position having nuclear arms and it is not in the country's best interest to participate in international treaties that would reduce or eliminate its arsenal. More than twothirds of Americans would like the U.S. government to pursue the goal of either eliminating nuclear armament globally (36%) or reducing it considerably (35%). Only 12 per cent of respondents say the government should seek to maintain the current amount of nuclear weapons in the world, and a mere six per cent think the U.S. should develop new weapons. Majority of American public wants to reduce numbers of nukes WPO 07 (World Public Opinion, a global public opinion polling group, "American and Russian public strongly support steps to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons" 11/9/07 http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/432.php? nid=&id=&pnt=432 LM) The goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons, established in the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, is endorsed by 73 percent of Americans and 63 percent of Russians. Seventynine percent of Americans and 66 percent of Russians want their governments to do more to pursue this objective. Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree on these points, although the Democratic majorities are larger. Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, comments, "In contrast to the growing tension between their governments, publics in the US and Russia show enthusiasm for dramatic cooperative steps to reduce the nuclear threat." John Steinbruner, director of CISSM notes, "Current US security policies do not reflect underlying public opinion." One of the first steps called for in the Reykjavik Revisited plan is to take nuclear weapons off high alert so as to increase warning time and reduce the danger of their accidental or unauthorized use. Eight in ten Americans and two in three Russians favor this idea. Provided there is a system for verifying international compliance, 64 percent of Americans and 59 percent of Russians would favor taking all nuclear weapons off high alert. The UN Disarmament Committee recently voted 1243 in favor of total dealerting with the United States, France and Britain opposed. Deep cuts in nuclear arsenals also receive robust support. Eightyeight percent of Americans and 65 percent of Russians endorse the USRussian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons in each arsenal to about 2,000 weapons by the end of 2012. In fact, most Americans (71%) and Russians (55%) favor reaching this level even sooner. Furthermore, 71 percent of Americans and 58 percent Russians favor reducing their arsenals to significantly less than 2,000 weapons. Majorities of both Americans (59%) and Russians (53%) would even support cutbacks to 400 nuclear weapons each (38% of Americans and 21% of Russians are opposed). This would make the US and Russian arsenals comparable to those of other nuclear powers. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 80/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW IRAQ WITHDRAWAL POPULAR Iraq ensures democratic win in the midterms USA Today 07 (USA Today, "House passes bill giving troop withdrawal timeline" 3/23/07 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20070322senatefundingdeadline_N.htm LM) One reason the Democrats are so eager for a fight, even if the measure does not become law: Their shortterm setback could yield longterm political gains. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said it's important for Democrats to work to oppose Iraq, even if their efforts are doomed. "For the Democratic base, this is the No. 1 issue that motivated them to vote," she said. Win or lose, there's a political payoff in the Iraq fight for Democrats, she said, because "it puts people on record for the 2008 elections." Public sides with democrats to withdraw troops from Iraq Murray 7 Deputy political director at NBC News (Mark, April 26, "America siding with Dems against Bush", http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/#storyContinued) WASHINGTON As the Democratcontrolled Congress and the White House clash over an Iraq spending bill , with President Bush vowing to veto it because it contains withdrawal deadlines, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats. In addition, a nearly equal number believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible, and about only one in eight think the war has improved in the three months since Bush called for a troop increase there. "They don't see the surge working," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. Instead, they are saying "we need to get out." With those opinions, it's perhaps not surprising the poll also shows that the Democratic presidential frontrunner who opposed the Iraq war from the start -- Sen. Barack Obama, DIll. -- has gained ground on Sen. Hillary Clinton, DN.Y., who voted to authorize the war and hasn't apologized for it, despite her increasingly antiwar rhetoric. And the candidate whose fortunes seem to be tied the most to the situation in Iraq -- Sen. John McCain, RAriz. -- continues to trail former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani by double digits. In favor of a troop deadline The poll -- which was taken of 1,004 adults from April 2023, and which has an overall margin of error of 3.1 percentage points -- comes as Congress considers an supplemental spending bill that would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq no later than Oct. 1, with the goal of having all combat troops leave by March 2008. The House on Wednesday passed the bill containing the troop withdrawal timetable. The Senate was expected to follow suit on Thursday. Bush opposes the bill and has threatened to veto it. "They know I'm going to veto a bill containing these provisions, and they know that my veto will be sustained," the president said on Tuesday. "But instead of fashioning a bill I could sign, the Democratic leaders chose to further delay funding our troops, and they chose to make a political statement. That's their right. But it is wrong for our troops and it's wrong for our country." Yet the poll shows that withdrawal , versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline. 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop 60% of Americans favor pullout CNN 10 (May 21 23, "/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.", http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) Obama has announced that he will remove most U.S. troops from Iraq by August of this year but keep 35 thousand to 50 thousand troops in that country longer than that. Do you favor or oppose this plan?" N=524 "Barack (Form A), MoE 4.5 2009: "Barack Obama has announced that he will remove most U.S. troops from Iraq by August of next year but keep 35,000 to 50,000 troops in that country longer than that. Do you favor or oppose this plan?" Favor Oppose Unsure % % % 5/2123/10 64 35 1 Plan is massively popular with democrats Holland 7 Reuters (Steve, May 30, "Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea", http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3041621320070530), The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years. Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president. White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea in which "you get to a point in the future Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 81/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW where you want it to be a purely support model." "The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement he believes it is time for Bush to "recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq," that U.S. troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and a change in course is urgently needed. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 82/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW IRAQ WITHDRAWAL UNPOPULAR Americans are less supportive of Iraq withdrawal now that it's started Coleman 6/2 (Jonathan, Gallup Polls data examiner for the Ann Arbor Examiner, "Americans say military pullout in Iraq is for the worse" 6/2/10 http://www.examiner.com/x14820GallupPollsExaminer~y2009m7d2Americanssaymilitarypulloutin Iraqisfortheworse LM) Of the political party members, Republicans are the most supportive of the U.S. military and the most pessimistic about the military pullout of Iraq. Almost three quarters, 72%, of Republicans say that the troop pullout will result in negative consequences, compared to 13% who say the situation in Iraq will now get better. Almost half of Democrats say the situation will get worse, and 56% of Independents think Iraq's security situation will deteriorate. In a detailed questionnaire created by Gallup, 27% of Americans say the situation will get a lot worse, and 31% say it will get a little worse. On the flip side, 17% say the situation will get a little better, and only 4% say the situation will get a lot better. And even though phase one of military reduction was carried out by the June, 30 deadline, only 27% of Americans feel the U.S. will complete its full withdrawal by 2011, compared to 69% who say they will not. There is a significant difference in security views between those who say America will complete its full withdrawal by 2011 and those who don't. 22% who say America will pullout by 2001 expect security in Iraq to worsen, and 37% say security will get better. On the flip side, 76% of Americans who don't think the U.S will withdraw by 2011 expect security to get worse, and surprisingly, 61% expect security to improve. Gallup has polled Americans on this situation since 2005, and Americans have always favored removing troops from Iraq at a favorable majority. Now that phase one has begun, not many Americans are optimistic about the situation Troop Removal from Afghanistan Unpopular CNN Wire Staff, 5/29/10. National news organization and website (CNN poll: Instability in Iraq could hurt support for U.S. withdrawal) CNN.com Support for President Obama's planned removal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the August could drop significantly if Iraq cannot solve its current problems in time, according to a new national poll. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Saturday indicates that 64 percent of Americans favor the president's plan to keep just 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of the summer, with 35 percent opposed. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 83/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW ISOLATIONIST POLICY POPULAR Recession has prompted the public to lobby for a reduction of America's role in the world Kull 6/2 (Steven, political psychologist on the Council on Foreign Relations, paper presented at the Center for International Security Studies Second Annual Symposium at Princeton University, "Americans and the World in Difficult Times" 6/2/10 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/info center/visionofhumanitythemes/peaceandsociety/americansandtheworldindifficulttimes/ LM) Stated briefly I think there are some signs that the public is feeling overextended and would like to lighten the burden of America's role in the world. This has actually been true for sometime, but it has been significantly exacerbated by the economic crisis and the effect of conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They feel the pressure of the budget deficitsomething that concerns them. However, I do not think that this should be interpreted as a simple move toward isolationism. In response to poll questions that pose only two response optionsbasically for the US to disengage or notwe see some signs of an increasing desire to disengage. But when given more response options, we find more complex response. There is a clear preference for a reducing America's dominant role. But there is also clear support for the US to stay engaged in the world, though in a less hegemonic and more cooperative form even if this means relinquishing some control. So what are the findings that suggest that Americans are increasingly looking to disengage? Asked by Pew whether they agreed or disagreed that "The U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own," for the first time in more than 40 years of polling, a plurality of 49% agreed with this position. Questions that ask people to prioritize problems at home over problems abroad have always found majorities putting a higher priority on problems at home. But this majority has become larger. A new high of 76% agreed that "We should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems and building up our strength and prosperity here at home." Seventythree percent want the president to focus on domestic policy more than on foreign policy. Again, this is commonly a majority preference, but 73% is the largest such majority since 1997. Americans want less intervention abroad Yale Global Online 09 (Yale Global online, the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, 2/10/09 http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/usopinionturnsagainstglobalismtheirpresident LM) All of President Obama's internationalist and multilateral policies may come to naught if he cannot convince Americans that such a strategy is in their best interest. Moreover, if American public opinion cannot be reversed, an insular country could erode US international standing and weaken its ability to obtain a consensus on a wide range of issues, according to columnist Bruce Stokes. Americans have never been more isolationist and unilateralist than today compared with the last four decades. Such attitudes have no doubt led to considerable public skepticism or outright disagreement with much of Obama's agenda: from the troop surge in Afghanistan to climate change to immigration to dealing with terrorists. Indeed, many Americans simply believe the rest of the world should sort out its own problems. Though Obama might be one of the most articulate presidents in recent times, he has failed to convince the American public of the value of an internationalist agenda; one could say he has failed to convince the public how US wellbeing and prosperity are inextricably linked to the fate of the world. If this gap between American perception and US policy persists, as Stokes argues, the US' stature abroad is bound to diminish. Americans want to decrease overseas involvement Stokes 09 (Bruce, international economics columnist for the "National Journal, " Yale Global online, the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, 2/10/09 http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/usopinionturnsagainstglobalismtheirpresident LM) But opinion polls show the American people are moving in another direction. Reeling from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and convinced that the world is an increasingly dangerous place, Americans despair about their country's future leadership role in the world. They have turned inward and once again become defiantly selfassertive. Americans are now more isolationist and more unilateralist than at any time in recent history. For the first time in more than four decades of polling, a plurality of Americans now says Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 84/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW that the US should "mind its own business internationally" and let other countries get along the best they can on their own, according to the recent America's Place in the World survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. This isolationist sentiment surpasses that at the end of the Vietnam War. Complicating matters further for a Democratic administration, a majority of the president's own party now holds isolationist attitudes. In addition, more than fourinfive of those surveyed think the US should go its own way on the international stage, not worrying too much about whether other countries agree or not. That is by far the greatest degree of unilateralist sentiment since the question was first asked in 1964. This unprecedented isolationism and support for unilateralism runs at cross purposes to Obama's avowed goal of international engagement. The president talks the talk of internationalism, but he has yet to convince the American public to walk that walk. In fact, some would argue that he sought to please the labor unions by imposing tariffs on some Chinese imports while pledging to uphold free trade. Nowhere is this friction between US foreign policy objectives and American attitudes more evident than with regard to Afghanistan. Only onein three Americans backed president Obama's troop surge, before his announcement, including just oneinfive Democrats. If American casualties mount in the months ahead, as they undoubtedly will, if there is new evidence of the Afghan government's corruption or ineffectiveness and if the US is drawn even deeper into Pakistan to fight the Taliban, the Obama administration has no reservoir of public good will to draw upon to ride out the storms that are bound to rise. Maintaining the military initiative could then prove difficult, especially as public dissatisfaction makes Congress restive in the run up to the 2010 election. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 85/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW JAPAN WITHDRAWAL POPULAR Americans don't want to continue alliance with Japan Stokes 09 (Bruce, international economics columnist for the "National Journal, " Yale Global online, the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, 2/10/09 http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/usopinionturnsagainstglobalismtheirpresident LM) Isolationism and unilateralism may also complicate future US defense relations with Japan. The new government in Tokyo has called into question American military bases on Okinawa and has expressed a desire for closer ties with other Asian nations, effectively beginning to distance itself somewhat from Washington. Such actions could spark resentment among Americans who are already turning their backs on the world. And, with the Obama administration focusing most of its Asian energies on China, the USJapan alliance, the bulwark of Asian security for the last two generations, could erode out of neglect and disinterest on both sides. Americans' unilateralist impulses similarly threaten to derail Obama's delicate handling of Iran. The White House is slowly ratcheting up international pressure on Tehran in an effort to get it to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. But sixinten Americans support a military strike against Iran if it is certain Tehran has a produced a nuclear weapon. Resisting that public pressure may become ever more difficult if the Iranian government continues to flaunt the United Nations on this issue. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 86/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW JAPAN WITHDRAWAL UNPOPULAR MONEY High military costs could turn voters away from the Democrats. US News 06/22/10 (http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/5keyissuesinthe2010elections/) With his December decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, President Obama made the war his own. And what a war it has become: The U.S. military marked a grim milestone in Afghanistan this year with more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed there since October 2001. Roadside bombings are on the rise, causing double the number of fatalities in 2009 that they did in 2008. And 2010 is on track to be even worse by that measure. While Afghanistan has faded from the public consciousness in the wake of economic collapse and healthcare reform, this summer promises to put it back on the front pages. As the last of Obama's surge troops arrive on the ground in Afghanistan, most in the volatile south, the Pentagon has made no secret of the fact that it is planning a major offensive. The target will be Kandahar, the spiritual heartland of the Taliban, and senior U.S. military officials have already told members of Congress to brace their constituents for a tough period of fighting, with more casualties. As troops surge, of course, so too does the cost of the war. The price tag for Afghanistan alone is more than $300 billion to date, with another $100 billion expected to be spent in 2010, according to the Obama administration's supplemental budget request. The president has promised to begin withdrawing U.S. troops by July 2011, conditions permitting. But U.S. military officials currently engaged in a brutal war against a committed network of Taliban insurgents warn that, indeed, conditions may not permit. As the midterm elections approach, the fiscal cost of war in Afghanistan may draw the ire of a public increasingly mobilized against government spending--and of those, too, weary of the human toll of war. Pulling troops out of Japan could save the US over $4 billion per year The Institute for Policy Studies May 2010 (http://closethebase.org/usmilitarybases/japan/) There are approximately 90 U.S. military facilities including major military bases throughout mainland Japan and Okinawa, with an area total of 3,130,000 sq.meters, 75% of which are in Okinawa. They are concentrated in a few areas (prefectures), 37 in Okinawa, 15 in Kanagawa, 11 in Nagasaki, and 7 in Tokyo. About 52,000 U.S. troops are stationed in these bases, 26,000 in mainland and 25,000 in Okinawa (2001). In mainland Japan, the largest contingent is the air force with 6,600 and that in Okinawa marines (15,500).The main U.S. bases in mainland Japan include Misawa airbase in Aomori Prefecture up in the north of Honshu Island, Yokota Airbase in Tokyo, Yokosuka naval base in Kanagawa Prefecture, Atsugi base in the same prefecture, Iwakuni marine base near Hiroshima, and Sasebo naval base in Nagasaki Prefecture. Also there are munitions depots, communication bases, port facilities, warehouses, military barracks, and residential estates....Unlike most other countries that host U.S. military bases, Japan shoulders most of the cost of maintaining them: more than $4 billion per year in direct or indirect support. U.S. troops in Japan are hardly something new. Some 50,000 of them are spread among 73 bases on the main islands and Okinawa, and the Japanese shell out $2.6 billion yearly to keep them there. Maintaining 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan requires millions of dollars each year to rotate GIs for threeyear tours, which includes shipping their children, pets, and household goods. In addition, mainland Japan is an unpopular duty station because of cold weather, high costs, and polite yet unfriendly locals. Since housing costs for military families and American civilian employees are twice that of the USA, the U.S. military also spends millions of dollars for additional housing costs and "locality" pays. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 87/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW US has expressed commitment to remaining in Japan News Blaze 05/28/10 http://newsblaze.com/story/20100528135141stat.nb/topstory.html) ( On May 28, 2010, the members of the United StatesJapan Security Consultative Committee (SCC) reconfirmed that, in this 50th anniversary year of the signing of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, the U.S. Japan Alliance remains indispensable not only to the defense of Japan, but also to the peace, security, and prosperity of the AsiaPacific region. Recent developments in the security environment of Northeast Asia reaffirmed the significance of the Alliance. In this regard, the United States reiterated its unwavering commitment to Japan's security. Japan reconfirmed its commitment to playing a positive role in contributing to the peace and stability of the region. Furthermore, the SCC members recognized that a robust forward presence of U.S. military forces in Japan, including in Okinawa, provides the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and for the maintenance of regional stability. The SCC members committed to promote and deepen security cooperation in wideranging areas to enable the Alliance to adapt to the evolving challenges of the 21st century. The Ministers reaffirmed the commitment to reduce the impact on local communities, including in Okinawa, thereby preserving a sustainable U.S. military presence in Japan. In this context, the SCC members expressed their shared commitments to relocate Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma and return the base to Japan as part of the Alliance transformation and realignment process. The Ministers confirmed their commitment to implement steadily the realignment initiatives described in the May 1, 2006, SCC Document, "United StatesJapan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation," as supplemented by this SCC Statement. The Ministers reaffirmed that, as provided for in the Guam Agreement of February 17, 2009, the relocation of approximately 8,000 III Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) personnel and their approximately 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam is dependent on tangible progress toward the completion of the replacement facility. The relocation to Guam will realize the consolidation and return of most of the facilities south of Kadena. Bearing this in mind, the two sides intend to verify and validate that this Futenma relocation plan appropriately considers factors such as safety, operational requirements, noise impact, environmental concerns, and effects on the local community. Both sides confirmed the intention to locate the replacement facility at the Camp Schwab Henokosaki area and adjacent waters, with the runway portion(s) of the facility to be 1,800 meters long, inclusive of overruns, exclusive of seawalls. In order to achieve the earliest possible return of MCAS Futenma, the Ministers decided that a study by experts regarding the replacement facility's location, configuration and construction method would be completed promptly (in any event no later than the end of August, 2010), and that the verification and validation would be completed by the time of the next SCC. Both sides confirmed the intention to locate, configure, and construct the replacement facility in such a manner as to ensure that environmental impact assessment procedures and construction of the replacement facility can be completed without significant delay. The Ministers recognized the importance of responding to the concerns of the people of Okinawa that they bear a disproportionate burden related to the presence of U.S. forces, and also recognized that the more equitable distribution of shared alliance responsibilities is essential for sustainable development of the Alliance. Based on the aforementioned recognition, the Ministers directed that, as progress is made toward the replacement facility, concrete measures should be taken expeditiously in the following areas: Training Relocation The two sides committed to expand the relocation of the U.S. forces activities, to include both bilateral and unilateral training, outside of Okinawa. In this regard, utilization of Tokunoshima will be considered, subject to development of appropriate facilities. Japan SelfDefense Forces (SDF) facilities and areas in mainland Japan may also be utilized. Both sides also committed to examine the relocation of training outside of Japan, such as to Guam. Environment In view of shared responsibilities on environmental stewardship, the Ministers instructed their staffs to discuss the potential for the United States and Japan to take a "Green Alliance" approach to our bases and the environment. U.S.Japanese collaboration on a "Green Alliance" would consider ways to introduce renewable energy technology into U.S. bases in Japan and under development in Guam, including as a component of Host Nation Support. The Ministers instructed their staffs to consider promptly and seriously an agreement on the environment, including reasonable access to U.S. facilities and areas in cases of environmental incidents, and reasonable access to U.S. facilities and areas for environmental surveys prior to land returns. Shared Use of Facilities The two sides intend to study opportunities to expand the shared use of facilities between U.S. forces and the SDF, which would contribute to closer JAPAN FLIP FLOP LINK Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 88/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW bilateral operational coordination, improved interoperability, and stronger relations with local communities. Training Areas The two sides decided on the partial lift of restrictions on the use of the "Hotel/Hotel training area" and committed to continue to consult on other measures. Guam Relocation The two sides confirmed that, in accordance with the Guam Agreement of February 17, 2009, the relocation of approximately 8,000 III MEF personnel and their approximately 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam will be steadily implemented. The relocation to Guam is dependent on tangible progress made by the Government of Japan toward completion of the replacement facility. The U.S. side will examine the unit composition of III MEF personnel remaining on Okinawa in the context of overall theater security, including deterrence, while accounting for the concerns of local communities. Facilitation of the Return of Facilities and Areas South of Kadena The two sides confirmed that the return of facilities and areas south of Kadena will be steadily implemented in accordance with the Realignment Roadmap. In addition, the two sides decided that the "Industrial Corridor" of Camp Zukeran (Camp Foster) and a part of Makiminato Service Area (Camp Kinser) are priority areas for early return. Noise Reduction at Kadena The two sides affirmed their commitment to further noise reduction at Kadena through such measures as expansion of both bilateral and unilateral training outside of Okinawa, including improvements to the aviation training relocation program, and steady implementation of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) Final Report. Communication and Cooperation with Communities in Okinawa The two sides affirmed their intention to intensify communication with communities in Okinawa on issues of concern related to the presence of U.S. forces. The two sides committed to explore cooperation in such areas as information technology initiatives, cultural exchanges, education programs and research partnerships. As part of the effort to deepen security cooperation, the SCC members emphasized the importance of ensuring a shared understanding of the regional security environment and the role of the U.S.Japan Alliance in advancing common strategic objectives. Toward this end, the SCC members committed to intensify the ongoing bilateral security dialogue. This security dialogue will address traditional security threats, as well as focus on new areas for cooperation. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 89/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW TURKEY TNWS WITHDRAWAL POPULAR Plan's popular with the dems and the public WPO 7 (World Public Opinion, a global public opinion polling group, "American and Russian public strongly support steps to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons" 11/9/07 http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/432.php? nid=&id=&pnt=432 LM) The goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons, established in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is endorsed by 73 percent of Americans and 63 percent of Russians. Seventy-nine percent of Americans and 66 percent of Russians want their governments to do more to pursue this objective. Majorities of both Democrats and Republicans agree on these points, although the Democratic majorities are larger. Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, comments, "In contrast to the growing tension between their governments, publics in the US and Russia show enthusiasm for dramatic cooperative steps to reduce the nuclear threat." John Steinbruner, director of CISSM notes, "Current US security policies do not reflect underlying public opinion." One of the first steps called for in the Reykjavik Revisited plan is to take nuclear weapons off high alert so as to increase warning time and reduce the danger of their accidental or unauthorized use. Eight in ten Americans and two in three Russians favor this idea. Provided there is a system for verifying international compliance, 64 percent of Americans and 59 percent of Russians would favor taking all nuclear weapons off high alert. The UN Disarmament Committee recently voted 124-3 in favor of total de-alerting with the United States, France and Britain opposed. Deep cuts in nuclear arsenals also receive robust support. Eighty-eight percent of Americans and 65 percent of Russians endorse the US-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) to reduce the number of active nuclear weapons in each arsenal to about 2,000 weapons by the end of 2012. In fact, most Americans (71%) and Russians (55%) favor reaching this level even sooner. Furthermore, 71 percent of Americans and 58 percent Russians favor reducing their arsenals to significantly less than 2,000 weapons. Majorities of both Americans (59%) and Russians (53%) would even support cutbacks to 400 nuclear weapons each (38% of Americans and 21% of Russians are opposed). This would make the US and Russian arsenals comparable to those of other nuclear powers. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 90/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW KUWAIT WITHDRAWAL POPULAR Plan's popular with the public PR Watch 9 (April 16, "How Sold the War in the Persian Gulf", http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html) Unlike Grenada and Panama, Iraq had a substantial army that could not be subdued in a mere weekend of fighting. Unlike the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Hussein was too far away from US soil, too rich with oil money, and too experienced in ruling through propaganda and terror to be dislodged through the psychologicalwarfare techniques of lowintensity conflict. Waging a war to push Iraq's invading army from Kuwait would cost billions of dollars and require an unprecedented, massive US military mobilization. The American public was notoriously reluctant to send its young into foreign battles on behalf of any cause. Selling war in the Middle East to the American people would not be easy . Bush would need to convince Americans that former ally Saddam Hussein now embodied evil, and that the oil fiefdom of Kuwait was a struggling young democracy. How could the Bush Administration build US support for "liberating" a country so fundamentally opposed to democratic values? How could the war appear noble and necessary rather than a crass grab to save cheap oil? "If and when a shooting war starts, reporters will begin to wonder why American soldiers are dying for oil rich sheiks," warned Hal Steward, a retired army PR official. "The US military had better get cracking to come up with a public relations plan that will supply the answers the public can accept."71 Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 91/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW KUWAIT WITHDRAWAL UNPOPULAR Kuwait paid law and lobby firms to convince public to support troops in Kuwait PR Watch 9 (April 16, "How Sold the War in the Persian Gulf", http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html) US Congressman Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana a conservative Democrat who supported the Gulf War later estimated that the government of Kuwait funded as many as 20 PR, law and lobby firms in its campaign to mobilize US opinion and force against Hussein.72 Participating firms included the Rendon Group, which received a retainer of $100,000 per month for media work, and Neill & Co., which received $50,000 per month for lobbying Congress. Sam Zakhem, a former US ambassador to the oilrich gulf state of Bahrain, funneled $7.7 million in advertising and lobbying dollars through two front groups, the "Coalition for Americans at Risk" and the "Freedom Task Force." The Coalition, which began in the 1980s as a front for the contras in Nicaragua, prepared and placed TV and newspaper ads, and kept a stable of fifty speakers available for prowar rallies and publicity events.73 Hill & Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm, served as mastermind for the Kuwaiti campaign . Its activities alone would have constituted the largest foreignfunded campaign ever aimed at manipulating American public opinion. By law, the Foreign Agents Registration Act should have exposed this propaganda campaign to the American people, but the Justice Department chose not to enforce it. Nine days after Saddam's army marched into Kuwait, the Emir's government agreed to fund a contract under which Hill & Knowlton would represent "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," a classic PR front group designed to hide the real role of the Kuwaiti government and its collusion with the Bush administration. Over the next six months, the Kuwaiti government channeled $11.9 million dollars to Citizens for a Free Kuwait, whose only other funding totalled $17,861 from 78 individuals. Virtually all of CFK's budget $10.8 million went to Hill & Knowlton in the form of fees.74 Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 92/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY Obama's leadership is key to climate passage. Politico 6/23 (2010, by Darren Samuelson and Manu Raju, " Obama gets heat to lead on climate", http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38883_Page2.html) "The question now is: What's the vehicle to advance legislation in the Senate, and who will form the coalition? We will seek to answer that [next week], but there should be no doubt that the president intends to meet his commitment to find the votes." While Obama and his Senate allies insist the president White House leadership. "We're at a point where Obama and his team have to lead aggressively, or it won't come together," said Dirk Forrister, who ran a climate change task force in President Bill Clinton's White House. "Simple as that. Reid needs handson White House engagement in order to rally the votes." " We can only succeed in passing comprehensive climate and energy legislation if both the preside nt and the majority leader continue to work overtime with their colleagues to convince them to vote for a strong bill," said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski. "They've both engaged much more aggressively over the last several weeks. They need to do even more than that to get the votes necessary to win." Political capital key to energy bill passage. E&E News 6/22 (2010, reported by Robin Bravender and Josh Voorhees, " CLIMATE: Senate floor plan all goes back to Obama, top Dems say", http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2010/06/22/2) is wellpositioned to pass the climate bill, several close observers of the Senate climate debate continue to call for stronger The summer strategy for passing energy and climate legislation will depend heavily on how much political capital President Obama is willing to invest i n the effort, the Senate's top Democrat said on the eve of a meeting at the White House. "I think it's pretty clear we have to do something; the question is, what do we do?" Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNev.) told reporters today. " And a lot of that depends on what the White House is going to do to help us get something done." Reid's comments come as he and a select group of bipartisan senators are slated to travel to the White House tomorrow morning to meet with Obama and administration officials for the latest round of climate talks. Sen. Sherrod Brown (DOhio) said he hoped the president would seize the opportunity to lay out specifically what he wants the Senate to accomplish in the coming months. "I want to hear what he's going to do, how engaged he's going to be in this and how important it is to him and what his strategy is to begin to move it," Brown said. Still, Brown cautioned that tomorrow's meeting is not Obama's last chance to offer his input. "It's a good time to," he said. "It's not the only time to." Obama key to passage to secure moderates and Republicans. Bloomberg News 6/24 (2010, By Simon Lomax and Lisa Lerer, " Democrats Fail to Reach Agreement on Energy Bill (Update2)" http://www.businessweek.com/news/20100624/democratsfailtoreachagreementonenergybillupdate2.html) Some Senate Democrats, who have dubbed the proposed renewable electricity mandate an "energyonly" bill because it doesn't regulate the greenhouse gases that scientists have linked to climate change, are threatening to vote against legislation that doesn't include a carbon price. There are "a dozen or so" Democrats who "aren't going to settle for an energyonly bill," Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, told reporters before today's meeting. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana said it would be "difficult" for him to vote for a bill charging power plants for their carbon dioxide emissions because that could increase electricity rates. A bill that boosts renewable electricity generation is "probably more doable" this year, Bayh told reporters. Reid and other Democrats have been looking to President Barack Obama to help mend the rift between Democrats and to secure Republican votes for an energy bill. It usually requires 60 out of 100 votes to pass major legislation in the Senate, and the Democrats hold 59 seats. "We absolutely need the president's leadership," Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, a carbonprice supporter, told reporters. Obama Meeting Rescheduled Obama had planned to meet with Democratic and Republican senators yesterday for talks on the energy bill, which the president has said should promote "clean energy" as well as deal with effects of the BP spill, caused by a fatal April 20 rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The energy talks were postponed so Obama could meet with Army General Stanley McChrystal, who was removed yesterday as the head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan for making disparaging comments about administration officials. The talks have been rescheduled for next week, according to a White House aide who asked not to be identified prior to the formal announcement. After the White House meeting, Senate Democrats will "forge a path forward" on the energy bill, Reid said. Democrats plan to write an energy bill that "brave Republicans" can support, Reid said. Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, said there's a "very slim" chance that his party will provide Democrats with enough votes to pass legislation with a carbon price this year. After the bipartisan talks at the White House, "we'll have a sense of what might be achievable," Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat and supporter of the socalled energyonly bill, told reporters. Regardless of BP oil spill, Obama is spending his political capital on the Climate Bill Red Orbit, 6/21 [Obama Pushes Energy Bill, Monday, 21 June 2010, http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/1881866/obama_pushes_energy_bill/] President Barack Obama's top aide said Sunday that the Commanderinchief is committed to an energy bill that reduces carbon emissions. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Obama wants the Senate to "pass a comprehensive energy bill" that primarily deals with "the environmental degradation that happens from carbon ***INTERNAL LINKS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 93/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW pollution." Emanuel said that the House of Representatives already has approved a bill that includes the cap andtrade system, under which companies buy rights to emit greenhouse gases from firms that use less energy and pollute less. Finding a solution to carbon emissions is the top deadlock in the legislation as Republicans reject any plans for carbon taxes. Obama, using the Gulf of Mexico oil tragedy to get his point across, is trying to forge a new "national mission" on clean energy. He is calling for a bipartisan meeting to discuss climate legislation on Wednesday . Obama is committed to a bill that will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and make "key investments in the areas of alternative energy so America leads in that space," Emmanuel told ABC television. To ease the transition into capandtrade, many industries, including utility companies have pushed for the government to give away some of the permits, rather than charging for them in an auction. With the future of the planet at stake, Obama argues that the United States must now take the lead on global warming after years of denial under the former George W. Bush administration. Obama will find necessary votes for climate bill Obama 6/21 (Barack, 6/21/10, Obama: I'll find the votes for a climate bill, http://www.grist.org/article/20100621presidentobamaillfindthe votesforaclimatebillbpgulf/) To make certain a spill like this never happens again, we're working to understand what caused this disaster. And we're going to put an end to the corruption and lack of oversight that has plagued the agency responsible for regulating the oil industry. But if we're honest with ourselves, we must also recognize that the days of cheap and easily accessible oil are numbered and the costs and risks associated with our addiction to fossil fuels embrace a cleanenergy future is now. That's why in the coming days, I will work with both parties to find the necessary votes to move comprehensive energy and climate legislation forward But we also know that real change is only . possible when ordinary Americans are willing to organize from the bottom up. The pundits may say that this is too difficult that the special interests are too powerful or that the political will just isn't there. But you've never settled for what people in Washington believe is possible. If we refuse to heed the warnings of this disaster, we will have missed our best chance to help build the cleanenergy future America needs. But if we seize this moment, we can rebuild our economy on a new foundation and make it more competitive in the 21st century, creating entire new industries and millions of new clean energy jobs all across the country. That's why I'm asking you to stand with me today. Obama's capital key to energy passage Reuters 6/2 [http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0217721820100602, June 2, 2010 UPDATE 3In oil spill shadow, Obama pledges energy bill push, Alister Bull] PITTSBURGH, June 2 (Reuters) President Barack Obama pledged on Wednesday to find Senate support for a bill to overhaul U.S. energy policy and called for an end to oil company tax breaks in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico . Obama, in remarks at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, also predicted that a May jobs report to be released on Friday would show strong spill jobs growth. The president had planned to focus his year on boosting jobs in the United States, where unemployment is hovering near 10 percent, but other issues healthcare reform, changes to financial regulation, and now the BP oil spill have distracted attention from that. Obama, a Democrat, accused Republicans of sitting on the sidelines while his administration worked to rescue the economy and, with November congressional elections aren't going away. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to looming, used his speech to lambaste the opposition party for opposing initiatives from health insurance reform to tax cuts . But the president said he would seek Republican support to pass energy legislation in the U.S. Senate despite strong resistance and a crowded legislative schedule. "The votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months," Obama said, referring to a bill that is languishing in the Senate. "I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can. I will work with anyone to get this done. And we will get it done," he said to applause. Political Capital is key, this is Obama's last chance The Washington Post 6/23/10 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062204489.html, "Can president obama forge a compromise on an energy bill?"] PRESIDENT OBAMA will bring senators to the White House soon in another attempt to achieve bipartisan accord on energy and climate policy. The president's push could be the last opportunity to pass a significant bill any time soon. The most helpful thing senators and the president could do is put a gradually rising price on the carbon emissions produced by the burning of fossil fuels. The best way to do this would be with a simple tax. Political capital is key to passage NYT 6/23/10 [http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/23/23greenwirewhitehousecancellationfrustrates backersof18123.html, NYT, "White House CancellationFrustrates Backers of Senate Climate Bill", Robin Bravender] Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 94/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW "It is a big job, and we're already very much behind schedule," Hamilton said. "The longer it takes to get into the guts of this, the harder it's going to be to get it done Clean Air Watch President Frank O'Donnell said, "Obviously, it doesn't advance ." the cause. ... The clock is ticking. We all know that." Senate Democrats have signaled that they need presidential leadership before they can move forward in a compressed legislative schedule. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNev.) said yesterday that his strategy for passing legislation will depend heavily on how much political capital Obama is willing to invest in the effort Still, Obama and his staff have insisted that the White House is committed to getting a comprehensive bill across the finish line this year. "The Senate has an opportunity before the August recess and the elections to stand up and move forward on something that could have enormous, positive consequences for generations to come," Obama said yesterday after meeting with his Cabinet. Politico 6/29 (2010, by Darren Samuelsohn, "President Obama's 'moment of truth' for energy bill", http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39144.html) Obama is key to securing a comprehensive bill. If he's going to have any success, many upclose observers said, the president needs to spell out what he wants in a legislative package -- and if he doesn't, he risks losing control of a debate that promises to quickly split along both partisan and regional lines. "This is the moment of truth," said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Obama presidential campaign adviser. "If the administration buttresses its strong general commitment for action with one or two pages of legislative specs, there's still hope for targeted climate provisions." "Absent a specific White House proposal," Grumet added, "Republicans and conservative Democrats seem likely to steer the debate away from climate " and toward provisions that respond to the BP oil spill and less aggressive provisions that promote renewable energy without a cap on heattrapping emissions. To date, Obama has weighed in on some of the key details in the climate debate. He's still calling for a 17 percent cut in heattrapping emissions by 2020. He has let go of a campaign pledge to auction off 100 percent of a capandtrade program's valuable compliance allowances, instead accepting free giveaways to different industrial sectors, including power plants and tradesensitive manufacturers. And he's offered an olive branch to labor unions and key industries by signaling, through a top deputy, that he'd accept trade sanctions against developing nations that don't have their own strong climate policies. Yet many want Obama to take even more ownership of the climate bill, especially as Democratic leaders in the Senate struggle to find 60 votes amid calls for a scaledback energy bill from moderate Democrats and Republicans. Some are looking to Obama to suggest he'd accept a compromise on carbon limits, maybe by focusing just on emissions from power plants. Others want Obama to recognize the political reality of what's possible just months before the November elections. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 95/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW GOP key to energy bill Dem's need votes Mascaro 10 Washington tribune bureau (Lisa, June 27, "Senate Democrats poised to start energy bill", GOP KEY http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/lanaenergycongress20100627,0,4030045.story?track=rss) Republicans dismiss such a capandtrade system as a new tax on households and business -- "capandtax," they call it. With the Democrats' 59 member caucus intensely divided on energy issues, crossover support from Republicans would be needed. Still, a majority of Democrats appear willing to risk legislative failure, believing a robust summer discussion on energy would establish a stark contrast between the parties before the fall election. Tackling energy legislation gives Democrats a strategy they believe resonates with voters -- though one that would expose them to GOP taunts over higher taxes, a fight Republicans would relish . "If we spend our time always worrying about that 60th vote, we never get to do anything in a strong position," said Sen. Mark Begich (D Alaska). A group of senators is expected to meet this week to begin crafting legislation that could come to the floor in mid July. Legislative realists know the complications of passing an energy bill. It often takes years of tortuous negotiations as lawmakers split along regional rather than partisan lines. Any cap on carbon emissions draws fierce opposition from coalstate lawmakers and those from states with manufacturing public really weighing in a major way -- and we need Republican votes," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.). industries that could be taxed for emissions. "We have to get to the 60 votes, but it's not going to happen , I think, without the Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 96/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW FOCUS KEY Obama focused on energy--fully engaged and willing to push for bipartisanship. Reuters 6/22 (" UPDATE 1Kerry says Obama intends to move votes on energy", Reporting by Timothy Gardner and Richard Cowan, Editing by Sandra Maler, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2212944720100622, 2010) WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) U.S. Senator John Kerry, the top sponsor of the climate and energy bill stalled in the Senate, said President Barack Obama intends to pressure lawmakers to vote for a bill that would put a price on emitting greenhouse gases. "There's no question in my mind the president is fully committed. He's fully engaged," Kerry told MSNBC on Tuesday. "He intends to try to move votes himself and he understands the seriousness of this effort." Obama is slated to meet leading Republican and Democratic senators on Wednesday to discuss a way forward for the energy legislation. It would take 60 of the Senate's 100 votes to pass controversial legislation that creates a higher price on carbon. In this election year, some moderate Democrats and Republicans are hesitant to vote for a bill that would raise the cost of burning oil and coal in the hope of making cleaner alternative fuels more competitive. If support falls short for placing a price on carbon, Senate leaders might opt for much a more narrow energy and environment bill this year. The White House meeting will include Kerry, Joe Lieberman, an independent and co sponsor of the bill, and Republican Lindsey Graham, one of the original authors of the legislation who later dropped support for it. Kerry said the bill must include ways to price carbon but was not "locked into any one single way of doing it." "The fact is if we don't price carbon, we will create one tenth of the jobs and reduce only one tenth of the emissions," he said. "It would essentially be an energyonly bill." In his address last week on BP's (BP.L) oil spill, Obama said he was willing to take ideas from both political parties in order to push forward the bill, which he argued was needed to help lessen dependence on fossil fuels. Kerry and Lieberman unveiled the bill last month that would require power utilities to cut their output of gases blamed for global warming. A similar bill passed in the House last year. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 97/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW GRAHAM KEY Without Graham, it's impossible for Kerry to get key republican votes Eilperin 10 Staff Writer (Juliet, 27 6, "Sen. Graham walks away from climate and energy bill", http://views.washingtonpost.com/climatechange/post carbon/2010/04/sen_graham_threatens_to_halt_work_on_climate_and_energy_bill.html) Am I supposed to write every bill for the whole country?" Graham asked. "This comes out of left field." Graham made a similar threat during the healthcare debate, but he did not abandon the climate negotiating process. This new ultimatum poses a more serious danger to the bill's sponsors, however, because there is less time left before the fall election. Bracewell & Giuliani lawyer Scott Segal, who represents coalfired utilities and other industries that would face federal regulation under a climate bill, wrote in an email that while the compromise proposal already faced the challenge of squeezing into a crowded legislative calendar, "It goes without saying: if Senator Graham uses immigration as a reason to depart from climate discussions, the chances that Senator Kerry can find the magic number of sixty senators to cut off debate and pass a large climate package diminishes significantly. Graham's active participation over the last several months had been the only real basis for needed Republican outreach." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 98/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW MURKOWSKI KEY Murkowski key--secures republican and moderate vote. Nelson 6/28 (2010, Josh, "What Role Will Senator Murkowski Play in Climate and Energy Negotiations?", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh nelson/whatrolewillsenatormu_b_627552.html) Speaking at a sparselyattended luncheon in Fairbanks, AK on Friday, Senator Murkowski (RAL) touted her failed effort to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions as a 'badge of honor.' She went on to explain why she considered the maneuver, allow the agency to set climate change policy," she said. As luck would have it, another institution has plans to 'set climate which went down by a 5347 margin on June 10th, a qualified success. "We made our point. Fortyseven members of the Senate said they do not want to change policy' in the weeks ahead the United States Senate. And fortunately for Senator Murkowski , as a United States Senator, she has the power to influence that process as it plays out. By all indications, Senator Murkowski should be a leading Republican in these negotiations. In response to the announcement of a new Climate Science Center at the University of Alaska earlier this year, she rightly called the state 'ground zero for climate change.' Last September Murkowski told reporters that Congress needs to work on climate change but should take its time considering options. And by all accounts, the Senate has done just that in the past nine months, trying and giving up on a variety of approaches deemed too controversial to attract significant Republican support. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 99/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW ECONOMY MODULE American Power Act bill key to the economy--spurs job creation and massive growth. Caperton 2010 (Richard W. at the Center for American Progress, June 9, " American Power Act Is a "Model" for Economic Growth", http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/apa_modeling.html) For the last five weeks the Environmental Protection Agency has been analyzing economic impacts of the American Power Act, climate legislation written by Sens. John Kerry (DMA) and Joe Lieberman (ICT). EPA's analysis will influence whether or not other senators support the legislation and ultimately whether or not Congress takes action to move the United States toward a clean energy economy. With stakes that high it's vitally important that legislators understand the bill's complete economic effects , including how their constituents will benefit. For instance, their constituents could see economic savings from energy conservation measures and avoiding the adverse impacts from climate change inaction. But there are other benefits, too: Recent studies of climate legislation show KerryLieberman the bill will create between 1 million and 2 million new jobs by 2020 and dramatically grow the U.S. economy The EPA is one of many governmental and nongovernmental entities that will analyze the Kerry . Lieberman legislation. All of these analyses will use complex modeling of the entire U.S. economy to project how the economy would respond to policies that are included in the legislation. Extinction. Bearden, 2000 [Tom, US Army Lieutenant, Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists, Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's dramatically curtail orders. History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse , the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {i} launches nuclear weapons based upon Japan and South Korea , including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict , escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that , under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full borne preemptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades. Institute for Advanced Study, "The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How To Solve It Quickly", http://cheniere.org/techpapers/Unnecessary%20Energy %20Crisis.doc, 6/12] Bluntly, we foresee these factors -- and others { } not covered -- converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in about eight years. As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the developed nations are forced to ***APA BILL GOOD IMPACTS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 100/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WARMING MODULE APA Bill solves warming--curbs emissions and preserves EPA authority to limit utilities especially for coal plants. UCS 2010 (Union of Concerned Scientists, May 19, "American Power Act", http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/americanpoweract.html) In May 2010, Senators John Kerry (DMA) and Joseph Lieberman (ICT) introduced . merican ower ct, a climate bill that the A P A would put in place a nationwide plan to rein in global warming pollution Senate leadership will now have to create a pathway for the full Senate to vote on comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Specifically, the American Power Act: Ensures Significant Emissions Reductions The pollution limits proposed in the American Power Act will reduce global warming pollution 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. While UCS would prefer more aggressive shortterm emissions reductions, the targets in the bill represent a strong start toward curbing global warming. See more on UCS recommendations for emissions reductions. Preserves the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Authority to Regulate Global Warming Pollution The bill preserves the EPA's authority, under the Clean Air Act, to set standards directly limiting global warming pollution from existing coal fired power plants. Coal plants are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions--one of the main contributors to global warming--in the nation. The oldest, least efficient plants--many built over half a century ago--produce the most pollution. Preserving EPA authority to put performance standards on the nation's oldest, dirtiest power plants helps to ensure that the utilities that own these plants make the decision to either clean the plants up or shut them down . Warming causes extinction Brandenburg and Paxson '99 (John, Visiting Prof. Researcher @ Florida Space Institute, and Monica Rix, Science Writer, "Dead Mars, Dying Earth", p. 232233) One can imagine a scenario for global catastrophe that runs similarly. If the human race adopted a mentality like the crew aboard the ship Californian--as some argue, saying that both ozone hole and global warming will disappear if statistics are properly examined, and we need do nothing about either--the following scenario could occur. The earth goes on its merry way and fossil fuels continue to power it. Rather than making painful or politically difficult choices, such as investing in fusion research or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the industrial world chooses to muddle through the temperature climb. Let's imagine that America and Europe are too worried about economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this affects the far north and south and not the major nations' heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fail. Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occurs--a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who and releas e large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down think freakish accidents do not occur have paid little attention to life or Mars), or a nuclear war starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and Russia... Suddenly the gradual climb in global temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm precipitously as oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, "See! I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!" Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be the second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is slowly lost--as is its water--because of ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin the Earth becomes colder. For a short while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few whispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars--red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy microbes surviving . Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 101/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW APA bill key to solve warming and action now is critical EDF 2010 (Environmental Defense Fund, May 24, " A Summary of the American Power Act", http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=11072) The U.S. currently spends more than $1 billion a day on imported oil. APA focuses on producing more clean, safe energy here in America. Renewable energy: The legislation establishes a Clean Energy Technology Fund and a Clean Vehicle Technology Fund to develop and deploy advanced energy and transportation technologies. It also doubles fuel credits for natural gas vehicles Nuclear power: The bill provides loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, as . previously proposed by President Obama. Offshore oil: APA does not open any new areas to drilling . In response to the Gulf oil spill, the bill gives states the power to veto new offshore drilling within 75 miles of their shores. States that allow drilling will EXT: WARMING receive 37.5% of oil revenues. Coal: Half of U.S. electricity production comes from coal, so the bill provides financial incentives to make coal cleaner, including provisions for carbon capture and storage (CCS). It creates a special program, funded by a charge on fossilfuel based electricity and managed by the Department of Energy, to support initial largescale CCS demonstration projects. Like any serious piece of legislation, the bill has provisions that aren't ideal and we need to continue to work for improvements in the bill. But as we do that we also need to keep sight of the broad outcome we seek. Taken as a whole, the A merican ower ct P A puts the country on the right track toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions , while keeping costs low for consumers, ensuring the competitiveness of American industry and boosting production of clean domestic power. "There are some areas we think can be improved," says EDF president Fred Krupp, "but this is the best opportunity we've ever had to combat global warming. We need to act now." APA solves Global Warming financial emission containment incentives Center for American Progress, May 12, 2010 [American Power Act Empowers Americans An Examination of Benefits to Americans in the Clean Energy Bill, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/american_power.html] The bill would create a program for the approximately 7,500 major carbon pollution emitters where they would have to have pollution allowances for each ton of their emissions. Nearly twothirds of the revenue from the sale of these allowances would return to consumers to protect them from higher electricity rates (Title III, Subtitle AB). A "Working Families Refundable Relief Program" would provide additional financial assistance to those who need it to offset higher prices for goods and services (Title III, Subtitle C). The bill's costcontainment measures would limit clean up costs and provide financial predictably for polluters so they can more easily budget the proper amount of revenue for pollution allowances. (Title II, Subtitle B, Part G, Section 790). These measures would also limit the likelihood of higher prices due to cleanup costs. The severe limits on trading pollution allowances would snuff any threats of market manipulation that could unnecessarily drive up allowance prices, which would increase costs to families. (Title II, Subtitle E). Reduce risk of serious harm due to global warming The bill would cut global warming pollution by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and by 83 percent by 2050 (Title II, Subtitle A, Part A). This would dramatically reduce the likelihood of serious harms linked to global warming. Florida or Gulf Coast residents would face fewer severe tropical storms that can destroy homes and property, and cost millions of tax dollars to clean up. Asthmatics would have fewer attacks due to lower smog levels. Less smog would enable seniors, children, and those suffering from respiratory ailments to spend more time outdoors. Northeasterners and Midwest residents would have fewer damages due to reduced flooding caused by heavy rainstorms. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 102/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW OIL DEPENDENCE MODULE The American Powers Act Solves oil dependence and increases jobs PIIE, May 2010 [Assessing the American Power Act: The Economic, Employment, Energy Security, and Environmental Impact of Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman's Discussion Draft, http://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb1012.pdf] Over the next two decades, 106 gigawatts of renew able power, 78 gigawatts of nuclear power, and 72 giga watts of carbon capture and sequestration would be built, replacing or retrofitting an aging fleet of coalfired power plants. The legislation would also improve energy efficiency in homes, businesses, and vehicles, reducing overall energy demand by 5 percent relative to business as usual in 2030. Energy Security Implications: The A merican ower ct P A would reduce US oil imports 33 to by 40 percent below current levels and 9 to 19 percent below business as usual by 2030 . This will cut US spending on imported oil by $51 billion to $ 93 billion per year and by lowering global oil prices, reduce oil producer revenues by $263 billion to $436 billion annually by 2030. Environmental Impact: The American Power Act would establish an economywide carbon price starting at $16.47 per ton in 2013 and growing to $55.44 dollars per ton in 2030, though different sectors of the economy would face this price at different start dates and through different mechanisms. The combined effect would be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from covered sources (85 percent of all emissions) of 22 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 42 percent by 2030 including international offsets. Economywide emissions (including offsets) are 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 31 percent by 2030.2 Employment Effects: The American Power Act prompts $41.1 billion in annual electricity sector investment between 2011 and 2030, $22.5 billion more than under business as usual. Given that the United States is currently below full employment with most economists projecting a slow labor market recovery, this investment is more stimulative than inflationary in the first decade, resulting in an average annual increase in US employment of 203,000 jobs above business as usual, with the net of the jobs lost in fossil fuel production and as a result of higher energy prices between 2001 and 2020. In the second decade of the program, high er energy and product prices offset the employment gains from new investment. The potential employment benefits of increased US competitiveness in clean energy exports, unlocking profitable investment opportunities in energy efficiency, and spillover from clean energy innovation into other sectors are not quantified in this analysis. Dependence will cause preemptive wars Bergsten 2004 (C. Fred; Director Institute for International Economics, Foreign Affairs March/April l/n wdc/wbw) Energy is another area in which the United States is vulnerable, in both economic and foreign policy terms. The lack of an effective energy policy highlighted once again by the recent failure of Congress to pass adequate legislation after three years of effort keeps U.S. foreign policy beholden to a few key producers and probably force the United States to continue to launch periodic will military interventions to satisfy its tremendous appetite for energy. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 103/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: OIL DEPENDENCE Solves Oil dependence by incentivizing greener technologies such as wind and nuclear power Peterson Institute of International Economics, May 2010 [Assessing the American Power Act: The Economic, Employment, Energy Security, and Environmental Impact of Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman's Discussion Draft, http://www.piie.com/publications/pb/pb10 12.pdf] 9. Recent unconventional gas resource development in the United States has significantly changed the outlook for longterm natural gas prices and domestic supply. Some observers have argued that this development is not fully captured in the AEO 2009, which, while reflecting the current decline in natural gas prices, projects a rebound in gas prices in the years ahead. If the US gas market remains in surplus, as some analysts believe, and gas prices do not recover, the American Power Act could lead to greater deployment of the natural gasfired power generation than our modeling suggests. We also do not include the "Merchant Generator Efficiency Incentives" of the American Power Act (Section 798) in our analysis, which could also incentivize coal to gas switching in the power sector. 2008) and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (US House of Representatives 2009a) but an additional 24 gigawatts comes online as a result of the American Power Act. The majority of new renewable capacity is wind, accounting for 58 percent of the additions between 2008 and 2030 (table 2). Biomass comes in second at 23 percent, followed by solar at 13 percent. By 2030, renewables account for 18 percent of all power generation capacity, up from 12 percent today (table 2), and 21 percent of all electricity production, up from 10 percent today (figure 2)10. While renewable energy grows the fastest overall under the American Power Act, nuclear power sees the fastest growth relative to business as usual. Adding $36 billion in new loan guarantees and a 10 percent investment tax credit for plants put in operation by 2025 to a carbon price that already favors nuclear, the American Power Act results in 78 gigawatts of new nuclear power capacity over the next two decades , 68 gigawatts more than under business as usual. By 2030, nuclear accounts for 15 percent power generation capacity, up from 10 percent today (table 2). And because nuclear power has a higher capacity factor than most renewable sources, it accounts for 30 percent of all electricity generation in 2030, up from 20 percent today (figure 2). Lowcarbon fossil fuel power generation technologies are also widely deployed as a result of the American Power Act. In addition to the carbon price, the bill includes a number of incentives for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Qualifying CCS projects receive bonus allowances worth $96 per ton for the first 10 gigawatts, $85 per ton for the second 10 gigawatts and a value determined by EPA for plants after that. In addition, the bill imposes a small levy on electricity produced from fossil fuels to raise $20 billion for CCS demon stration projects. As a result, 72 gigawatts of CCS capacity are installed between 2008 and 2030, 53.7 gigawatts on coalfired power plants and 18.3 gigawatts on natural gas (figure 1). And because natural gas emits less carbon than coal, even without CCS, another 40 gigawatts of natural gas generation capac ity is deployed by 2030. All told, by 2030 more than half of all electricity produced in the United States comes from lowcarbon sources (renewable, nuclear, and CCS), up from today's 29 percent (figure 2). While the power sector experiences the most significant 10. The NEMS model forecasts power plant construction based on projected electricity demand and the relative cost of competing sources of electricity supply. There are considerable uncertainties surrounding cost, supply chain, and public acceptance of both CCS and nuclear power which account for a combined 47 percent of projected capacity construction under the American Power Act. Subsequent analysis will explore the impact of delayed or more expensive CCS and nuclear deployment on energy prices, employment and economic growth. Number Pb1012 may 2010 5 0.1 40.0 19.8 77.9 105.8 18.3 53.7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Petroleum Natural Gas Coal Nuclear Renewables With CCS Without CCS Figure 1 New investment in power generation Million kilowatts gross capacity additions, 2010 2030 CCS = carbon capture and sequestration Source: Authors' estimates of the impact of the American Power Act as modeled using the Energy Information Administration's AEO2009 version of the National Energy Modeling System. changes as a result of the legislation during the first two decades, the bill includes incentives for reducing the amount of coal and oil consumed in the industrial, commercial, resi dential, and transportation sectors. By pricing carbon, the legislation creates incentives for purchasing more efficient vehicles, producing biofuels for transportation, and switching from fossil fuels to cleaner and more efficient energy use in homes and businesses. The legislation also includes a range of complimentary provisions including tax credits for natu ral gas heavy vehicles, building codes, and industrial energy efficiency research and development (R&D). Taken together these provisions reduce household demand for heating oil by 21 percent (compared with businessas usual in 2030), curb industry coal demand by 13 percent and cut gasoline demand in the transportation sector by 5 percent. Under our CAFE scenario, gasoline demand is 14 percent lower in 2030 than under business as usual. Changes in transport, industry, and residential energy use resulting from the bill increase signifi cantly after 2030 once economically viable emission reduction opportunities in the power sector are exhausted. Energy Security Implications Evaluating the impact of the American Power Act on US energy security is a somewhat subjective exercise as energy security is poorly defined in quantitative terms. Discussion in the United States tends to focus on American dependence on imported energy (though the reliability of domestic energy supply is also a security concern as demonstrated by the Northeast blackout of 2004 or Hurricane Katrina). The literature tends to group the security consequences of American oil dependence (which accounts for 84 percent of all US energy imports, the rest being natural gas from Mexico and Canada) into four categories (Crane et al. 2009 and Council on Foreign Relations 2006): 1. The economic toll of US oil consumption, particularly at the high and volatile oil prices of recent years. 2. The foreign policy impact of US economic ties to oil producing states, particularly those in the Middle East. 3. The security Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 104/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW consequences of income transfers to oil produc ers, many of whom are considered "states of concern." 4. The international relations implications of competition for Number Pb1012 may 2010 6 Table 2 Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 105/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: OIL DEPENDENCE IMPACTSHEGEMONY GOOD Foreign Oil Dependence Constrains U.S. Hegemony Bergsten 2004 (C. Fred; Director Institute for International Economics, Foreign Affairs March/April l/n wdc/wbw) At a time when U.S. foreign policy is dominated by war, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction, economic concerns are often relegated to the back burner. But in reality, economic policy must be an integral component of any successful foreign policy. Some of its elements, such as the suppression of terrorist financing and support for reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, bear directly on the most central national security concerns. The linkage, however, is much broader, because most countries, rich or poor, large or small, depend heavily on the global economy for their prosperity and their stability. Hence, economics ranks at the top of their list of concerns. To continue to be relevant to the rest of the world, the United States must engage effectively on these issues. As the sole military superpower, the United States may often be able to undertake unilateral initiatives for the sake of national security. But in economic policy, unilateralism is simply not an option . No government, Washington included, can ignore market forces . The European Union's economy is now as large as that of the United States, and the euro has begun to challenge the dollar for global financial leadership. The United States relies on foreign investors including the monetary authorities of competitor Asian economies to finance massive external deficits, and it depends on oil imported at prices set by producers in other countries . Cooperation is therefore a necessity in the realm of international economics. Indeed, because of the close connection between economics and other international issues, economic policy often restrains the unilateralist tendencies in U.S. foreign policy as a whole . U.S. Hegemony is Critical to Preventing Global Nuclear War Khalilzad 1995 (Zalmay; RAND Institute, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War" Washington Quarterly Spring l/n wdc/wbw) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for world in which theUnited States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive American values democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. to Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and lowlevel conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best longterm guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 106/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW BIODIVERSITY MODULE APA bill key to biodiversity. NWF 2010 (National Wildlife Foundation" Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act", http://www.nwf.org/GlobalWarming/Policy Solutions/ClimateandEnergy/FederalClimatePolicy/CleanEnergyJobsandAmericanPowerAct.aspx) The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act follows on the heels of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the climate and clean energy legislation passed by the US House earlier this year). The Senate bill includes programs to invest billions in clean energy solutions that will help to protect and restore our natural world Once the Senate passes its version of . climate and clean energy legislation, the House and Senate will go into joint committee to pass a single bill to be given to the President and signed into law. Scientists say that even a 2 degree rise in global temperature could have disastrous consequences for our natural world. If we don't act now, up to 30% of our world's plant and animal species could face extinction. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act acknowledges that the best economic and energy solutions start with investing in our natural world. Biod loss causes extinction Diner 94 (Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N. DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army.) [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction Each new extinction increases the risk of . disaster. Like a mechanic removing one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings , , n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 107/210 The APA will provide appropriations for reforestation Environmental leader, 5/28[Moving Forestry to the Forefront of the Carbon Market. CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW DEFORESTATION MODULE http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/06/28/movingforestrytotheforefrontofthecarbonmarket/] A great deal happened in the climate change policy arena in 2009 and while uncertainty and speculation remain around climate policy at the international and regional levels, recent policy and market developments suggest the role of forests in climate change mitigation will continue to grow. As we all know, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) undertook intense negotiations a draft decision text. The failure to progress other negotiation streams prevented the text for a REDD mechanism from being that culminated in early December with COP15 in Copenhagen. Forestry was an important component and REDD made encouraging progress resulting in formally approved by the parties. The climate policy landscape in the US in 2009 and 2010 has been turbulent to say the least. Despite the continued uncertainty and speculation on when and what the Senate Bill will ultimately produce, The A merican ower ct P A under Kerry and Lieberman has positioned forestry projects as a significant offset category which is encouraging for both US based and international forestry projects. Forest destruction risks extinction Prance '91 (Ghillean, Former Director of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Climatic Change, "A COMMENTARY ON: TROPICAL FORESTS: PRESENT STATUS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK", 19:3335, Springer) If what we read here is true, and there is no reason to think otherwise, then the future of tropical forests is poor and should be a major concern of all students of climate change. If deforestation continues at the rate predicted, it will continue to be a major contributor to the net increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and therefore to climate change. Alterations to the boundaries between tropical forests and savanna should be a good way of monitoring the effects of climatic change upon vegetation. Historic data from palynology (e.g., Van der Hammen, 1974; Livingstone, 1982) have shown that during the Pleistocene and Holocene, small changes in temperature and rainfall greatly altered the distribution of tropical forests and savanna and of treeline level in the Andes. Climate change could also be an added factor in the reduction and distribution of tropical forest. It is a pity that deforestation is likely to obscure the boundaries and to render the study of changes in forest/ savanna margins less useful as a monitoring device for the effect of many species will certainly weaken the possibilities of human survival on the planet. With the loss of species, we the wild relatives of many species of proven lose economic value such as rubber, coffee, mahogany or cacau upon which the future of the crop may depend . We also lose species which have not yet been used but which certainly have economic potential as medicines, foods, fibres and other useful products. The erosion of our genetic heritage should be of as much concern as the climate change aspect of deforestation. Myers correctly stresses in several places in his paper the prime cause of deforestation, the increase in world population beyond sustainable limits As populations increase, the importance of the preservation of genetic diversity also increases because we will depend upon it more to feed the hungry and to avert epidemics of disease by discovering a diversity of new medicines. However, the increase in population and the maintenance of species diversity appear to be incompatible. It would surely be prudent to get to the root of the problem quickly and work harder on population planning. climate change. As a biologist, I am most concerned with the genetic implications of the loss of tropical rainforest The loss of so . Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 108/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WARMING/TROUT MODULE The energy bill contains key provisions for the protection of trout and fisheries across the nation. Parr 2010 (Gabe, staff writer for Trout Unlimited, May 20, "New Bill Helps Protect Wildlife from Climate Change" http://deschutestu.org/tu news/conservationnews/128newbillhelpsprotectwildlifefromclimatechange.html) Arlington, Va. Trout Unlimited (TU) is pleased that Senators Kerry (DMA) and Lieberman (ICT) today introduced comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation. The bill requires significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and provides an effective blueprint for the investment of funds to help safeguard America's lands, waters and fish and wildlife from the impacts of climate change. " Trout and salmon need cold, clean water, and climate change presents a grave threat to coldwater fisheries across the country. The impacts we're seeing now will only get worse," said Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government Affairs for Trout Unlimited. "This bill seeks to get at the heart of the problem by reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also providing guidance and resources to fish and wildlife managers to help trout and salmon and their ecosystems adapt to climate impacts." Trout are key to aquatic ecosystems--can't be replaced. Leland Fly Fishing No Date (" TROUT 101 THE WHAT, WHEN & WHY", http://www.flyfishingoutfitters.com/CaliforniaTroutArticleTrout 101WhatWhenWhy) Trout are important for a number of reasons but perhaps their primary importance is as an "indicator species". When trout disappear from a lake or river, that watershed is in trouble Trout are referred to as "cold water fish" because, unlike a number of . other species, they prefer cold, clean and often freeflowing water. When our streams and rivers, slow down, dry out or heat up, it's the trout that are the first to feel it. Trout are also considered by ecologists to be a 'keystone' species for watersheds. Keystone species are those that, if they die off, leave critical gaps in the ecosystem that cannot be filled by other species If trout are removed from a river system, for instance, the many aquatic insects that they . feed on overpopulate, resulting in destruction of aquatic vegetation. Meanwhile, bears and birds and other land vertebrates that feed on trout are left without an important food source. Extinction. Diner 94 (Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N. DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army.) [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction Each new extinction increases the risk of . disaster. Like a mechanic removing one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings , , n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 109/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW No Climate Change legislation will pass, its dead on arrival SEO June 23rd 2010 [http://www.seolawfirm.com/2010/06/senatedemocratswrestleoverclimatechange capandtrade/, "Senate Democrats wrestle over climate change and cap and trade" by Kristen Friend, SEO is a law firm sponsored news source] President Obama hopes to reinvigorate the push for comprehensive climate change legislation in a meeting with Senate lawmakers today. Climate change legislation has succumbed to the familiar fate of many recent Democratic measures: a perceived failure to be able to hit the 60vote threshold needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. While the House answered Obama's call for climate chance legislation in 2009 with the passage of the House American Clean Energy and Security Act the , conventional wisdom moving into the summer of 2010 is that climate change legislation in the Senate is now dead on arrival. Several bills are competing for primacy, none of which seem to have the support they need to pass anytime soon. In an apparent attempt to prove clich that (recent) history is destined to repeat itself, Senate Democrats are causing as many headaches for themselves in the debate over climate change legislation as is their Republican opposition. Two Democratic bills, the KerryLieberman American Power Act and the CantwellCollins CLEAR Act offer competing views on how emissions should be regulated. Liberal leaning Senators, having already been snubbed on the issues of the public option in Health Insurance Reform and tougher regulation of banks and financial institutions during the financial reform debate, are threatening to walk and pull support for any bill that does not include strong incentives to limit carbon emissions. [1] And, Senator Jay Rockefeller (DW.Va.), has gone so far as to call for the Senate to abandon efforts to enact comprehensive climate change legislation altogether, urging lawmakers instead to focus on preventing the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. [2] bill won't pass internal divisions, midterms, no gop support L.A. Times June 27th 2010 [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/27/nation/lanaenergycongress20100627, "Senate Democrats poised to start Energy Bill" By Lisa Mascaro and Richard Simon] WON'T PASS President Obama will meet Tuesday with a bipartisan group of senators to push for a new energy policy. "We are prepared and ready to move forward on a new energy strategy that the American people desperately want but for which there's been insufficient political will," Obama said recently. "It is time for us to move to a cleanenergy future." With political will running short before the midterm election, the Senate has shown little appetite for a broader, economywide climate change bill as passed by the House almost exactly one year ago. Even a more modest carbon cap remains difficult for senators wary of another ambitious government program at a time of voter unrest over Washington's reach. A broad carbonpricing system would essentially require power plants, manufacturers and transportation industries to limit the pollution that scientists say is causing climate change and would tax entities that exceed their caps. Republicans dismiss such a capandtrade system as a new tax on households and business -- "capandtax," they call it. With the Democrats' 59member caucus intensely divided on energy issues, crossover support from Republicans would be needed. Still, a majority of Democrats appear willing to risk legislative failure, believing a robust summer discussion on energy would establish a stark contrast between the parties before the fall election. Tackling energy legislation gives Democrats a strategy they believe resonates with voters -- though one that would expose them to GOP taunts over higher taxes, a fight Republicans would relish. The energy bill is doomedcoal and manufacturing intensive states L.A. Times June 27th 2010 [http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/27/nation/lanaenergycongress20100627, "Senate Democrats poised to start Energy Bill" By Lisa Mascaro and Richard Simon] Legislative realists know the complications of passing an energy bill. It often takes years of tortuous negotiations as lawmakers split along regional rather than partisan lines. Any cap on carbon emissions draws fierce opposition from coalstate lawmakers and those from states with manufacturing industries that could be taxed for emissions ."We have to get to the 60 votes, but it's not going to happen, I think, without the public really weighing in a major way -- and we need Republican votes," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.). The bill is likely to be a broad collection of provisions, including some in response to the gulf spill that would increase the liability caps on oil companies and impose tougher environmental and safety rules on offshore drilling. The legislation is also expected to include new requirements that utilities generate more electricity from wind, solar or other renewable sources, as well as stricter efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. The APA Bill is dead, the oil spill sparked partisan flareups and there aren't sixty votes ***APA BILL WON'T PASS UNIQUENESS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 110/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW CSM 6/22/10 [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0622/SenateDemocratstoObamaonenergybillHelpus, "Senate Democrats to Obama on energy Bill: Help Us" by Gail Russell chaddock,] Senate Democrats are taking a fresh run at energy legislation this week, beginning with a bipartisan White House meeting on Wednesday and a Democratic caucus meeting on Thursday to find common ground. The hope that the Gulf oil spill disaster might break partisan deadlock as 9/11 did leading to a flood of new legislation has not come to pass. So far, it has only reinforced the partisan tensions. Moreover, Democrats are divided among themselves on the way forward. Options range from a comprehensive energy and climate change bill that sets caps for carbon emissions on one hand to two competing measures that establish renewableenergy mandates for utility companies. None of these options has the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate without a filibuster or even to muster all the Democratic votes. Effective legislation won't pass but even if it does it will be watered down and ineffective CSM 6/22/10 [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0622/SenateDemocratstoObamaonenergybillHelpus, "Senate Democrats to Obama on energy Bill: Help Us" by Gail Russell chaddock,] In the runup to Wednesday's meeting, Senate Democrats have been proposing scaleddown versions of energy legislation in a bid to get to 60 votes. "I'm working with a number of colleagues now, Republicans and Democrats alike, to look at alternative ways we might be able to scale back," said Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts, a cosponsor of climate change legislation that includes pricing carbon, on MSNBC. "What the political market will bear at best is a scaleddown version," says Sen. Lindsay Graham (R) of South Carolina, who broke off talks with Kerry on this bill in April. "With a weak economy, an economywide cap on carbon is probably not going to sell." Won't passexpert consensus NYT 6/22/2010 "President Convenes Senators for Final Chance at Climate Bill This Year" http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/22/22climatewirepresidentconvenessenatorsforfinalchance13775.html?pagewanted=2 The move follows a series of signals from the White House last week that sought to redraw the legislative landscape, including a willingness to entertain leading Senate proposal to charge emitters in the transportation, industrial and electric sectors is too broad to pass. "I think the chances of a comprehensive bill are abysmal," Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said in an interview last week, referring to legislation offered by Sens. John Kerry (DMass.) and Joe Lieberman (IConn.). "Do I think there is a chance of something that is narrower for carbon, like the pricing of utilities? I think that's possible," she added. "If all we can get is utilities, it's not bad." Obama will convene his meeting with less than 30 days of business left on the Senate schedule, racing lawmakers toward confrontational midterm elections punctuated by boiling conservative unrest with expanding government programs, like cap and trade. A handful of crucial senators are planning to attend, including Richard Lugar (Ind.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), all Republicans whose support Obama will seek to eventually secure. Democrat Sherrod Brown (Ohio), another undecided senator, will also be there, according to a survey of offices by E&E. Listening to moderates They will join a bipartisan group of other senators, perhaps including Republicans Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.); the majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid (Nev.); and Democrats Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Kerry and Lieberman, according to press accounts and observers. But despite the calls for a slimmer carbon cap applied only on utilities. That is seen by some as a strong assertion by the administration that a looming deadline for congressional action, Obama might use the meeting to listen, rather than shove undecided lawmakers toward a decision. "I don't think they're going to come out with a deal," said Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with connections to the administration. "This is a listening session, and [it] will provide data for the president to then go talk to members oneonone to determine what we need to do to get to 'yes.'" Climate legislation won't pass until November--political pressure too high now. New York Times 6/28 (2010, by Mike Soraghan, "LameDuck Session Emerges as Possibility for Climate Bill Conference", http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/28/28climatewirelameducksessionemergesaspossibilityfor72268.html) What Sen. Harry Reid (DNev.) puts in the Senate climate and energy bill, and what gets added on the floor, may not matter as much as simply whether some bill passes. In the end, a joint HouseSenate conference committee will likely hammer out the final version of the bill. That might not take place until a "lame duck" session after the November election, when much of the political pressure on lawmakers has dissipated. Which means that despite the oft repeated assertion by Sen. Lindsay Graham (RS.C.) that "cap and trade is dead," the House's bill based on cap and trade could be back in play someday, given the right conditions. Even if they do not enact cap and trade, Democratic leaders could use a conference to ratchet up the climate regulations past what the Senate agreed to and beyond what Democratic House centrists want. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 111/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSSENATE Senators are pessimistic about the climate bill passing Bravender 6/18/2010 (Robin Writer for Climatewire) "Senate Democrats Getting More Pessimistic on Cap and Trade in Energy Bill" http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/18/18climatewiresenatedemocratsgettingmorepessimisticon29916.html Senate Democrats may have emerged from their muchhyped caucus meeting without a clear plan for this summer's energy bill, but they appeared to agree on one point: Cap and trade doesn't have the votes. Several senators say the chamber is unlikely to pass a measure that sets a price on carbon emissions this year, despite President Obama's support for such an approach and a push from many Democrats who say pricing carbon is needed to stop the adverse effects of climate change. which would cap greenhouse gas emissions across multiple sectors of the economy. "There's a better chance of having 60 votes with a straight energy bill," said Sen. Ben Nelson "I don't see 60 votes for a price on carbon right now," Sen. Claire McCaskill (DMo.) said yesterday. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I Vt.), an ardent supporter of setting carbon limits, said he does not think the Senate can get 60 votes this year on a "strong" climate bill. "For a variety of reasons, with virtually no Republicans supporting us, it would mean that every Democrat has to step up to the plate," Sanders said yesterday. "Do I think we have 60 votes to come up with strong global warming legislation? No. I think that's a tragedy, but that's the way it is." Sen. Byron Dorgan (DN.D.) said he does not think there are 60 votes in the Senate for a capandtrade bill like the "American Power Act (pdf)" advanced by Sens. John Kerry (DMass.) and Joe Lieberman (IConn.), (DNeb.). And Sen. Kent Conrad (DN.D.) said he has always thought cap and trade "was a long shot this year, given all the other things that are before Congress the short nature of the session and because of the election. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 112/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSNO BIPART A Major Energy and Climate bill won't pass--democrats can't get enough votes--stimulus proves Klein 6/24 (Ezra, associate editor at American Prospect and guest on CNN, MSNBC, "Reid: Climate bill must have 'broad bipartisan support' or he won't bring it to the floor", http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezraklein/2010/06/reid_climate_bill_must_have_br.html) I don't want to say that a serious climate change bill is dead, exactly, but this statement from Jim Manley, Harry Reid's spokesman, doesn't inspire confidence. "Sen. Reid has made it clear to proponents on and off the Hill and at the White House that anything he brings to the floor will need broad bipartisan support," Manley told Politico. Does anyone think that a genuine climate bill has any chance of "broad bipartisan support" in an election year? The article is actually about how liberal senators want Barack Obama to get more involved in the issue, and the quote from Manley comes as an afterthought on Page 2. But if that's the majority leader's test, there's no way for a good bill to pass. Democrats couldn't get broad bipartisan support for the stimulus package, which was popular and necessary and came to the floor when Obama and the Democrats had just won a huge election. Now that Democrats and Obama have a lot less leverage and Republicans are a lot closer to an election that they're likely to win, bipartisan support is even less plausible. Reid's might be able to get bipartisan support for a a narrow bill tailored to the BP spill, but not for major climate and energy legislation. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 113/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSNO REPUBLICAN SUPPORT Climate legislation won't pass--key Republicans holding out and they're key**. Politico 6/28 (2010, by Darren Samuelsohn, "Climate bill gets GOP cold shoulder", http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39082.html) President Barack Obama needs a couple of Senate Republicans to play ball if he's going to pass a cap on greenhouse gases this year. But few, if any, GOP senators seem willing to work with him on a plan their leaders have dubbed a "national energy tax" -- despite the fact that some of them have seemed supportive of the idea before. Sen. John McCain (RAriz.), under pressure back home from a conservative primary challenger, hasn't come anywhere close to the climate issue that was once a key component of his "maverick" credentials. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (RAlaska), who joined Sen. Jeff Bingaman (DN.M.) on capandtrade legislation in 2008, challenged the Obama administration earlier this month by forcing a floor vote that would have removed EPA's authority to write its own carbon rules. Sen. Judd Gregg (RN.H.), who has previously supported carbon limits on power plants, told reporters last week, " Nothing is going to go anywhere in this climate, as we go toward an election, that involves cap and trade." And Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) halted climate negotiations with Sens. John Kerry (DMass.) and Joe Lieberman (IConn.) in April over concerns about immigration. Capandtrade supporters hope Obama can turn around some Republicans -- and get more Democrats on board -- at a meeting with senators at the White House on Tuesday. But when it comes to Obama's overtures, recent history isn't encouraging. Obama's energy Plan has almost no republican support and is unlikely to pass Daly 6/16/2010 (Mathew Daly is a writer for the Assosciated press) "Climate bill faces long odds, despite Obama speech" http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GULF_OIL_SPILL_CLIMATE_BILL?SITE=CACRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT A climate and energy bill being pushed in the Senate faces bleak prospects, despite President Barack Obama's call for a "clean energy" future that lessens dependence on oil and other fossil fuels. A day after the president's Oval Office speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , RKy., reiterated that his party remains unanimous in its opposition to what he called a national energy tax . Even one of the bill's likely supporters said the measure does not have enough votes to pass. "You know, it would take 60 votes in the Senate to do that," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, DN.D. "I doubt very much whether those 60 votes exist right now." In an appearance Wednesday on Fox News, McConnell said Obama and congressional Democrats were "holding the Gulf hostage to a national energy tax" they have long been seeking. "They call it a climate bill. What it is is a national energy tax," McConnell said. The climate bill, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, DMass., and Joe Lieberman, I Conn., would tax carbon dioxide emissions produced by coalfired power plants and other large polluters, as a way to reduce pollution blamed for global warming. Dubbed the American Power Act, the measure aims to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heattrapping greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and by more than 80 percent by 2050. The bill would cost American households an average of $79 to $146 per year, the Environmental Protection Agency said in an analysis this week. Some liberal commentators and environmental groups criticized Obama for failing to endorse a cap on carbon emissions in his speech Republicans won't vote for a climate bill because of the BP spillunrelated agenda detracts votes NYT, June 25th [Senate Democrats Plot 'Impenetrable' Path to Victory for Unwritten Climate Bill, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/25/25climatewiresenatedemocratsplotimpenetrablepathtov66658.html] But Republicans are unlikely to sit idly by and allow Democrats to execute their plan, and a number are already girding for what some see as nothing more than a political ploy. "Our initiative, our imperative right now should be to provide the help and the assistance to those in the Gulf," Sen. Lisa Murkowski (RAlaska) said earlier this week. "And if there is an effort that ties relief to the victims of the Deepwater Horizon disaster to an energy bill that simply does not stand a chance at passage, then we are not doing justice by those who have been harmed by the disaster."Asked whether she would advocate passing an oil bill before an energy bill, Murkowski said, "Yep, definitely, yep ." Sen. John Barrasso (RWyo.) said yesterday that efforts to package oil spill response language with climate provisions would be a nonstarter regardless of public pressure to reform offshore drilling. "That's not going to work for me," he said. That stance was echoed by conservative strategists and industry advocates off Capitol Hill. "I don't think that will work," said Andrew Wheeler, a former Republican staff director for the Environment and Public Works Committee who now works for B&D Consulting, adding that "if they try to load it with other things, it could kill it." "Everyone agrees that the oil spill is a tragedy," said Scott Segal, an industry attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani. "But if you try to make that rage bear too much legislative freight it may well be seen by the public as a cynical attempt to push an unrelated agenda." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 114/210 NO REPUBLICAN VOTES FOR APA POLITICO 628 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSNO REPUBLICAN SUPPORT + ELECTION YEAR [DARREN SAMUELSOHN, Staff Writer, "Climate bill gets GOP cold shoulder", http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39082.html] President Barack Obama needs a couple of Senate Republicans to play ball if he's going to pass a cap on greenhouse gases this year. But few, if any, GOP senators seem willing to work with him on a plan their leaders have dubbed a "national energy tax" -- despite the fact that some of them have seemed supportive of the idea before. Sen. John McCain (RAriz.), under pressure back home from a conservative primary challenger, hasn't come anywhere close to the climate issue that was once a key component of his "maverick" credentials. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (RAlaska), who joined Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D N.M.) on capandtrade legislation in 2008, challenged the Obama administration earlier this month by forcing a floor vote that would have removed EPA's authority to write its own carbon rules. Sen. Judd Gregg (RN.H.), who has previously supported carbon limits on power plants, told reporters last week, "Nothing is going to go anywhere in this climate, as we go toward an election, that involves cap and trade." And Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) halted climate negotiations with Sens. John Kerry (DMass.) and Joe Lieberman (IConn.) in April over concerns about immigration. The Energy Bill has no hope the GOP isn't buying the oil spill sentiment and election year means that there's no chance for a bill CSM 6/22/10 [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0622/SenateDemocratstoObamaonenergybillHelpus, "Senate Democrats to Obama on energy Bill: Help Us" by Gail Russell chaddock,] Meanwhile, Republicans are balking at White House proposals to use the Gulf oil spill to jumpstart legislation to move off a dependence of fossil fuels. They say new legislation should focus on helping the people that have been hurt by the spill and cleaning up the oil, period. Any new cap on carbon emissions amounts to a tax on oil that will cost jobs, they add. "We use the oil spill crisis as an excuse to clean up the oil spill and that that [should] be our focus," says Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee. "And if we have another focus other than helping the people who are hurt, it's to do that cleanup and do that with the minimum amount of impact on Gulf Coast jobs." Typically, support for energy legislation break out on regional rather than partisan lines, depending on main energy sources in the region. For that a tax on carbon emissions would undermine their economy. But in an election year, partisan influences can derail regional example, Southern senators complain that wind doesn't blow hard enough to create electricity in their part of the country, while coalstate senators worry alliances. It's no accident that the last two energy bills passed in 2005 and 2007, nonelection years. "Doing anything on climate will be a heavy lift in an election year," says Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) of New Mexico, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "But If President Obama says, 'I've talked to my advisors and they said let's give this a shot' that may be what is needed to jumpstart things." APA WON'T PASSTHEY NEED REPUBLICAN VOTES BUT THEY WON'T VOTE FOR A GAS TAX POLITICO 628 [DARREN SAMUELSOHN, Staff Writer, "Climate bill gets GOP cold shoulder", http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39082.html] Republican leaders counter that they've pitched their own alternatives -- more nuclear power, incentives for electric cars -- that are much less expensive but that could make a sizable shift in the nation's energy future. The fate of bigticket climate legislation, Republicans say, rests on the Democrats and not their members. "No one in our conference supports a national energy tax," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.). Republican operatives explain that their members are living in a much different environment in 2010 than they were in previous years, when it might have been more politically possible to sign up on climate change. Since Obama's arrival, the GOP has stood unified against health care reform and the $787 billion economic stimulus proposal. "Once the Democratic majority came to town with a Democrat president, I think the public's apprehension about a government so large and attempting to do so much and stick it's nose into a lot of what Americans do every day rocketed upward pretty quickly," said Eric Ueland, who served as chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (RTenn.). Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 115/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSMIDTERMS APA bill won't pass, midterm elections are too soon Reuters 5/28 (Nina Chestney, 5/28/10, U.S. climate bill seen unlikely in 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64R1T420100528) U.S. Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman unveiled a climate bill earlier this month. Congressional elections are less than six months away and with Democrats facing losses, June or July could be the last chance to pass a bill this year, before the political atmosphere gets too heated. Other countries are waiting anxiously for the bill to be passed so progress can be made later this year on an international pact to battle global warming. The U.S. legislation would establish a cap and trade system for reducing carbon emissions by utilities and industrial companies. Investors say capandtrade legislation will give them more certainty about their climate investments and international carbon trade. "There is little chance anything will happen this year," said Tom Lewis, chief executive of Green Exchange. The political challenges in passing the bill are similar to those associated with a healthcare reform law, which was passed in March. "Healthcare legislation was passed because the president made a major push but no one is willing to take a major step prior to the midterm elections," Lewis said. "The Democrats are in line to lose a number of seats and I don't see a passionate push between now and November 2 to get this over the finishing line," he added , referring to the date of congressional elections. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 116/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSNOT ENOUGH TIME Won't pass, not enough time New York Times 6/25 (Evan Lehmann and Dina Fine Maron, 6/27/10, Democrats Fix Strategy for Undefined Climate and Energy Bill, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/25/25climatewiredemocratsfixstrategyforundefinedclimate69494.html?pagewanted=1) It's unclear, however, if the awakening has occurred soon enough. The Senate is not a nimble body, as shown by the weeks of work required for Wall Street reform legislation and a bill extending tax cuts. The chamber has one work week left before a weeklong recess for the Independence Day holiday, and then 25 workdays until the August recess. "I think if we go into a climate bill, there's no reason to think that it's not going to take at least a month, or two, or three. And there's not that amount of time," Sen. Jon Tester (DMont.) said yesterday. "We just spent a month on the tax extenders bill. And I got news for you: Climate change is a whooole lot more complicated than that." One scenario being discussed off Capitol Hill depicts the Senate acting swiftly to pass a bill before August recess, and then undertaking conference in which the measure could be strengthened after the elections, when political fevers have cooled. But that's an optimistic vision. Obama canceled a White House meeting earlier this week meant to advance the Senate toward a specific piece of climate legislation. It was a necessary cancellation, but a delay nonetheless. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 117/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSBIG BUSINESS Big businesses disagree with the bill and are key to the midtermsObama wouldn't risk losing their votes Time on CNN, June 14th [Can Obama Regain the Backing of Big Business?, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1996350,00.html? xid=rss-topstories] There is plenty of overlap in substance between what Obama would like to do on an energy bill and what Big Business leaders would prefer (the details in the House bill and some Senate plans notwithstanding). The public backing of a whopping energy measure by prominent privatesector leaders, including some Republicans, would go far in calming skittish premidterm Democratic incumbent jitters, winning over moderate voters and perhaps nabbing some Republican congressional support. Obama needs that business support so the legislation will be seen as jobcreating rather than jobkilling. The problem for the President is that just when he needs them most, many in Big Business have already given up on him. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 118/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Byrd's death dooms climate legislation--too much pressure for incoming senator Politico 6/29 (2010, by Martin Kady II & Darren Samuelsohn, "Senate agenda imperiled without Sen. Robert Byrd's vote", http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39146_Page2.html) WON'T PASSBYRD DEATH Byrd's death means the loss of one sure vote for the financial reform conference report that was supposed to pass this week -- at least until Manchin can name a successor. But it's actually the effort to address energy and climate change that may be in the most trouble. Byrd had made a surprising lateinlife conversion on climate issues -- tweaking his views in a way that surprised environmentalists and opponents of tough climate rules. "He certainly had said some very encouraging things over the past few years," Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, told POLITICO. "We're sorry to see him go for a lot of reasons." Krupp wouldn't speculate about how the climate bill dynamics might change with Byrd's eventual successor. "Call me when we know who his replacement is," he said. But others are fretful that a new freshman Democratic senator from West Virginia will face considerable pressure to vote against any type of carbon limits given the state's procoal politics. Democrats need every vote they can get from their caucus to reach 60 votes and already face an uphill climb given expected defections by Sens. Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln and Byron Dorgan. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 119/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW ECONOMY MODULE APA kills the economy it increases energy prices, and decreases jobs Heritage Foundation, June 8th [American Power Act: Oil Spill Does Not Justify Wrecking the Economy, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/wm2932.pdf] APA aims to increase energy prices, which would kill jobs and protect large corporations at the expense of the consumer--all for a minimal effect on the earth's temperature. Carbon Cuts Come with Significant Costs. The purpose of the bill is to drive energy prices high enough to reduce consumption. In effect, consum ers would be forced to pay more for less energy. Higher energy costs would spread throughout the economy as producers everywhere try to cover their higher production costs by raising their product prices, further impacting consumers . APA attempts to shield the economic pain from consumers by passing twothirds of the carbon per mit revenue back to the consumer through energy discounts or direct rebates. This leaves 33 percent of the revenue to go elsewhere. Regardless, these rebates would clearly not compensate for the higher energy prices that impact all the goods and services consumers purchase. Cap and trade has macroeconomic effects that would do economic harm that no rebate check would cover. Higher prices lower consumer demand, and the lower demand prevents higher prices from completely offsetting production cost increases. As a result, businesses must make pro duction cuts and reduce labor. The Congressional Budget Office recently affirmed that job losses from a slower economy would outweigh those created by clean energy investments: "Job losses in the indus tries that shrink would lower employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment, thereby raising the overall unemploy ment rate."1 In the end, the economy would be trillions of dollars weaker with climate change legislation in place than without it, as Heritage Foundation anal yses of past capandtrade bills have shown. ECONOMIC DECLINE CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR MEAD 92 (Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28) What if the global economy stagnates or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s. ***APA BILL BAD IMPACTS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 120/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: ECONOMY/NO SOLVE WARMING APA increases taxes by trillions, kills jobs and does little to reduce emissions. DATA TRANSMISSION NETWORK 628 ["Debating the American Power Act", Oil Spot News, http://oilspot2.dtnenergy.com/e_article001796855.cfm?x=b11,0,w] In a June 23 news conference at the U.S. Capitol, Senators Kit Bond, RMont., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, RTexas, unveiled their findings of the impact of the KerryLieberman climate, energy bill, saying the proposed legislation would impose a massive gasoline tax on Americans. "Americans know that capandtrade equals higher energy prices," said Bond in a news release. "The only difference with this latest capandtrade bill is that they included a new gas tax, this one to the tune of $3.4 trillion." The 27page report, entitled "KerryLieberman: A MultiTrillion Dollar Gas Tax," says the proposed American Power Act is unique from previous bills aiming to cap carbon emissions because it also includes "a new gas tax on the transportation sector. American families and workers will pay this new climaterelated tax on the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel they use to drive and ride in their cars, trucks, tractors and planes ." "It is so important that the public learn just how large a burden the KerryLieberman cap and trade bill would place on American families and small businesses $3.4 trillion in new taxes ," said Hutchison. "Americans will have added taxes just to commute to work, drive their children to school, and run their businesses." The senators said that Democrats in Congress continue to push capandtrade schemes filled with a variety of jobkilling, " massive new energy taxes," despite high unemployment and opposition from Americans They say that their . report provides details on how these taxes are embedded in the proposed legislation. According to the report, if the American Power Act was passed into law, the federal government would periodically estimate the amount of fuel consumed in the U nited States and multiply that by the amount of carbon in the fuel to determine the fee to be paid. "Ironically , the oil companies, whom Senators favoring the KerryLieberman proposal often target, will pay very little, instead passing the cost onto consumers of all income levels in the form of higher prices at the pump," said the senators in their release.The report used projections from the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Department of Energy, to gauge future fuel demand. Data estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency are used to determine the amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted from each gallon of transportation fuel. "The report estimates that the gas tax proposed by Senators Kerry and Lieberman will cost American consumers $1.87 trillion in new taxes on gasoline, will cost truckers and others who use diesel fuel $1.08 trillion, and will cost air travelers $425 billion in new taxes on jet fuel," said the senators. The Republican senators said Kerry, Lieberman and their supporters argue that higher prices lowers demand, adding that "studies show that gasoline must rise to $7 a gallon before the American people will reduce consumption enough to produce a 17 percent cut in emissions." Hutchison and Bond said their report "shows that the Kerry Lieberman gas tax will be short of $7, thus raising prices for consumers while doing nothing to substantially reduce emissions." The senators said that their report follows a similar one issued last year that concluded "the Waxman Markey capandtrade legislation would result in a similar $3.6 trillion gas tax." The two senators said a better approach to reducing carbon then raising taxes on Americans is "increased investment in proven technologies like nuclear, wind, solar, hybrid, plugin, and electric vehicles as well as lowcarbon biofuels where it makes economic sense." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 121/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: ECONOMY New climate bill will kill economy loss of jobs and excess spending Detroit News 10 (Detroit, May 20, "Editorial: Climate bill would strangle economic recovery", http://detnews.com/article/20100520/OPINION01/5200337/EditorialClimatebillwouldstrangleeconomicrecovery#ixzz0sBD2eyVe) The betting in Washington is that the capandtrade carbon bill introduced in the Senate by Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts and Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut hasn't got a chance of passing this year. That may explain why public outcry against yet another economychoking piece of legislation has been fairly muted. But we're not taking anything for granted , remembering that in January, after Scott Brown scored his stunning victory in the Massachusetts race for the U.S. Senate, the smart money said that health care reform was dead, too. And look what happened. This bill ought to be labeled "The Kill Any Hope for Economic Recovery Act." Its negative impact on jobs and economic development in this country will be enormous, as will be its contribution to job creation and economic growth in China, Brazil and India. What's left of America's manufacturing base will pack up and head for places where energy is still cheap and environmental regulations are less onerous. You think making cars in Detroit is tough now, watch what happens if the KerryLieberman bill passes. The bill would cap carbon emissions at 20 percent of 2005 levels by 2020, and at 83 percent of 2005 levels by 2050. There are two ways the country can meet the stringent targets: With phenomenal technological breakthroughs, or by putting severe limits on economic growth. We'll put our chips on the latter. Hitting the target, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis, will take nearly $10 trillion out of gross domestic product. It will lead to $4.6 trillion in higher energy taxes, and job losses of 2.5 million. Households will pay $1,000 more per year in energy costs, including $1.20 more per gallon of gasoline. Net worth for a family of four will decline by $40,000, while its share of the national debt will increase by $27,000 per family member. Supporters of the bill argue that it will force the development of a new green economy with millions of new jobs. But they can't point to a jobs explosion anywhere in the world after the adoption of similar mandates. What the bill will create is a complex carbon trading marketplace where companies will be able to buy and trade carbon credits. If this bill progresses the way the health care bill did, expect that to result in exemptions and special deals for favored industries and interest groups. Meanwhile, the air will be just as dirty, unless we can figure out how to build carbon walls high into the atmosphere to keep out the emissions that will still be churning from smokestacks in China and India. Allowing this bill to remain alive in the Senate will add to the uncertainty of investors and job creators. The Senate should kill it, and quickly. BILL KILLS THE ECONOMYINCREASES ENERGY COSTS AND KILLS JOBS LORIS 617 [Nicolas, researcher in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., "Cap and Trade Will Wreck the US Economy", Heritage Foundation, http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/jun/17/8216capandtrade8217willwrecktheus/? newswatch] Americans rank climate change low on their list of concerns , polls show. Economic worries have caused attitudes to, ahem, cool. So why is President Obama urging Congress to approve "cap and trade" -- specifically, the bill introduced by Sens. John Kerry, DMass., and Joe Lieberman, IConn.? Especially when, in an ironic twist, cap and trade would wreak economic havoc? Under the Kerry Lieberman bill (the 987page "American Power Act") levels of carbondioxide emissions would supposedly drop, by 2050, to 80 percent below what they were in 2005. How? By increasing energy prices. Of course, this would kill jobs. KerryLieberman also would protect large corporations at the expense of consumers -- and all for a minimal effect on temperatures. Energy prices The purpose of the bill is to drive energy prices high enough to reduce consumption . In effect, consumers would be forced to pay more for less energy. Higher energy costs would spread throughout the economy as producers try to cover their rising production costs by hiking their product prices. KerryLieberman attempts to shield the economic pain from consumers by passing twothirds of the revenue it raises back to the consumer through energy discounts or direct rebates. Yet this clearly wouldn't compensate for all of the rising costs that occur throughout the economy, thanks to higher energy prices. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 122/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NO SOLVE ECON/ENVIRON/WARMING NO ECONOMIC OR ENVIROMENTAL BENEFITSIT REDUCES INCOME AND WILL ONLY CHANGE TEMPATURES BY .08 DEGREES AND DOES N'T AFFECT OTHER COUNTRIES LORIS 617 [Nicolas, researcher in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., "Cap and Trade Will Wreck the US Economy", Heritage Foundation, http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/jun/17/8216capandtrade8217willwrecktheus/?newswatch] But, some may say, what about the environmental benefits ? Frankly, they're almost nonexistent. According to an analysis by climatologist Paul C. Knappenberger, the global temperature reduction from KerryLieberman would be 0.077 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050 and 0.2 degrees by 2100. All this pain ... for less than one degree on the thermometer. Negligible impact Why such a negligible impact? One critical reason is China, which emits more carbon than the U nited States. It's increasing its emissions levels at a much faster rate, and it has no intention of cutting back. India and other fast developing nations have made it clear that they, too, have no plans to slow down their economic growth with carboncutting measures. So why are affected U.S. industries backing KerryLieberman? Because its supporters sought to garner corporate buyin from those industries. In the bill's current form, even the companies that would be regulated and see their costs increase (coal producers, oil companies, natural gas and electric utilities) stand to gain, at least in the short run. One reason for their support is the guaranteed windfall profits these companies would receive from a host of subsidies, tax credits, protections and programs. KerryLieberman is a significant tax on energy that would reduce Americans' income, destroy jobs and greatly shrink the economy. No amount of protections or rebates would save consumers from skyrocketing energy costs. And worst of all, there would be little environmental benefit to show for it. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 123/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Bill is insufficient to stop warming--eliminates effective existing programs. Center for Biological Diversity 2010 ( "American Power Act Fails to Reduce Emissions Enough to Avoid Catastrophic Climate Change", June 22, 2010, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/americanpoweract06222010.html) WASHINGTON-- As the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history devastates the Gulf of Mexico, clarifying the urgent NO SOLVE WARMING need for bold, effective climate legislation, a new Center for Biological Diversity analysis of the American Power Act demonstrates the bill's gross inadequacies. The Center's analysis shows that the domestic greenhouse gas emissions allowed under the bill could lead to global greenhouse gas concentrations of 650 parts per million (ppm). At these concentrations, global mean temperatures would almost certainly rise 2C (3.6F) over preindustrial levels. There is also an 80percent chance that the increase would exceed 3C (5.4F), and a 40percent chance that the increase would exceed 4C (7.2F), according to leading scientists. Even a 2C increase could cause the displacement of millions due to sealevel rise, irreversible loss of entire ecosystems, and the triggering of multiple climactic "tipping points" that would result in additional, accelerated warming. "The decisions we make today will determine the health and livability of the planet for generations to come," said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center. "Policymakers need to acknowledge the great danger from proposals like the American Power Act, which simply do not provide the pollution reductions that scientists warn are needed to tackle this crisis. The hard truth is that the bill would leave our children and grandchildren to deal with what can only be called climate catastrophe." To limit future warming to 2C, developed countries like the United States must make firm commitments to reduce their emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels within the next decade. Even assuming successful implementation of the bill's programs -- an unlikely scenario given its many loopholes -- the Act would likely reduce emissions by less than 1 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The Act would also offer a smorgasbord of subsidies, regulatory streamlining provisions, and other incentives for expanded offshore oil exploration, nuclear power, and continued reliance on coalfired electricity generation. Making matters worse, the climate bill also devastates proven, effective programs under the federal Clean Air Act that could be used to achieve the immediate and longlasting emissions reductions that are needed. It removes EPA's ability to set a national pollutant cap for greenhouse gases, permanently removes the agency's ability to set greenhouse standards for major polluters like oil refineries and cement plants, and prohibits the regulation of important greenhouse gases like methane from sources such as coal mines until at least 2020. "Passing a climate bill with inadequate greenhouse gas reduction goals is bad enough, but adding subsidies for offshore oil drilling and other fossil fuels to the mix while gutting successful existing laws that can get the job done is downright crazy," said Snape. Bill fails to curb warming--at best lowers global temperatures onefifth of one percent. Knappenberger 2010 (Chip, Administrator of the World Climate Report, May 12, http://www.masterresource.org/2010/05/theamerican poweractaclimatedud/ ) "The global temperature "savings" of the KerryLieberman bill is astoundingly small --0.043C (0.077F) by 2050 and 0.111C (0.200F) by 2100. In other words, by century's end, reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% will only result in global temperatures being onefifth of one degree Fahrenheit less than they would otherwise be. That is a scientifically meaningless reduction." Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman have just unveiled their latest/greatest attempt to reign in U. S. greenhouse gas emissions. Their one time collaborator Lindsey Graham indicated that he did not consider the bill a climate bill because "[t]here is no bipartisan support for a capandtrade bill based on global warming." But make no mistake. This is a climate bill at heart, and thus the KerryLieberman bill sections labeled "Title II. Global Warming Pollution Reduction." So apparently someone thinks the bill will have an impact on global warming. But those someones are wrong. The bill will have no meaningful impact of the future course of global warming. That is, unless the rest of the world--primarily the developing nations--decide to play along. In fact, the United States and the rest of the developed countries have little role to play in the future course of global warming except as developers of new energy technologies and/or as guinea pigs of making do with less fossil fuels. CUTTING CO2 WON'T SOLVE WARMING AND WILL DRIVE INDUSTRY OVERSEASWARMING IS CAUSED BY THE SUN AND NO STANDARDS ABROAD CARUBA 9 [Alan, a public relations counselor and freelance writer, "How to Destroy the U.S. Economy: Regulate Carbon Dioxide", Climate Change Fraud, 12709, http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politicalexasperations/5794howtodestroytheuseconomyregulatecarbondioxide] Two Obama appointments signaled the Obama administration's intent. One was the appointment of Carol Browner, a former EPA director in the Clinton years and an avowed socialist, as its climate czar, and the appointment of Lisa Jackson as the new Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Others include the Secretary of the Interior and of Energy, all global warming scare mongers.The EPA is momentarily expected to announce an "endangerment" finding that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a "pollutant" and thereby subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act. If that is true than everyone exhaling in the nation is, by definition, a polluter. Humans exhale about six pounds of CO2 every day. In January, I wrote a commentary, "Glorious Carbon Dioxide", that was a look at the science of CO2. It can be found at http://www.acuf.org/issues/issue124/090126cul.asp. One simple Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 124/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW fact invalidates the EPA's claim. All life on Earth is dependent on two gases, oxygen and carbon dioxide. A reduction of CO2 would be a reduction of the gas that all vegetation relies upon for its existence, but the EPA claims that a rise in CO2 is responsible for a rise in the overall temperature of the Earth. The EPA is doing this as a completely natural cooling cycle has been occurring since 1998. It is doing this despite ample scientific data that demonstrates that CO2 does not play any role in the increase of the Earth's average temperature, but in fact increases many decades, even centuries, after such an increase. It is the Sun that determines the climate of the Earth, not CO2, and the Sun is in a natural cycle called a solar minimum, producing less radiation to warm the Earth. At times in the Earth's 4.5 billion year history, the amount of CO2 has been much higher than its present concentration of a mere .038% of the atmosphere. Estimates of how much manmade CO2 contributes to this tiny amount are set at 0.117%. Despite this, the EPA is intent on regulating manmade CO2 emissions as if this would make any difference in light of the fact that many other nations also emit CO2 in the process of developing their economies. China and India come to mind and it is no accident that both were exempted from the UN Kyoto Protocols to limit CO2 emissions. The entire purpose of the current Climate Change Conference taking place is Copenhagen is a treaty to limit CO2 emissions that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts is necessary to avoid a "global warming" that is NOT happening. The conference, however, must ignore revelations that one of its primary providers of climate data, the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, has been deliberately fudging the data, falsifying it to justify the treaty. Another major source of such data has been NASA's climate program, both of which have fought efforts under the Freedom of Information Acts of both the UK and the USA, to require them to make their data available for scientific peer review. As the Wall Street Journal article points out, "An `endangerment' finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions--even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate change legislation." If either the EPA or the climate change legislation called CapandTrade are put in place or enacted, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on record warning that it would "choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project." It would add to the cost of all electricity by industry, business, and all consumers. As the Wall Street Journal article notes, "Electricity generation, transportation and industry represent the three largest sources of U.S. greenhousegas emission." What it doesn't say is that such emissions play no role in climate change. Other nations, however, would not be subject to such costs and the result would be a mad rush to move as many U.S. industries as possible to foreign shores. Other businesses would have to shut down or raise the price of everything they produce. The current Recession would escalate into a fullblown Depression as millions of jobs would disappear or never return. If that isn't a plan to destroy the economy of the nation, I don't know what is. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 125/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NO SOLVE OIL DEPENDENCE APA cant solve oil dependence, it wouldn't increase prices high enough NYT, June 22nd [Would a Push to Curb Carbon Really Reduce U.S. Dependence on Oil?, http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/22/22greenwirewouldapushtocurbcarbonreallyreduceusd19627.html] Legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions largely targets electric utilities. Although it would affect oil refiners, economists said, proposed policies would trigger only minor fuel price increases, too small to alter how much people drive, whether they buy airline tickets or what kind of vehicles they purchase. "The link between the oil spill and the climate bill in my view is very weak," said Denny Ellerman, economist and parttime professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "People are kidding themselves," he said, to believe that penalizing carbon pollution will significantly shrink oil imports or the need for offshore drilling. APA Cant solve oil dependence Obama isn't even making a commitment to a decrease in oil soon NYT, June 22nd [Would a Push to Curb Carbon Really Reduce U.S. Dependence on Oil?, http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/22/22greenwirewouldapushtocurbcarbonreallyreduceusd19627.html] well began spewing crude noted the country's continued need for fossil fuels, saying " we're not going to transition out of oil next year or 10 years from now ." But Obama insisted that climate legislation would start a shift toward cleanerburning fuels. The White House did not respond to a request for comment, but Obama in a speech to members of Congress a week after the BP Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 126/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NO SOLVENO FUNDING No Disad solvency no funding from the federal government Center for American Progress, June 25th [Why an Energy Bill Could Fail Without Pollution Reduction Measures or Revenue, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/energy_mirage.html] The same is true of other worthy proposals to create incentives or subsidies for electric vehicles, natural gas trucks, or energy efficiency measures. These bills do not include a way to pay for their programs, which means that they must rely on federal appropriations. Such spending would only add to the deficit unless there are spending cuts or revenue raisers to offset the expenditures. And given the likelihood that Congress will increasingly focus on deficit reduction, the least painful budget cuts to make are for programs that have not yet been funded. So these clean energy investments may receive little or no funding , thereby reducing or eliminating their oil savings, carbon pollution reductions, or other benefits. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 127/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EPA KEY TO PASSAGE The EPA is key to the passage of APA their review is the deciding factor to many legislators Center for American Progress, June 9th [American Power Act Is a "Model" for Economic Growth Best Analyses Available Show Climate Legislation Is a Good Investment, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/apa_modeling.html] For the last five weeks the Environmental Protection Agency has been analyzing economic impacts of the American Power Act, climate legislation written by Sens. John Kerry (DMA) and Joe Lieberman (ICT). EPA's analysis will influence whether or not other senators support the legislation and ultimately whether or not Congress takes action to move the United States toward a clean energy economy. With stakes that high it's vitally important that legislators understand the bill's complete economic effects, including how their constituents will benefit. For instance, their constituents could see economic savings from energy conservation measures and avoiding the adverse impacts from climate change inaction. But there are other benefits, too : Recent studies of climate legislation show the KerryLieberman bill will create between 1 million and 2 million new jobs by 2020 and dramatically grow the U.S. economy. ***EXTRA Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 128/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW START 1NC START will passhas Republican support and it's growing Kingsbury, 6/23 (Alex Kingsbury. "Senate Republicans to Back Nuclear Arms Treaty" June 23, 2010. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washingtonwhispers/2010/06/23/senaterepublicanstobacknucleararmstreaty.html) The Nobel Prize committee may have been easily swayed by President Obama's quest for a world free of nuclear weapons, but getting the Senate actually to cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal looks to be a tougher sell. Still, word on the Hill is that far the New START treaty got a surprise boost last week. Sources say several Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee are now considering backing ratification of the arms treaty that the White House negotiated with Moscow earlier this year. Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar has already announced his support, and three others have hinted privately that they might be on board after heavyweights James Baker, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft concurred that New and START will not affect any U.S. missile defense plans, a key GOP objection to ratification. "The chances of a 'yes' vote now are at 30 percent, up from zero percent last week," says one senior Senate staffer. Others are a little more cautious. " It is still an open issue," says a GOP flack. <Insert link plan unpop> GOP is key to getting 67 votes for Ratification Xinhua news 6/18/10 [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/201006/18/c_13355804.htm," Clinton Urges U.S. Senate to Ratify Nuclear Arms Treaty"] WASHINGTON, June 17 (Xinhua) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday urged the Senate to ratify the new nuclear arms treaty reached with Russia, trying hard to ease the Republican concerns that it might hamper U.S. missile defense buildup Clinton made the testament before the Senate Armed Services Committee, alongside . Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen. The Russian government had said But Clinton argued that "a unilateral statement made by Russia concerning missile defense does not limit or constrain our missile defense efforts." She said a U.S. statement on the treaty made it clear that "the nited U tates S intends to continue improving and deploying its missiledefense systems in order to defend itself against limited attack." Clinton strongly believed that the new treaty will make U.S. " more secure" and urged the Senate to ratify it "expeditiously." U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the new nuclear arms treaty on April 8 which replaces the START treaty that has expired in December. Under the new pact, the two countries agreed to reduce their deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 each, or 30 percent below the current level of 2,200. The Democrats need support from the Republicans as the treaty needs 67 votes from the Senate to be ratified. Impact: START key to improving U.S. Russian relations and stopping nuclear proliferation John Isaacs 09 [http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/how_the_new_start_treaty_increases_us_s ecurity/, John Isaacs is the Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation where his work focuses on national security issues in Congress, Iraq, missile defense, and nuclear weapons. Isaacs has published articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear Times, Arms Control Today, American Journal of Public Health, and Technology Review ."How the New Start Treaty Increases U.S. Security"] New START is a key part of global efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The new treaty sends a strong signal that the U.S. plans to play a key leadership role in reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and that it is committed to upholding its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT U.S.Russian nuclear reductions ). can help that it reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if it feels threatened by U.S. missile defense system, which has raised concerns among Republicans . augment U.S. efforts to secure international support for tougher nonproliferation and nuclear security measures, which in turn would strengthen the NPT. It will also strengthen the Obama administration's hand at the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit and NPT Review Conference. New START is an important means to improve U.S.Russian relations and sets the stage for discussions on deep nuclear reductions. The formal ***START DISAD Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 129/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW arms control process can enhance U.S.Russian relations, thereby making it easier to pursue other vital U.S. objectives that require Russia's help, including buttressing programs to secure and safeguard nuclear material stockpiles and warheads and reigning in Iran's nuclear program. U.S. Russian relations solve every impact CFR Task Force 2006 [Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force for Russia, Chaired by John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "RUSSIA'S WRONG DIRECTION: WHAT THE UNITED STATES CAN AND SHOULD DO," http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Russia_TaskForce.pdf] Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, American presidents and policymakers have believed that the interests of the United States are served by engagement with Russia. This Task Force, too, began its review of U.S. policy--and concludes it --convinced of the extraordinary importance of getting U.S. relations with Russia right . U.S.Russian cooperation can help the U nited tates to S handle some of the most difficult challenges it faces: terrorism , the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, tight energy markets, climate change, drug trade, infectious diseases, and human trafficking. the These problems are more manageable when U the nited tates S has Russia on its side rather than aligned against it. Good relations between Moscow and Washington also bolster one of the most promising international realities of our time--the near absence of security rivalries among the major powers. That the world's leading states deal with each other in a spirit of accommodation is a great asset for American policy, and the United States will be in a better position to protect that arrangement if relations with Russia are on a positive track. U.S. Russian tensions spill over globally and risk major power wars CFR Task Force 2006 [Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force for Russia, Chaired by John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "RUSSIA'S WRONG DIRECTION: WHAT THE UNITED STATES CAN AND SHOULD DO," http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Russia_TaskForce.pdf] Over time, accumulating disagreements between Russia and the U nited tates S can have consequences that go well beyond a downturn in bilateral relations. They raise the prospect of a broader weakening of unity among the leading states of the international system. If growing consensus among the major powers gives way to a new line of division between democrats and authoritarians, if their energy strategies diverge, or if they respond in different ways to terrorism , America's chances of success in meeting global challenges will be reduced. At present, the risk that such divisions will emergemay seem remote, but policymakers should not fail to anticipate the tipping point. And Americans should understand how much Russia's future course--above all, whether its policies look West or East--can affect the outcome. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 130/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 131/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW 2NC OVERVIEW DA outweighs and turns case We have two scenarios for extinction: First proliferation START is key sets discussions for global nuclear reductions and gives the US more credibility when talking with other nations about reduction outweighs: On magnitude massive proliferation causes all international arms agreements to end results in all powers going to war at any small conflict Second U.S.-Russia relations START allows U.S. and Russia to cooperate over nuclear issues spills over to all relations it's all they care about outweighs: On probability and timeframe the only war that has come close to being nuclear was the Cold War strong relations prevent the only probable scenario for extinction and they are the only two countries that could deploy nuclear weapons quickly enough to start global nuclear war And START solves accidental launch John Isaacs 09 [http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/how_the_new_start_treaty_increases_us_security/, John Isaacs is the Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation where his work focuses on national security issues in Congress, Iraq, missile defense, and nuclear weapons. Isaacs has published articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear Times, Arms Control Today, American Journal of Public Health, and Technology Review."How the New Start Treaty Increases U.S. Security"] New START will verifiably reduce surplus U.S. and Russian nuclear forces and ensure a stable and predictable U.S.Russian nuclear relationship. The new agreement limits both deployed strategic missiles and bombers and deployed strategic warheads. The treaty's streamlined verification and compliance provisions are tailored to the new limits and reflect the realities of the current U.S. and Russian arsenals . These provisions will also allow the U.S. to look into Russian missiles and count the actual number of warheads they carry, a first for an arms control treaty. They will give each side high confidence that the other is complying with the treaty's limits and reduce the chances for misunderstanding and worstcase scenario planning that could lead to an accidental nuclear exchange. Moreover, the U.S. will still be able to maintain a robust and flexible nuclear deterrent. Without a new treaty the U.S. would have far less confidence in its ability to limit and monitor Russia's still enormous nuclear arsenal. Extinction Forrow Et Al 1998 [Lachlan Forrow, Bruce G Blair, Ira Helfand, George Lewis, et al, Author Affiliation: From the Division of Gencral Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, (L.F.); the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. (B.G.B.); Physicians for Social Responsibility, (I.H.); Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (G.L., TP); the Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, (VS.); Barry S. Levy Associates and Tufts University School of Medicine, (B.S.L.); the Department of Radiology and the Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University, (H.A.); and Mount Sinai School of Medicine; New England Journal of Medicine, April 30] A missile launch activated by false warning is thus possible in both U.S. and Russian arsenals. For the reasons noted above, an accidental Russian launch is currently considered the greater risk. Several specific scenarios have been considered by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization of the Department of Defense.31 We have chosen to analyze a scenario that falls in the middle range of the danger posed by an accidental attack: the launch against the United States of the weapons on board a single Russian DeltaIV ballisticmissile submarine, for two reasons. First, the safeguards against the unauthorized launch of Russian submarinebased missiles are weaker than those against either silobased or mobile landbased rockets, because the Russian general staff cannot continuously monitor the status of the crew and missiles or use electronic links to override unauthorized launches by the crews. Second, the DeltaIV is and will remain the mainstay of the Russian strategic submarine fleet.27,32,33 DeltaIV submarines carry 16 missiles. Each missile is armed with four 100kt warheads and has a range of 8300 km, which is sufficient to reach almost any part of the continental United States from typical launch stations in the Barents Sea.34,ss These missiles are believed to be aimed at "soft" targets, usually in or near American cities, whereas the more accurate silobased missiles would attack U.S. military installations.36 Although a number of targeting strategies are possible for any particular DeltaIV, it is plausible that two of its missiles are assigned to attack warsupporting targets in each of eight U.S. urban areas. If 4 of the 16 missiles failed to reach their destinations because of malfunctions before or after the launch, then 12 missiles carrying a total of 48 warheads would reach their targets. POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT We assume that eight U.S. urban areas are hit: four with four warheads and four with eight warheads. We also assume that the targets have been selected according to standard military priorities: industrial, financial, and transportation sites and other components of the infrastructure that are essential for supporting or recovering from war. Since lowaltitude bursts are required to ensure the destruction of structures such as docks, concrete runways, steelreinforced buildings, and underground facilities, most if not all detonations will cause substantial early fallout. Physical Effects Under our model, the numbers of immediate deaths Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 132/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW are determined primarily by the area of the "superfires" that would result from a thermonuclear explosion over a city. Fires would ignite across would result in a death rate approaching 100 percent .3' For each 100kt warhead, the radius of the circle of nearly 100 percent short term lethality would be 4.3 km (2.7 miles), the range within which 10 cal per square centimeter is delivered to the earth's surface from the hot fireball under weather conditions in which the visibility is 8 km (5 miles), which is low for almost all weather conditions. We used Census CD to calculate the residential population within these areas according to 1990 U.S. Census data, adjusting for areas where circles from different warheads overlapped.38 In many urban areas, the daytime population, and therefore the casualties, would be much higher. Fallout The cloud of radioactive dust produced by lowaltitude bursts would be deposited as fallout downwind of the target area. The exact areas of fallout would not be predictable, because they would depend on wind direction and speed, but there would be large zones of potentially lethal radiation exposure. With average wind speeds of 24 to 48 km per hour (15 to 30 miles per hour), a 100kt lowaltitude detonation would result in a radiation zone 30 to 60 km (20 to 40 miles) long and 3 to 5 km (2 to 3 miles) wide in which exposed and unprotected persons would receive a lethal total dose of 600 rad within six hours.39 With radioactive contamination of food and water supplies, the breakdown of refrigeration and sanitation systems, radiation induced immune suppression, and crowding in relief facilities, epidemics of infectious diseases would be likely.40 Deaths Table 1 shows the estimates of early deaths for each cluster of targets in or near the eight major urban areas, with a total of 6,838,000 initial deaths. Given the many indeterminate variables (e.g., the altitude of each warhead's detonation, the direction of the wind, the the total number of subsequent deaths from fallout and other sequelae of the attack is not possible. With 48 explosions probably resulting in the exposed area to roughly 10 or more calories of radiant heat per square centimeter, coalescing into a giant firestorm with hurricaneforce winds and average air temperatures above the boiling point of water. Within this area, the combined effects of superheated wind, toxic smoke, and combustion gases population density in the fallout zone, the effectiveness of evacuation procedures, and the availability of shelter and relief supplies), a reliable estimate of thousands of square miles of lethal fallout around urban areas where there are thousands of persons per square mile, it is plausible that these secondary deaths would outnumber the immediate deaths caused by the firestorms. Medical Care in the Aftermath Earlier assessments have documented in detail the problems of caring for the injured survivors of a nuclear attack: the need for care would completely overwhelm the available health care resources.15,41 Most of the major medical centers in each urban area lie within the zone of total destruction. The number of patients with severe burns and other critical injuries would far exceed the available resources of all critical care facilities nationwide, including the country's 1708 beds in burncare units (most of which are already occupied).42 The danger of intense radiation exposure would make it very difficult for emergency personnel even to enter the affected areas. The nearly complete destruction of local and regional transportation, communications, and energy networks would make it almost impossible to transport the severely injured to medical facilities outside the affected area. After the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, which resulted in a much lower number of casualties (6500 people died and 34,900 were injured) and which had few of the complicating factors that would accompany a nuclear attack, there were long delays before outside medical assistance arrived.41 FROM DANGER TO PREVENTION Public health professionals now recognize that many, if not most, injuries and deaths from result from accidental an nuclear attack of the type described above would dwarf all prior accidents in history. Furthermore, such an attack, even if accidental, might prompt a retaliatory response resulting in allout nuclear an exchange. The World Health Organization has estimated that this would result in billions of direct and indirect casualties worldwide.4 violence and accidents result from a predictable series of events that are, at least in principle, preventable.44,45 The direct toll that would Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 133/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW TURNS JAPAN PROLIF -it turns Japan proliferation U.S.-Russia reductions would make arms agreements with Japan more credible and START is key to strengthen the NPT best internal link to global proliferation Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 134/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW TURNS HEG -it turns HEG- US Russian War, would cause a rift in power to have some countries follow Russia and some follow the US, it would be WWII all over again Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 135/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW TURNS BIOTERROR -it turns Bioterror- Only Start can solve for a terrorist attack current nuclear weapons angers terrorist, and START means we work with Russia to disrupt terrorist financing operations Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 136/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW TURNS KOREAN CONFLICT -it turns Korean Peninsula instability START would mitigate the risk of Peninsula instability US and Russia could cooperate over preventing massive conflict in Korea Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 137/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW TURNS NUC TERROR -Nuclear Terrorism: START prevents nuclear weapons from getting to terrorists in the first place strengthens the NPT ensures that rogue states don't sponsor terrorist efforts Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 138/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW TURNS ASIAN STABILITY -Asian instability: Relations prevent instability from escalating more cooperation over how to prevent smaller nuclear countries from attacking one another Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 139/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW CHINA CONFLICT Relations solve Chinese aggression Newsweek May 15 1995 "Russia," says Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, "is a big country." That it is; lop off the newly independent states born within the old Soviet husk and you've still got a lot left a highly educated work force sitting on top of some of the globe's most valuable resources. True, much of that vast territory has an awful climate (climate mattersfor different reasons than Russia's, it explains why Australia will never be a great power). But unlike India and China, two other "giant" states, Russia will be able to husband its vast resources without the additional strain of feeding and employingmore than a billion souls . It also, of course, is the only country that can launch a devastating nuclear attack on the United States. That kind of power demands respect. And sensitive handling. Stephen Sestanovich, head Russia watcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, argues that present U.S. policy is geared too much to "dismantling Russian military might" a policy that, since it breeds Russian resentment of Western meddling, is selfdefeating. "We have to reorient Russian power," says Sestanovich, "not eliminate it. Because we can't eliminate it." Indeed, Washington should prefer a strong Russia. A Russia so weak, for example, that it could not resist a Chinese land grab of its Far East without resorting to nuclear weapons is a 21stcentury nightmare. All this implies a close U.S. Russian relationship stretching into the future. American officials say it will be a "pragmatic" one, recognizing that Russian and U.S. national interests will sometimes collide. The danger, for the United States, is that a pragmatic relationship could be dominated by security issues. In Western Europe, some futurists say that in the coming decades Russia will talk to the United States about nuclear weapons but to the European Union about everything elsetrade, economic development and the rest. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 140/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASS GENERIC START Will Pass--large bipartisan consensus and no opposition Cirincione 6/29 Joe Cirincione 6/29/2010 (President of Ploughshares Fund) "A Strong Majority For New START" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joecirincione/astrongmajorityfornew_b_628936.html The New START treaty has passed its tipping point. The majority of living former secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, and national security advisors are now on record that New START strengthens U.S. national security . That is 13 out of 24. None has opposed the treaty. It is time for the Senate to approve this new security agreement. Last week, thirty national security luminaries including Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Chuck Hagel, Bill Cohen, Lee Hamilton, Thomas Kean enthusiastically gave their bipartisan support for the New START Treaty as a "necessary and appropriate step toward safeguarding our national security." These leaders emphasized the benefits of the treaty's prudent reductions in nuclear arms and its tough inspection regime. They made clear that the treaty does not inhibit America's ability to maintain an effective nuclear arsenal or deploy missile defense systems. This statement, announced with an ad in Politico by the bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America, added to the growing consensus of former U.S. officials that support the treaty. Ploughshares Fund was pleased to support this effort. Mass of Support Over the last eight weeks, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on New START with six senior officials from past administrations. While each statesman gave the Committee a unique perspective on New START, all of them supported the treaty. Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger said, "I think it is obligatory for the United States to ratify." Former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said, "I think the treaty should be ratified and it'll make a modest but useful contribution in this overall process." Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry said, "I believe that this treaty does advance American security objectives." Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said, "I support ratification of the treaty." Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "In my view, the agreement is a modest step forward." Former Secretary of State James Baker said the treaty "appears to take our country in a direction that can enhance our national security while at the same time reducing the number of nuclear warheads on the planet." This is in addition to the support from Secretary of Defense Bob Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that the treaty has the full support of our uniformed military: "This treaty enhances our ability to do that which we have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States. I am as confident in its success as I am in its safeguards." Getting Lonely on the Far Right With such overwhelming bipartisan support from America's top civilian and military officials and former national security leaders, it has been hard for the determined critics to scrape together experts beyond the fringe. Sen. Inhofe (ROK) the only U.S. Senator to publicly oppose the treaty lamented this very situation, saying, "Seventeen witnesses so far, no witnesses in opposition to it." He added, "I don't know who thinks that can be reasonable." The opposition's problem is not that the Senate is being lead astray. In committee hearings, supporters of the treaty did not pull their punches. They noted areas where they wished the treaty had gone further. The far right is simply having trouble objecting to what is an extremely reasonable and widely supported treaty with clear benefits for American national security. It's down to politics. The only reason to oppose this treaty is political gamesmanship on the eve of electionsto deny the administration a victory. This would sacrifice our national security for narrow, partisan gain. It is time for a vote. The Senate should bring the New START treaty to the floor before it breaks for August recess. As it does, Senators would be wise to heed the words of Secretary James Baker. "It is important that nuclear weapons treaties have the broadest bipartisan support possible so that leaders in Moscow and other international capitals understand that our country wholeheartedly supports the treaty." The Senate supported START I by a vote of 93 to 6 and START II, 87 to 4. New START has proved it is a worthy successor to these Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush agreements. The Senate should approve it with equally high support. Will Pass--bipart support from respected elder Senaters and security leaders Korb 6/25/2010 Lawrence Korb 6/25/2010 (The Atlanta Journal constitution) "U.S. Senate Must Ratify New START" http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ While some have alleged that the New START treaty will inhibit missile defense, this claim has been strongly refuted by Republican elder statesmen in their Senate testimony on the treaty. Former Secretary of State James Baker stated plainly, "There is, in fact, no restriction on the United States of America's ability to move forward on missile defense in whatever way it wants." Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft was equally direct, testifying, "The treaty is amply clear, it does not restrict us ... I don't think there's substance to this argument." In fact, Baker and Scowcroft are joined in supporting the treaty by almost every senior Republican national security leader from the past three decades, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Schlesinger, George W. Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and the Senate's foremost current expert on nuclear policy, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. They are joined by leading Democratic national security leaders, such as former Defense Secretary William Perry and former senator Nunn. ***START WILL PASS UNIQUENESS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 141/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Influential democratic and republican senators are confident START will pass in the Senate The AFP 6/10/ 10 (Agence FrancePresse, nonprofit French news authority, "Key US Senate panel to vote on new START treaty by August," 20 http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghC3AdJ2Osg7pBqHvHRwaSay3fw) WILL PASSUS:SENATE A key US Senate committee will vote on a landmark nuclear arms treaty with Russia before lawmakers leave for their month long August break, the panel's top two members said Thursday. "We plan to hold a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the New START Treaty prior to the August recess," said the panel's chairman, Democratic Senator John Kerry. Kerry said he and Senator Richard Lugar, the committee's top Republican, "are confident that our colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting the treaty to strengthen our national security Approval by the panel would set the stage ." for action by the entire US Senate, where 67 votes are needed for ratification, a process US President Barack Obama has said he would like to see completed in 2010. Obama's Democratic allies and their two independent allies control only 59 votes, meaning the treaty's backers will need to rally at least eight Republicans to approve the pact. " This timeline for committee consideration is imperative so that we can restart inspections, invigorate our relationship with Russia and continue our leadership in global nonproliferation," said Lugar. Influential Senate leaders highly approve of START, it will pass now The Voice of Russia 5/14/ 10 (Russian government international radio broadcasting service, U.S. President Sends New START Treaty to 20 Senate, The Voice of Russia, http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/05/14/7846530.html)\ However that may be, one step has already been made the new START Pact has been submitted to the Senate. The Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations John Kerry , welcoming this event, said that he had no doubts that a twoparty consensus would be reached on the issue of ratification An undoubtful plus here is that . the Defence Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already voiced their approval of the treaty They are . sure that the reduction of both the warheads and carriers will considerably strengthen stability and the spirit of openness between the two biggest world powers. The new START Pact, which was signed by Russia's and the U.S. Presidents in Prague on April 8th this year, provides for widescale cuts in strategic offensive weapons. The two sides have undertaken to reduce the total number of warheads by onethird to the limit of 1550 per country, and to reduce the number of strategic carriers by more than two times. The first hearings of the new START Pact in the Senate Committee on International Relations are set for May 18th. Russia's representatives say that their country's return step will follow soon in a few days the document will be submitted to the State Duma. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 142/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASSUS:GATES Robert Gates supports the ratification of START and predicts Russians will sign as well Pincus 6/18/ 2010 (Walter, Washington Post Staff Writer, "Pentagon to continue developing conventional weapons after ratification of START", The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/06/17/AR2010061701879.html) Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told lawmakers Thursday that the United States continues to encourage Russia to join a European missiledefense system intended to counter the threat posed by Iranian missiles. He also sought to reassure Republicans that the United States would not agree to Russian efforts to limit the U.S. missiledefense capability. "Whatever talks are going on are simply about trying to elicit their [Russian] willingness to partner with us, along with the Europeans, in terms of a regional missile defense," Gates said, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee to support ratification of the recently signed U.S.Russian Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. "But there is nothing in the approaches that have been made to the Russians that in any way, shape or form would impose any limits whatsoever on our plans." START will pass in the senate backed by both Clinton and Gates RTT News 6/17/ 2010 (Internetbased business wire service and news aggregator based in Williamsville, New York, "Clinton And Gates Urge Senate To Ratify New START Treaty," Global Financial Newswires, http://www.rttnews.com/Content/Policy.aspx?Id=1337494) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday, encouraging the Senate to ratify the New START Treaty that the US and Russia worked out in April. The new treaty calls for each country to reduce their number of nuclear warheads to 1,550 and cut their number of delivery vehicles to 700. This is 74% lower than the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the 2002 Moscow Treaty. Republicans have worried that the treaty could constrain the US's ability to develop a missile shield against ballistic missiles from countries like North Korea and Iran, but Clinton denied this was the case in her testimony. According to Clinton, Russia can withdraw from the treaty if the US develops a missile shield, but "that is not an agreedupon view...That is not in the treaty. It's the equivalent of a press release, and we are not in any way bound by it." She added that the US "intends, and in fact is continuing, to improve and deploy effective missile defense Gates argued that nothing in the treaty would "in any way, shape or form...impose any limits on our plans to develop a missile shield." Instead, systems," and denied the suggestion that the US had made any deals with Russia to prevent the US from moving ahead with missile defense. Meanwhile, Gates said he views the treaty as "a vehicle to getting what we need in the way of modernization." In order for the US to officially ratify the new treaty, it would need to receive at least 67 votes in the Senate. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 143/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASSUS:REPUBLICANS Start will passGOP support now USA TODAY 627 [Mimi Hall, Staff Writer "War in Senate brewing over U.S.Russia arms deal", Associated Press Contributions to the Article http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20100623nuketreaty_N.htm] A host of former top government officials, including GOP secretaries of State James Baker and Henry Kissinger , have testified in support of the treaty Sen. James Inhofe, ROkla., however, says the treaty could jeopardize the nation's security . by limiting both the impact of deterrence and the United States' right to build missile defense systems. "To put it bluntly, this treaty will have profound negative implications for U.S. national security," he says. James Schlesinger, who served as Defense secretary under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford , disagrees. "It is obligatory for the United States to ratify," he told Kerry's committee. There is "nothing in the treaty that is problematic" with respect to missile defense. With so many Republican cold warriors behind it, "the argument has changed says David Cohen, an armscontrol activist and founder of ," Civic Ventures . Now, "it's are you a sane, prudent responsible person? Or are you going to be on the fringe?" The White House views the treaty as a crucial step toward Obama's goal of stopping the global spread of nuclear weapons and an example that should be set by the two countries that hold 90% of the world's stockpile. The treaty demonstrates a commitment to nonproliferation, Rhodes says. If the Senate doesn't vote before the November elections and Obama's Democratic party loses control of the Senate, passage could get trickier. But most experts say the treaty likely will get through with 80 or more votes. "The American people want to see Congress accomplish something, and START is a madetoorder agreement, " says Andy Johnson, head of the national security programs at the politically moderate think tank Third Way. " If the Republicans delay the process, they open themselves up to the charge of putting politics over national security." GOP will vote for START now, their concerns over missile defense have been answered Global Security Newswire 6/7/10 [http://www.macon.com/2010/06/06/1151072/armscontrolinthe21st century.html, "GOP Senators likely to approve new START Treaty pentagon officials say"] A senior Obama administration defense official said he believes that GOP members of the Senate will ultimately determine the replacement to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty does not place constraints on U.S. missile defense plans and give their support to the bilateral agreement with Russia, Congressional Quarterly reported Friday (see GSN , June 4). Principal Deputy Defense Undersecretary James Miller said Republicans who have asserted that "New START" would curb the Pentagon's ability to improve its antimissile operations can trust in the actions and rhetoric of the administration."Our unilateral statement, our statements of policy in the missile defense review, our testimony, our budget all say the same thing and that is we already are improving both the quality and quantity of our missile defense interceptors, and we intend to continue to do so," Miller told reporters.U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April signed a new arms control treaty that would limit each nation's deployed arsenal of strategic nuclear arms to 1,550 warheads. The agreement also limits U.S. and Russian fielded nuclear delivery platforms to 700, with another 100 vehicles permitted in reserve. START has Republican support, and it's growing Kingsbury, 6/23 (Alex Kingsbury. "Senate Republicans to Back Nuclear Arms Treaty" June 23, 2010. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washingtonwhispers/2010/06/23/senaterepublicanstobacknucleararmstreaty.html) The Nobel Prize committee may have been easily swayed by President Obama's quest for a world free of nuclear weapons, but getting the Senate to actually cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal looks to be a far tougher sell. Still, word on the Hill is that the New START treaty got a surprise boost last week. Sources say several Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee are now considering backing ratification of the arms treaty that the White House negotiated with Moscow earlier this year. Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar has already announced his support, and three others have hinted privately that they might be on board after heavyweights James Baker, Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft concurred that New and START will not affect any U.S. missile defense plans, a key GOP objection to ratification. "The chances of a 'yes' vote now are at 30 percent, up from zero percent last week," says one senior Senate staffer. Others are a little more cautious. " It is still an open issue," says a GOP flack. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 144/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 145/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW SENATE VOTE WILL HAPPEN START will pass in the Senate the Senate Foreign Relations Committee strongly advocates it O' Brien 6/10 10 (Michael, newspaper analyst, "Senate panel hopes to send START treaty to floor before August," The Hill, / http://thehill.com/blogs/blogbriefingroom/news/102479senatepanelhopestosendstarttreatytofloorbeforeaugust) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is planning a vote on a nuclear arms reduction treaty before the August congressional recess. Committee Chairman John Kerry (DMass.) and Sen. Richard Lugar (RInd.), the ranking member of the panel, announced a second series of hearings on Thursday with an aim toward holding a committee vote on ratifying the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) before the Senate breaks for August."It is imperative that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee act expeditiously to move the New START Treaty to the Senate floor ," Kerry said in a statement. "We plan to hold a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the New START Treaty prior to the August recess and are confident that our colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting the treaty to strengthen our national security. "The treaty between the United States and Russia was signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in early April to replace an earlier iteration of the agreement, which would reduce each nation's nuclear stockpile. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 146/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW VOTE SOONBEFORE AUGUST Obama administration is pushingvote before August Bromund, 6/24 (Theodore Bromund is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "Morning Bell: No Rush to Judgment on New START"June 24, 2010. http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/24/morningbellnorushtojudgmentonnewstart/) President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START Treaty on April 8, 2010. Immediately, its supporters began to call for its rapid ratification. President Obama has stated that he wants the new treaty ratified by the end of 2010. Senator John Kerry (DMA), Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, plans "to hold a vote . . . prior to the August recess." Over the past weeks, and continuing this week, the Committee has held a drumbeat of hearings, all testifying to the urgent desire of the treaty's supporters to see it ratified as soon as possible. This urgency is incompatible with the Senate's traditions and with its responsibilities today. The administration has stated that the choice is between the New START Treaty and no treaty governing the U.S.Russian strategic arsenals at all. This is extremely low bar, and also factually untrue: the Moscow Treaty remains in force until the end of 2012. The New START Treaty seeks to preserve the "viability and effectiveness" of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal, which implies a broad restriction on the ability of the United States to deploy missile defenses. And while the treaty's supporters claim that New START will restore the United States to a position of leadership on nonproliferation, the fact is that there is no relationship between the size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile which has fallen dramatically since 1987 and the desire of states such as Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 147/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 148/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASSRUSSIA:MEDVEDEV Medvedev is pushing for START the Duma wants to pass START simultaneously with the U.S. Senate Radyuhin 5/28/2010 (Vladimir, The Hinder News Staff Writer, "Russian Parliament to Ratify START , The Hindu, http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article440708.ece) Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Friday sent the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with the United States to Parliament for ratification. Mr. Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama signed the treaty last month in the Czech capital, Prague. Mr. Obama submitted the treaty to the U.S. Senate for approval earlier this month. Mr. Medvedev urged Russian lawmakers on Friday to ratify the new START simultaneously with the U.S. Senate , "not earlier, but not later either." "The Treaty is a synergy of political wills and powers, therefore we should synchronise ratification to strengthen mutual trust," Mr. Medvedev said at a meeting with MPs from the ruling United Russia party. The new START treaty, which replaces the 1991 START treaty, would cut U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals by 30 per cent over the next seven years, leaving each side with about 1,500 strategic nuclear weapons. In a joint statement issued on May 14 in Washington, Russia and the United States hailed the new START as finally relegating the Cold War to the past. "It lays the foundation for qualitatively new bilateral relations in the strategic military field and, in effect, marks the final end of the `Cold War' period," said the statement. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 149/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WILL PASSRUSSIA:DUMA Putin's control over 60% of the Duma and overall support for START ensure its approval O'Carroll 5/28/ 2010 (Chad, studied an MA in 'NonProliferation & International Security' at Kings College London, "Russian Ratification of the Start Followon Treaty," Nukes of Hazard, http://nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2010/5/28/133330/351) For the START followon Treaty to be ratified in Russia, it needs to pass through the two houses of the Russian Federal Assembly. The lower house, or State Duma, is the more powerful of the two and will be the first port of call for Treaty ratification. For the Treaty to be approved by the Duma, and thus passed onto the Federation Council for consideration, it must be supported by a majority vote. The Duma has 450 members, who since November 2007 (after intervention of Vladimir Putin), have been elected by proportional representation. As a consequence , United Russia (`essentially a creation of Putin') now has 64.3% of the seats in the Duma. This suggests that theoretically, the New START Treaty especially given United Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev approval of it will have no problem getting approved at the Duma. The Federation Council has 168 members, of which more than half need to vote in favor of the Treaty (postDuma approval) to complete the ratification process. In 2000 President Putin controversially reformed the Federation Council, which prior had been used by Yeltsin as a means to mitigate the Duma's power and was thus generally obstructive. As a consequence of these reforms, Putin ensured the selection of a wave of Kremlinfriendly senators implying that approval of START follow on in the upper house should also be relatively straightforward. Widespread support in Russia means the Duma will pass START Sunday Nation 6/20/10 [http://www.nation.co.ke/News/world/Arms%20treaty%20stuck%20in%20US %20Senate//1068/942806//vjg9rv//, "Arms Treaty Stuck in U.S. Senate"] Texts of the treaty have already been submitted for ratification to the Russian Federal Assembly and the US Congress. The document should be approved by both houses of Russian Parliament and the US Senate, and that makes the world keep an eye on any statements concerning the possible ratification dates. As agreed by the two countries' Presidents, Moscow and Washington will synchronise the ratification process. Despite all controversies surrounding the treaty, it has won major political support in Russia, making people generally unconcerned about the document's passage through the country's Parliament. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 150/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 151/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW US PUSHINGOBAMA OBAMA PUSHNMD CONCESSIONS BY OBAMA MEANS RUSSIA COOPERATION NEW EUROPE 627 ["Medvedev seeks US help to steer Russia into a new economic age" http://www.neurope.eu/articles/MedvedevseeksUS helptosteerRussiaintoaneweconomicage/101633.php] Russia and the US are intent on building economic ties on the strong record of cooperation on security issues that have marked Obama's first year and a half in office: agreement on the New START Treaty on nuclear disarmament and agreement on new sets of sanctions against both North Korea and Iran."Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, the relationship must be about more than security and arms control," Obama said, adding that mutual "prosperity" was the next goal. Obama conceded that there were still areas of disagreement such as that over Georgia, where the US insists Russia withdraw from its occupation of the two Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Obama has stepped back from Bush's plans to put a system of missile defense in place across Eastern Europe, a project Medvedev strongly opposed. But Obama noted his efforts to build an alternative system for which he hopes to get Russia's suppor t. The US wants "to work with Russia to be a key player and beneficiary in this global architecture, Interfax quoted Obama as saying. Obama and Medvedev agreed to " work for ratification of the New Start treaty "as soon as possible Obama said. And they discussed the crises in Kyrgyzstan, the ," Middle East, North Korea and Iran. Obama and his adminstration is pushing START now Ramstack, 6/17 (Tom Ramstack is a news correspondent. "Obama Administration Urges Senate to Ratify Nuclear Arms Treaty" June 17, 2010. http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7019024607) Obama administration officials asked the Senate Thursday to support a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, saying it would not weaken U.S. defenses. The Senate is trying to decide whether to ratify a treaty signed April 8 between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) would limit each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, a level 30 percent below the limit set under the 2002 version of the treaty. Not since the 1950s has the United States had such a small number of nuclear warheads. "These limits will help the United States and Russia bring our deployed strategic arsenals, which were sized for the Cold War, to levels that are more appropriate to today's threats," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in her testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Other provisions of the treaty would limit both countries to 800 nuclear missile launchers and heavy bombers and 700 intercontinental ballistic missiles. She said the treaty also would help the United States and Russia further isolate Iran for its nuclear development program, which they say violates the international NonProliferation Treaty. Several senators asked about public statements by Russian politicians who implied they would abide by the treaty only if the United States ceased developing a missile defense system. The Russian politicians' statements indicate M. Gates downplayed the importance of the statements. "These unilateral statements have no binding effect," Clinton said. Instead, the Senate "there is a very different interpretation of the treaty than what has been stated," said Sen. John McCain (RAZ). Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert should consider the written terms of the treaty to determine the intentions of the Russians , she said. Gates said the politicians' statements reflect longstanding resentment by Russia about what they perceive as the superior U.S. missile defense system. "They hate it," Gates said. "They will always hate it." Nevertheless, the START treaty would give the United States security it would lack without an agreement to limit nuclear arms, he said. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 152/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW US PUSHINGCLINTON Clinton is pushing STARTurging the senate to act Maher, 6/18 (Heather Maher is a political reporter. "Clinton Urges U.S. Senate To Ratify START, Is Challenged On Missile Defense" June 18, 2010. http://www.rferl.org/content/Clinton_US_Senate_Ratify_START_Missile_Defense/2075356.html) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has urged the Senate to ratify a new U.S.Russian nucleararms control treaty as soon as possible and tried to refute concerns from lawmakers that the agreement would limit U.S. missile defense efforts. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 17, Clinton the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START said that agreement, which was signed by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on April 8 in Prague, will strengthen U.S. national security by obligating Russia to keep its strategic nuclear forces below an agreed level. "This is a treaty that, if ratified, will provide stability, transparency, and predictability for the two countries with more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "It is a treaty that will reduce the permissible number of Russian and U.S. deployed strategic warheads to 1,550, a level not seen since the 1950s." Beyond that, the secretary of state said the landmark agreement gives Washington more leverage in pursuing its global nonproliferation efforts, which have just gotten boost from last week's new round of UN sanctions against Iran over its suspect nuclear program. Clinton told lawmakers that the U.SRussia agreement has direct implications for Iran because it strengthens the United States' position with its allies to "to hold irresponsible governments accountable, whether in further isolating Iran...or in persuading other countries to implement better controls on their own nuclear materials." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 153/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Vladimir Putin is urging Russia to push START while both countries have agreed to a policy of nuclear arms reduction Rogers 5/21 /2010 (Wes, foreign analyst for the bulletin, "Changes Come As START Ratification Nears," The Bulletin, http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/05/21/news/world/doc4bf624a7a67b4901504079.txt) RUSSIA PUSHINGPUTIN Russian Prime Minister and former president Vladimir Putin has been exercising his geopolitical savvy during recent agreements with Ukraine. Working closely with newly elected and Russianbacked Ukraine President Victor Yanukovich, Mr. Putin has gotten the Ukrainian president to make Ukraine parliament pass a law banning any working agreements with NATO. In addition, Mr. Putin has been negotiating other important agreements, which are strengthening the negotiating power of Russia, especially in the upcoming Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) ratification. Mr. Putin recently dispatched President Dmitri Medvedev to Kharkiv in Ukraine to negotiate a major RussoUkraine agreement extending Russias' lease of Ukraine's port city of Sevastapol for its 7th Fleet until 2042 in exchange for a major reducation in gas prices for Ukraine. The Sevastapol agreement caused a major brawl in the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukraine parliament, as many feel the lease extension would give a longterm Russian presence and dominance, which may jeopardize the sovereign rights of Ukraine and its people. The Sevastapol lease basically gives Russia major domination of the Black Sea region for years and curtails any NATO influence in the region. Mr. Putin is also attempting to convince Ukraine to grant Russia more control on the strategic pipeline, which runs through Ukraine and transmits more than twenty percent of gas supplies to Europe. Now, Mr. Putin is trying to get Ukraine to work on joint nuclear projects with third world countries. The Russian Prime Minister, speaking in Sochi, Russia says he wants to expand cooperatives by building new power plants and engage Ukraine in working on a new large scale program for development of the Russian nuclear power industry. Thus, Russia and Ukraine could launch major power projects in industrial power and aircraft and agribusiness, areas where both countries have inherent strength, resources and expertise. Ukraine is one of the best manufacturers of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with major locations in Dnepropetrovsk at Yuzhmash, a major space and missile designer. With the Russian U.S. START Treaty pending, approval by the U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma, Russia's representative assembly, is still uncertain. And though Mr. Putin takes a hard line saying no to U.S. or NATO missile defense systems near Russia, both countries have agreed to substantial reductions in nuclear arsenals. With Mr. Putin maintaining his defensive stand, he holds a very solid position in economic as well as diplomatic and military strategy as the process must be ratified in the U.S. and Russia. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 154/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSGENERIC No passage nownot enough votes, will take too long and missile defense debates HEINRICHS 621 [Rebeccca, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and a former military legislative assistant for House Armed Services Committee member Trent Franks, "Should the New START Treaty Be a NonStarter?", FOX NEWS, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/21/rebeccahheinrichsobamarussianewstarttreatysenatepentagongatesclinton/] America's most senior foreign policy officials defended the merits of the first strategic arms control treaty to be brought before the Senate in almost 20 years last week. Secretaries Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and Admiral Michael Mullen went to bat on behalf of the Obama administration, which is anxious for the Senate to ratify the New START Treaty quickly, to reduce the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, reduce their numbers of deployed strategic delivery vehicles which include land, sea, and airlaunched missiles, longrange bombers, and submarines the Russians were already heading toward the newlyrequired limit of 700. So what looks like a mutual concession is actually a net loss for the United States. With negotiation outcomes like this, it is easy to see why Russia may come to love the Obama administration, but what's in it for American security? Prudent senators, including Jim DeMint (RS.C.), John Barrasso (RWyoming), and John Thune (RS.D.), to name a few of the most vocal, are trying to stop the rush to ratify the New START until they can be satisfied with the answer to that very question. The new treaty will have lasting implications for global security, and deliberation on it should take months, if not longer, to ensure that the Senate can be fully informed and comfortable voting to approve or reject it . For many senators, the vote will hinge on whether or not they can be convinced that the treaty would not prevent current or future administrations from fielding a comprehensive missile defense system. While this is reason enough to consider a no vote, it's not the only one. Congress required the White House to deliver a plan outlining how the U.S. will maintain its nuclear arsenal. The U.S. deactivated over 50 percent of its nuclear warheads during the Bush administration alone without compulsion from any binding treaty. In a December 2009 letter to President Obama, 41 senators wrote that further reductions in nuclear weapons would be acceptable only if the administration provided a clear plan for modernizing them. Technical problems currently prevent START passage in the Senate and Duma The Voice of Russia 5/18/ 2010 (Russian government international radio broadcasting service, Russia urges rapid ratification of STAR, http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/06/18/10107488.html) In a statement on Friday, Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that the ratification of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, may run into problems in the US Senate and the Russian State Duma. Signed by the Russian and US Presidents in Prague on April 8, the document commits the two countries to significant cuts in their nuclear arsenals and delivery vehicles something that is due to be fulfilled in the next seven years. Earlier, Moscow and Washington signaled their readiness to ratify the and win hearts in the Kremlin. Unfortunately, the love affair is onesided. While both Washington and Moscow have agreed to fresh START pact simultaneously, which will certainly be a tricky task, Ryabkov said without elaborating. Echoing him is Konstantin Kosachev, head of the Duma's International Affairs Committee. The ratification may well see both sides being at odds over a string of technical problems pertaining to the Treaty, Kosachev says. These include the feasibility of the reduction of nuclear arms and delivery vehicles, a telemetric information exchange and ways of verification. Separately, the document envisages the development of a missile defense system by Washington, which has yet to allay Moscow's concerns over the US missile shield, Kosachev goes on to say. START won't pass republicans don't want an undermined missile defense system and the Duma will reject the treaty if the U.S. pursues current plans for missile defense systems The AFP 5/28/ 2010 (Agence FrancePresse, nonprofit French news authority, Medvedev submits START treaty for ratification, Defense News, http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4647389) In the U.S. Senate it faces opposition from conservative Republicans who have voiced fears that the agreement could undermine U.S. plans for missile defense. Medvedev said the ratification in Russia and the United States should be simultaneous failed to pass the Senate. The new START treaty would significantly cut U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons to about 1,550 warheads each. Russia in order to avoid Russia repeating the fate of the Soviet Union, which the Kremlin chief said had been "cheated" before. "We will tolerate this no more," Medvedev said, without elaborating. The Kremlin has previously expressed unhappiness about arms treaties that were ratified by Russia's parliament but has said it reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if Washington presses ahead with missile defense systems in a way that Moscow opposes. ***START WON'T PASS UNIQUENESS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 155/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSUS START won't pass multiple reasons The Voice of Russia 5/14/ 2010 (Russian government international radio broadcasting service, U.S. President Sends New START Treaty to Senate, The Voice of Russia, http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/05/14/7846530.html) two countries' presidents, Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, in a telephone conversation. The U.S. President informed his Russian Quick ratification of the new START Treaty and its full and precise implementation are a top priority for Russia and the USA, which was confirmed by the counterpart that on Thursday he submitted the treaty to the Senate of the United States Congress. The two presidents do not conceal that they would like the new START Pact to be ratified by the U.S. Senate and by the two houses of Parliament simultaneously. But if no problems on that score are expected to emerge in Russia, the approval of the treaty by the American lawmakers may be long in coming. A heated interparty discussion to that effect is currently underway in the U.S. Senate. The Republicans say that they have numerous questions over the document and that first of all, they plan to gain an understanding of what is what, while the Democrats, who promise to do their utmost for the passage of this document through the Senate, have insufficient influence for the time being, Expert Vladimir Yevseyev believes. The Democratic Party in the USA does not have the required majority, which would enable it to easily pass this treaty through the Senate. Besides , those of its representatives, who can present convincing arguments for its ratification, do not enjoy a sufficient authority to secure an easy passage of this document. Moreover, even those who earlier welcomed the signing of the new START Pact, at the moment do not have the required authority among the Congressmen. Taking all this into account, I think that the ratification of the new arms reduction treaty by the Americans will take time , Vladimir Yevseyev said. START will not pass now preelection campaign halts ratification Vyacheslav Solovyov 5/18/ 2010 (Vyacheslav, writer for the Voice of Russia, Russian government international radio broadcasting service, Russia urges rapid ratification of STAR, The Voice of Russia, http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/06/18/10107488.html) Given that the new START Treaty is in line with Russia's national interests, its ratification will be just a matter of time, Kosachev argues. As for the Treaty's ratification by the US Senate, Kosachev remained cautious ly optimistic. We hail the Senate's drive to grapple with the issue, Kosachev says, citing an upcoming preelection campaign in the US, which he warns may significantly stall the ratification process. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 156/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSREPUBLICANS START Won't Pass the Republicans are going to kill it Young Turks 6/22/2010 (2009 Winner best political podcast and political news site) " It's True: Conservatives want START Stopped" http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2010/6/22/0942/67147/Diary/ItsTrueConservativeswantSTARTStopped It appears that conservatives in the Senate are gearing to kill the new START treaty signed by President Obama in Prague this year. The treaty, though not perfect, would continue a system of verifications and inspections that ended in December of 2009. The new START treaty is not foolproof, but it's the best we have in making solid agreements toward disarmamament. However, conservatives in the Republican Party are throwing in their lot to kill the new START treaty in the Senate. To pass a treaty into law, you need 67 Senate votes. In order to get START into law is to gain the votes of at least 7 Republicans. Though if conservatives get their way, START will be killed. If so, then the US and Russia will have no agreement on disarmament, and no verification system of any kind to check the status of the nuclear stockpile. Yet, conservatives don't seem to mind this at all. START won't pass faces republican opposition The AFP 5/28/2010 (Agence FrancePresse, nonprofit French news authority, "START places no limit on US missile defense: Clinton, Gates," Google News, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gNP_Wfc_wblNu6m18FXsIUm7q6Qw) But the treaty must be ratified by the Senate, where it faces Republican opposition. Republican Senator Bob Corker expressed skepticism, saying Moscow had a different interpretation of how the treaty applied to missile defense. " Shouldn't it trouble us that, before we ever get started, that each of the countries has a very different opinion of what we've negotiated as it relates to missile defense?" Corker said. Russia has said it reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if Washington presses ahead with missile defense systems in a way that Moscow opposes. But Gates dismissed concerns about Russian opposition, saying Moscow has always objected to antimissile programs. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 157/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW WON'T PASSRUSSIA Won't passRepublicans in Congress and Communists in Moscow disagree over missile defense GSN 625 [Risen, Staff Writer, "Obama Nuclear Agenda Faces PostSTART Obstacles", http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100617_8083.php] Republicans in Congress are not the only roadblock to Obama's agenda to phase out nuclear weapons. Communist Party politicians in Russia have also opposed strategic arsenal reduction under New START and, like Republicans, are concerned that language on missile defense in the agreement could degrade their nation's nuclear deterrent. Moscow has reserved the right to withdraw from the treaty if leaders there determine U.S. plans for a missile defense shield could render their strategic arsenal inferior. "It's so amusing that the analog of the conservative wing of the Republican Party are the hardline communists in Russia," Oelrich said. "We need relationships with the Russians since the world's nuclear weapons are by far concentrated between our two nations. Along with arms reduction we're in a position to deal with other countries like Iran that are trying to go nuclear." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 158/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW AT: TOP OF THE DOCKETUS START treaty is not at the top of the docket, it will take until at least August Daily Nation, 6/20 (Daily Nation "Arms Treaty stuck in US Senate" June 20, 2010. http://www.nation.co.ke/News/world/Arms%20treaty %20stuck%20in%20US%20Senate//1068/942806//vjg9rv//) It may take the American Senate until August or September to ratify the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 8. But, there is hope to complete the ratification process before the November Congressional elections. A statement to that effect came from Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller. Texts of the treaty have already been submitted for ratification to the Russian Federal Assembly and the US Congress. The document should be approved by both houses of Russian Parliament and the US Senate, and that makes the world keep an eye on any statements concerning the possible ratification dates. As agreed by the two countries' Presidents, Moscow and Washington will synchronise the ratification process. Despite all controversies surrounding the treaty, it has won major political about a third. Specifically, it fixes a ceiling for each country of 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 deployed nuclear delivery vehicles. Some top support in Russia, making people generally unconcerned about the document's passage through the country's Parliament. Still, lawmakers worldwide will monitor the fate of the new START Treaty in Washington. The treaty cuts the total number of nuclear weapons held by the United States and Russia by Senate Republicans, however, have expressed scepticism about the accord, arguing it ties the US hand in developing a missile defence system. The treaty needs 67 votes in the Senate to be ratified. The situation is quite different in the United States, despite all pledges by Ms Gottemoeller to urge ratification of the agreement. The biggest challenge is to persuade Senators that it imposes no constraints on the development of the American ABM system, she quoted US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as saying. Are laid down But provisions concerning the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms are laid down in the preamble to the document. Besides, Russia stated it would withdraw from the treaty if the US air defence shield threatens its national security. Presidents Medvedev and Obama have agreed to consider this offensivedefensive link at their first meeting on the issue. Statements by American military and diplomats indicate their intention to remove all doubts and eventually achieve START Treaty ratification. But, Washington should have no illusions that the document will give it a free hand in unilaterally establishing a global ABM system, if it comes into force. Russia, America and Europe have to jointly solve the problem of creating a common missile defence shield. START treaty is not at the top of the docket. There are more important issues in the squo (oil spill) RT, 6/18 (RT is a website that writes extensively on both top stories in the world and politics. "US Congress likely to vote on START by November" June 18, 2010. http://rt.com/Top_News/20100618/uscongressvotestart.html jdb) The United States and Russia signed the New START treaty two months ago; however the US Senate has yet to ratify the treaty. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by both US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Prague on April 8, 2010. One of the primary focuses of the treaty is the reduction in nuclear arms. The Senate was expected to approve the treaty in June. " I don't think that we should be terribly concerned. This is not a long time for it to be considered. You have to also remember the Senate has a lot of other things on its plate ," said Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists. He explained that the Senate is also working on other matters, including Iran sanction, the BP oil spill and economic issues. Senator John Kerry said he wants a vote in committee before congress leave for vacation in August. The Senate would then hold a vote when they returned, likely before the November elections. " One of the things that is not clear is how the Republicans are going to respond to this and how they are going to react ," said Oelrich. In the past the Republicans have voted in favor of similar treaties, however it remains unseen whether this will become a political issue."If the Republicans decide that they're going to make this a party issue, the treaty is dead. If they decide to vote on it on its merits than the treaty will pass ," said Oelrich. Oelrich thinks it is unlikely, but not impossible that the Republicans will turn the New Start Treaty into a partisan issue. If they do however, he argues that it would have a "devastating" effect on USRussia relations. The American population, in large part, is unaware of the New START Treaty, what it is and what it does."I think it is because there is this presumption that when the Cold War ended between the US and the Soviet Union, and then Russia, that people just seemed to imagine that all of these nuclear weapons just magically went away," said Oelrich. Oelrich explains that Americans are more concerned and aware of North Korea and Iran, but they are unaware the US and Russia still control over 95% of the world's nuclear weapons. Speaking on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, Oelrich argued that the US needs a new mechanism for engagement. "We have to offer Iran an escape route and I don't think that we have done that yet. We have to give them a face saving way to back down," said Oelrich. Obama is waiting until August or November to push START O'Brien 6/10 (Michael O'Brien is a reporter for The Hill. "Senate panel hopes to send START treaty to floor before August" June 10, 2010. http://thehill.com/blogs/blogbriefingroom/news/102479senatepanelhopestosendstarttreatytofloorbeforeaugust) Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 159/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is planning a vote on a nuclear arms reduction treaty before the August congressional recess. Committee Chairman John Kerry (DMass.) and Sen. Richard Lugar (RInd.), the ranking member of the panel, announced a second series of hearings on Thursday with an aim toward holding a committee vote on ratifying the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) before the Senate breaks for August. "It is imperative that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee act expeditiously to move the New START Treaty to the Senate floor," Kerry said in a statement. " We plan to hold a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the New START Treaty prior to the August recess and are confident that our colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting the treaty to strengthen our national security." The treaty between the United States and Russia was signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in early April to replace an earlier iteration of the agreement, which would reduce each nation's nuclear stockpile. Obama has pushed the Senate to ratify the agreement before the November elections , but the 67vote threshold for ratification could prove difficult . Senators in both parties have warned the votes may not be there, and that the treaty may have to be punted until next year. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 160/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW AT: TOP OF THE DOCKETRUSSIA START is not on the top Duma's docket Itar Tass, 6/17 (Itar Tass is a Russian news agency. "START ratification is not on agenda in spring session Gryzlov" June 17, 2010. http://www.itartass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15234897&PageNum=0) The speaker of Russia's State Duma, Boris Gryzlov, confirms that the question of ratifying the new START is not on the agenda of the spring session. "We continue the procedures, and as far as the ratification is concerned, we shall try to make it synchronically," he said. "First of all, over the spring session this matter will not be on the agenda of a plenary session." "I do not think we shall have to organise an additional plenary session," he said. "So this will be a question for the autumn session's consideration." The State Duma's relevant committees, on defence and international affairs, will start a discussion of the treaty on Thursday. The US Congress will follow suit on Thursday, too. The treaty was signed by presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in Prague on April 8. The two leaders agreed to synchronise the process of its ratification. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 161/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW START INEVITABLEPROVISIONS Obama will enforce START provisionally even if the Senate refuses to ratify ABC News 2009 (Jake Tapper, "USRussian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun" Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for 7/5/ Treaty", http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/usrussianarmsnegotiatorsunderthegunmighttemporarilybypasssenateratificationfor treaty.html) With the clock running out on a new USRussian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate's constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a "provisional basis" until the Senate ratifies the treaty. "The most ideal situation would be to finish it in time that it could be submitted to the Senate so that it can be ratified ," said White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control Gary Samore. "If we're not able to do that, we'll have to look at arrangements to continue some of the inspection provisions, keep them enforced in a provisional basis, while the Senate considers the treaty Samore said administration lawyers are exploring the "different options that are available. One option is that both sides could agree to continue ." the inspections by executive agreement; that would work on our side. On the Russian side, as I understand it, that would require Duma approval." ***INTERNAL LINKS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 162/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY Political Capital is key Obama needs to find 67 The Hill 6/10/10 [http://thehill.com/blogs/blogbriefingroom/news/102479senatepanelhopestosend starttreatytofloorbeforeaugust, "Senate Panel hopes to send START treaty to floor before august", by Michael O'Brien] "It is imperative that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee act expeditiously to move the New START Treaty to the Senate floor," Kerry said in a statement. "We plan to hold a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the New START Treaty prior to the August recess and are confident that our colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting the treaty to strengthen our national security." The treaty between the United States and Russia was signed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in early April to replace an earlier iteration of the agreement, which would reduce each nation's nuclear stockpile. Obama has pushed the Senate to ratify the agreement before the November elections, but the 67vote threshold for ratification could prove difficult. Senators in both parties have warned the votes may not be there, and that the treaty may have to be punted until next year. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 163/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW REPUBLICANS KEY The GOP are behind START now but that could change GOP support is key to passage Global Security Newswire 6/25/2010 [http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100617_8083.php, "Obama nuclear Agenda faces post START obstacles" Tom Risen] Ratification of the arms control deal would require 67 Senate votes, eight of which would have to come from Republicans assuming the vote occurs before the next Congress takes over in January 2011. Observers believe the Senate is likely to sign off on the deal, but the same cannot be assured if the administration then pursues ratification of the test ban treaty, further cuts to the arsenal or other initiatives. Former President Bill Clinton signed the test ban but in 1999 could not collect sufficient support for the pact in the Senate, where Kyl and other lawmakers argued that testing could be necessary to ensure a reliable nuclear deterrent . The Obama administration has pledged to bring the pact back to the congressional body, though the New START comes first. The White House, though, is "already scarred from some heavy political fights," said Matthew Rojansky, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He compared Obama's challenges on nuclear weapons policy to Clinton's failed attempt to court a Republican majority in a similarly "hyper partisan Congress." GOP is key to getting 67 votes to ratify start Xinhua news 6/18/10 [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/201006/18/c_13355804.htm," Clinton Urges U.S. Senate to Ratify Nuclear Arms Treaty"] WASHINGTON, June 17 (Xinhua) U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday urged the Senate to ratify the new nuclear arms treaty reached with Russia, trying hard to ease the Republican concerns that it might hamper U.S. missile defense buildup Clinton made the testament before the Senate Armed Services Committee, alongside . Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen. The Russian government had said that it reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty if it feels threatened by U.S. missile defense system, which has raised concerns among Republicans . But Clinton argued that "a unilateral statement made by Russia concerning missile defense does not limit or constrain our missile defense efforts." She said a U.S. statement on the treaty made it clear that "the United States intends to continue improving and deploying its missiledefense systems in order to defend itself against limited attack." Clinton strongly believed that the new treaty will make U.S. " more secure" and urged the Senate to ratify it "expeditiously." U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the new nuclear arms treaty on April 8 which replaces the START treaty that has expired in December. Under the new pact, the two countries agreed to reduce their deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 each, or 30 percent below the current level of 2,200. The Democrats need support from the Republicans as the treaty needs 67 votes from the Senate to be ratified. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 164/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW REPUBLICANS KEY (GENERIC) Republicans have the ability to block even bipartisan billsthey're key to the agenda Pierce 2009 ( Emily Pierce, Roll Call Staff Writer, Roll Call News Online, "Majority Ready For a Long Year" , June, 25, 2009 http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_152/news/362761.html?page=2 ) Democrats said this week that they have been stunned by GOP objections to moving largely noncontroversial, bipartisan items such as a travel promotion bill and the appropriations bill that funds Congress. On Wednesday, move on him more quickly. Republicans said they are not necessarily trying to stop Democrats from passing their Democrats, with a handful of Republicans, broke an attempted GOPled filibuster of a lowerlevel State Department nominee. But aides said they do not believe they will be able to actually confirm Harold Koh to be State's legal counsel until late today because Republicans are objecting to a proposal to agenda -- and so far they haven't, considering the GOP has prevailed on just two of 18 attempted filibusters this year. "That's the narrative they want to play out: `Republicans are trying to delay and obstruct,'" Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) said. "I would attribute it more not to the desire of Republicans to slow things down, but to the Democrats' desire to just jam us and ram a lot of this agenda through without much deliberation." Still, there's little question that a handful of conservative Republicans -- such as Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.), David Vitter (La.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) -- have used timeconsuming Senate rules to their advantage this year. If just one Senator objects to bringing up or ending debate on a measure, the process to break the blockade could take a week or more to resolve, even when Democrats clearly have the 60 votes needed to beat back a filibuster. Democrats say GOP obstruction throughout the year threatens to eat up the time the chamber has to finish the 12 spending bills that fund the federal government. "If they're going to object to the legislative [branch] appropriations bill, which is noncontroversial, then they're pushing this to an omnibus appropriation, which they will then criticize because we didn't go through the regular process," Durbin said. "It's unfortunate. It's hard enough to get these things done with the Senate rules, but if the minority refuses to cooperate it makes it very difficult." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 165/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PROLIF MODULE START arms reductions key to stopping prolif Pifer 2008 [Steven Pifer, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, is a retired foreign service officer who worked on Russia and arms control, Boston Globe, June 9, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/09/traveling_the_road_to_nuclear_reduction/]) Second, by proposing and negotiating major cuts in US and Russian nuclear weapons, the next administration will restore US leadership in the nonproliferation field. Washington currently seems content with its large nuclear inventory, and has sought new nuclear weapons, such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This undermines US efforts to dissuade other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons or nuclear weaponsrelated technology. Moving to slash US and Russian nuclear arsenals will give the next president's diplomacy greater authority to press other states and to secure help from third countries in pressing others to forgo the nuclear path. Further spread of nukes collapse the international order and alliance relationships deterrence will breakdown because no one will know who is responsible for deterring who Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, 11/8/04, Newsweek, p. lexis While militant Islam is the most immediate and obvious challenge to international order, nuclear proliferation is the most longrange and insidious threat to global survival. Heretofore nuclear weapons have spread relatively slowly and remained in the possession of countries with everything to lose and nothing to gain from assaulting the international order. But the international system is now confronted by the imminent spread of nuclear weapons into the hands of two countries with a worrisome agenda: the odd, isolated regime in North Korea, which is responsible for multiple assassinations and kidnappings and meets every definition of a rogue regime; and Iran, whose current regime started by holding American diplomats as hostages and has since supported a variety of terrorist groups in the Middle East and continues to declare America its principal enemy. The possession of nuclear weapons by these countries would constitute a momentous step towards stripping the international order of the remaining restraints of the Westphalian system . Deterrence will lose its traditional meaning even with respect to statetostate relations. With such a variety of nuclear powers, it will no longer be clear who is responsible for deterring whom and by what means. Secondorder issues can escalate into nuclear conflict. The possibilities of miscalculation grow. Even if the new nuclear countries do not use their weapons, they can become a shield behind which to step up terrorist challenges. Finally, the experience with the socalled "private" distribution of Pakistan's nuclear technology to other countries shows that this may be the last moment to keep proliferation from spinning out of control. North Korea is so short of foreign exchange that its diplomats often revert to counterfeit currency; it might find the temptation to trade nuclear material for foreign exchange irresistible. In Iran, extremist elements have frequently demonstrated their ability to find specious Islamic justification for unconscionable acts in support of terrorism. ***START GOOD IMPACTS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 166/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW START solves prolif, accidents and nuclear war Malin 2008 [Martin B. Malin is the executive director of the Managing the Atom Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, Washington Times, Sept 23, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/23/us russiamustunitetolessennucleardangers/] extend important strategic arms verification measures, which will expire if no action is taken. Moscow has been eager to extend these Third, U.S.Russian arms reductions are a vital means of mitigating nuclear dangers . The United States thus far has refused to procedures and is willing to discuss further nuclear arms reductions. Deep cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, when carried out responsibly, reduce the risk of accidents, weaken incentives for other states to arm, and enhance the credibility of PROLIF/ACCIDENTS/DETERRENCE MODULE U.S. pleas for tighter nonproliferation rules worldwide. Russia's willingness to continue to shrink arsenals jointly may not continue if the next U.S. president enters office on a platform of confronting Russia in the Caspian Sea region and beyond. Preventing nuclear terrorism, halting nuclear proliferation and reducing nuclear arsenals are not "if we get to it" issues. Prompt action can make a major difference and inaction can result in a worldshaking disaster. Russia is not only a necessary partner in progress on these issues: It is a willing partner, despite recent tensions . Campaign rhetoric that bashes Russia and ignores our common interests should cease. Instead, let's hear more from each candidate about how he will reengage Russia to tackle the nuclear dangers that lie before us. Further spread of nukes collapse the international order and alliance relationships deterrence break down Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state, 11/8/04, Newsweek, p. lexis While militant Islam is the most immediate and obvious challenge to international order, nuclear proliferation is the most longrange and insidious threat to global survival. Heretofore nuclear weapons have spread relatively slowly and remained in the possession of countries with everything to lose and nothing to gain from assaulting the international order. But the international system is now confronted by the imminent spread of nuclear weapons into the hands of two countries with a worrisome agenda: the odd, isolated regime in North Korea, which is responsible for multiple assassinations and kidnappings and meets every definition of a rogue regime; and Iran, whose current regime started by holding American diplomats as hostages and has since supported a variety of terrorist groups in the Middle East and continues to declare America its principal enemy. The possession of nuclear weapons by these countries would constitute a momentous step towards stripping the international order of the remaining restraints of the Westphalian system . Deterrence will lose its traditional meaning even with respect to statetostate relations. With such a variety of nuclear powers, it will no longer be clear who is responsible for deterring whom and by what means. Secondorder issues can escalate into nuclear conflict. The possibilities of miscalculation grow. Even if the new nuclear countries do not use their weapons, they can become a shield behind which to step up terrorist challenges. Finally, the experience with the socalled "private" distribution of Pakistan's nuclear technology to other countries shows that this may be the last moment to keep proliferation from spinning out of control. North Korea is so short of foreign exchange that its diplomats often revert to counterfeit currency; it might find the temptation to trade nuclear material for foreign exchange irresistible. In Iran, extremist elements have frequently demonstrated their ability to find specious Islamic justification for unconscionable acts in support of terrorism. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 167/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NPT ARTICLE VI MODULE START sends a positive signal and revitalizes the NPT solves cascading prolif China Daily 1142010, NONPROLIFERATION ONUS IS ON MAJOR NUCLEAR STATES, Lexis With by far the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, the US and Russia have the prime responsibility of taking the lead in disarmament. Hopefully, they will ensure that their disarmament process is verifiable and irreversible and that their dismantled weapons are destroyed and not turned into stockpiles. Any new nuclearweapon reduction treaty should have a strict verification mechanism, and it is important that the major nuclear powers conduct meaningful strategic dialogues to enhance mutual trust. If Russia and the US can send a clear signal to the world that they are serious about disarmament by signing a new pact to reduce their Cold War stockpiles, the NPT will get a new lease on life when its 189 signatories gather to discuss ways of plugging what some see as dangerous loopholes. More importantly, the nonproliferation review conference will be a test: whether the progress in START1 can be used for a renewed grand bargain between nuclear and nonnuclear countries. Many NPT signatories would like the review conference to call for universality of the treaty meaning Israel, Pakistan and India should be pressured to sign it and destroy any warheads they might have build. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and tested nuclear devices in 2006 and again earlier last year. Western powers would also like this year's NPT review to agree on a plan of action for strengthening the treaty to make it harder for countries like Iran and the DPRK to acquire sensitive technology and the capability to make nuclear weapons. But rich and poor nations have been at loggerheads over the issue for years. Poor states accuse the big powers of maintaining a monopoly on nuclear technology and want that to end. Wealthy states worry about the threat of nuclear arms races in Asia and in the Middle East, where Israel is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal, although it does not acknowledge it. They fear that a resurgence of atomic energy across the world will increase nuclear proliferation risks. The balance of the bargain will be debated in the nonproliferation review conference, which hopefully will work out effective measures and reach some substantial agreements. The atmosphere at the last preparatory conference was cooperative, though the underlying risks of paralyzing disputes remain high. But no matter what the outcome of the review conference is, it will still be important for nuclear states to cooperate in maintaining and strengthening nonproliferation unless the world is prepared to accept unchecked cascades of proliferation that could lead to global nuclear anarchy. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 168/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NUKE TERRORISM MODULE START solves nuclear terrorism John Isaacs 09 [http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/how_the_new_start_treaty_increases_us_s ecurity/, John Isaacs is the Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation where his work focuses on national security issues in Congress, Iraq, missile defense, and nuclear weapons. Isaacs has published articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear Times, Arms Control Today, American Journal of Public Health, and Technology Review."How the New Start Treaty Increases U.S. Security"] Moreover, the U.S. will still be able to maintain a robust and flexible nuclear deterrent. Without a new treaty the U.S. would have far less confidence in its ability to limit and monitor Russia's still enormous nuclear arsenal New START will help strengthen cooperative efforts to reduce . the risk of nuclear terrorism. Together the U.S. and Russia possess some 23,000 nuclear weapons, about 95 percent of all those in the world. Designed for the Cold War, such massive arsenals are useless against current threats like terrorism. Verifiable U.S. and Russian nuclear reductions combined with other measures to control and secure Russian nuclear warheads and eliminate retired Russian delivery systems and vulnerable weaponsgrade material will reduce the risk that weapons or materials could be stolen and used in a nuclear terrorist attack. A terrorist attack escalates to a global nuclear exchange Speice 06 [Speice 06 06 JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary [Patrick F. Speice, Jr., "NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS," William & Mary Law Review, February 2006, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427] Accordingly, there is a significant and everpresent risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Sovietera nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supplyside controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large militaryindustrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a fullscale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States , 52 and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons . 53 Turns the casetriggers all impact scenarios Zedillo 06 [Ernesto Zedillo, Former President of Mexico Director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, FORBES, January 9, 2006, p. 25] terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge Even if you agree with what's being done in the war on terror, you still could be upset about what's not happening: doing the utmost to prevent a terrorist nuclear attack. We all should have a pretty clear idea of what would follow a nuclear weapon's detonation in any of the world's major cities. Depending on the potency of the device the loss of life could be in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions), the destruction of property in the trillions of dollars, the escalation in conflicts and violence uncontrollable, the erosion of authority and government unstoppable and the disruption of global trade and finance unprecedented. In short, we could practically count on the beginning of another dark age. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 169/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Reductions in weapons are key to prevent nuclear terrorism Levy 2004 [Daniel, Stanford News Service, March 7, http://newsservice.stanford.edu/pr/2004/drell2004.html] "There will be terrorist nuclear explosions in cities in the next years," Garwin asserted, presenting a scenario with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people. "It shouldn't be imagined that a nuclear weapon made by terrorists, EXT: NUKE TERRORISM maybe with some advice from others and using highly enriched uranium metal, would have a low yield. It could perfectly well have a full yield of 10,000 tons of high explosive."Reducing the odds of such an attack will require better control of highly enriched uranium235 and plutonium, the fissile materials from which nuclear weapons are made, Garwin said. It will require expanded intelligence capacity, from better infiltration of terrorist groups to improved detection of smuggled weaponsgrade uranium and plutonium. And it will require a rapid and serious reduction of nuclear inventories, especially in the United States and Russia, to reduce the risk of security breaches. "We need to spend a lot more money [on nonproliferation]," Garwin said. "Compare the billion dollars a year spent on the NunnLugar Cooperative Threat Reduction [Program] with the $87 billion appropriation a few months ago for a year of war in Iraq a war which was held by the possibility of weapons of mass destruction. But these are real weapons of mass destruction that we aretalking about here." Shrinking the stockpile to reduce risks In nature, only seventenths of one percent of uranium occurs in the 235 form; the rest occurs as uranium238. Enriching material with uranium235 allows its use in nuclear power reactors, which provide about 17 percent of the world's electricity, and in weapons. In comparison, plutonium for weapons is made from uranium in nuclear reactors. Garwin, who with Nobel Prize winner Georges Charpak wrote the 2001 book Megawatts and Megatons: A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age?, said he generally favors nuclear power. But he warned of a dangerous connection between it and nuclear weapons proliferation. States desiring nuclear weapons often choose a line of nuclear power reactors that allow them to get their hands on enriched uranium or separated plutonium, he said. In fact, President Bush has proposed that many countries not have the full fuel cycle. Operators would use reactors to produce power but forgo reprocessing, which could produce potential bomb material.Because the United States and Russia maintain the largest stockpiles, arms reductions among them could have the largest ripple effect in reducing risks. "The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the half of it that constitutes Russia and has all the nuclear weapons is not our enemy," Garwin said. "In fact, they are our friends. We have some difficulties with those particular friends, but we have difficulties with some friends. However, nobody believes that Russia is going intentionally to launch nuclear weapons against the United States or we will launch ours against them." Nevertheless, he said, we maintain thousands of nuclear weapons ready to launch at a moment's notice simply because the other side has the capability to do the same . "The fact that we have no interest in such a strike doesn't cut any ice in this calculus," he said.Garwin recommended reduction from more than 10,000 weapons each to 2,000 . Such reductions look like sacrifices but really are in our national interests, he said. Eventually the number may limbo to 1,000 each "enough for any conceivable purpose." Garwin said he couldn't see getting rid of all nuclear weapons. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 170/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW SOLVES TNWS START is key to other arms control agreements sets the framework for TNW removal CNN Politics 322010; U.S. official: START replacement agreement possible by April,http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/02/russia.u.s.arms.talks/ Both sides are aware that times have changed and the Cold War is over. The U.S. official said one inspector on the Russian team pointed out that oncesensitive information, like the location of Russia's strategic forces, is available to anyone by doing a simple Web search. A key point of the agreement already has been worked out: reducing the number of allowable deployed strategic warheads on each side. The United States currently has approximately 2,200 strategic deployed warheads; Russia has an estimated 2,500. Under the new agreement, each side would be allowed between 1,500 and 1,675 nuclear warheads. The treaty also limits the number of "delivery vehicles" the strategic bombers and missiles that has an estimated 600. For the American side, President Obama will have the final word on the precise numbers within those parameters . The carry those warheads to between 500 and 1,100 for each side. The current limit is 1,600 but the United States actually has 900 delivery vehicles. Russia Bush administration downplayed the need for a formal arms control agreement and the U.S. official said, "The amount of disconnectedness" between the two sides "at the end of the last administration was just incredible." The talks, however, have been a "revelation" and a "surprise," the officials said, setting the stage for even further arms reductions. This will help, the official said, after the replacement agreement to START is finished, when negotiators will tackle more thorny issues like nondeployed warheads kept in storage, tactical nuclear weapons and further cuts in missiles and launch vehicles. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 171/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW A U.S.Russian nuclear war is the ONLY scenario for extinction other nuclear wars won't cause it Nick Bostrom, Ph.D. and Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, March 20 02, Journal of Evolution and Technology, Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards EXT: RUSSIAN WAR IMPACT (BOSTROM) A much greater existential risk emerged with the buildup of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind's potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21 st century. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 172/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW START solves relations leads to cooperation over all issues Pifer 2008 [Steven Pifer, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, is a retired foreign service officer who worked on Russia and arms control, EXT: RELATIONS Boston Globe, June 9, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/09/traveling_the_road_to_nuclear_reduction/] Third, returning to arms control is not just about arms control. It could prove key to reestablishing a better relationship with Moscow. Russia wants further strategic reductions and values a formal arms dialogue with Washington, if for no other reason than it acknowledges its place as a nuclear superpower on par with the United States. By reengaging the Russians on nuclear weapons cuts, the next president can provide a positive boost to the broader relationship, now at its lowest point since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. President Ronald Reagan skillfully made arms reductions a central element of a broader USSoviet agenda, recognizing that the Kremlin's interest in arms control created opportunities to pursue other questions such as human rights. The strategy worked: as Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev banned mediumrange missiles and narrowed differences over strategic weapons, parallel discussions won exit permission for Soviet dissidents and secured more helpful Soviet approaches on issues such as the Middle East peace process. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton likewise gave arms control special attention in dealing with Moscow, producing the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty and denuclearizing the former Soviet states except Russia. Arms control progress contributed to positive relations, with significant payoffs: Russia went along with German reunification; withdrew its forces from Central Europe; lent diplomatic support to the United States during the 199091 Persian Gulf crisis; and cooperated with the United States and NATO in ending the Bosnia conflict. Linking strategic arms cuts directly to Russian concessions on other issues would probably fail. But the next administration should be able to employ deft diplomacy and a restored nuclear arms dialogue to give the broader relationship a more positive tenor and carve out space to make progress on other questions, as well as to reduce the nuclear threat. START is key to relations Kimball 2008 [Daryl, Arms Control Association Executive Director, Arms Control Today, November, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_11/focus] Worse still, the White House and the Kremlin have failed to come to terms on a followon to START, which is due to expire in December 2009 . Without START's farreaching verification system, neither side would be able to confidently assess the size and location of the other's nuclear forces, adding another dangerous irritant to strained U.S.Russian relations. The new president can and must do better. With the START deadline looming, his administration must work expeditiously with Russia to negotiate and conclude an agreement to dramatically and irreversibly cut their stillbloated nuclear stockpiles. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 173/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: RELATIONS/AT: CAUSES DETERRENCE FAILURE AND ALLIED PROLIF START is the cornerstone in U.S. Russian relations and does not affect deterrence and allied prolif IEncyclopedia 6/17/10 [http://live.iencyclopedia.org/2010/06/newstartenhancesusrussianrelations.html, "New START Enhances U.S. Russian Relations" iencyclopedia is a compendium of online news articles] Washington A new nuclear arms reduction treaty will foster a stable, open and predictable relationship between the United States and Russia , who together possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, top leaders in the Obama administration say. At a Senate hearing June 17, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Prague April 8, reduces global nuclear tensions and enhances efforts to make irresponsible governments accountable to the rest of the world. "By bringing the New START Treaty into force, we will strengthen our national security more broadly, including by creating greater leverage to tackle a core national security challenge: nuclear proliferation," Clinton told a Senate committee. The treaty does not compromise nuclear force levels needed to protect the United States and its allies, and it does not constrain missiledefense plans, Clinton added. Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the arms control pact. The treaty replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the 2002 Moscow Treaty. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, reminded committee members that the U.S. Senate has previously approved 10 bilateral arms control agreements with Russia and, before that, the Soviet Union, by overwhelming margins. Approval of the treaty by the U.S. Senate requires a vote of two thirds of the membership, or 67 votes. The Russian Duma must also approve the treaty. "This New START Treaty supports a credible nuclear deterrent and maintains the nuclear triad while allowing both the United States and Russia to reduce the total number of nuclear weapons," Levin said. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 174/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: RELATIONS AND NUKE TERRORISM START is key to stopping nuclear terrorism and improving bilateral relations and ending North Korea and Irans nuclear programs Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation July 6th 2009 [http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/070609_decrease_stockpiles_increase_sec urity/. "Decrease Stockpiles, Increase security" By: Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.) is Chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation where his work focuses on nuclear nonproliferation, missile defense, Iraq, Afghanistan, military policy, nuclear terrorism, and related national security issues. Gard has written for wellknown periodicals that focus on military and international affairs and lectured widely at U.S. and international universities and academic conferences. Travis Sharp is the Military Policy Analyst at the Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation. He has published articles on defense policy in scholarly journals, internet magazines, and local newspapers, and has appeared on or been quoted in media venues such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, CNN, and Al Jazeera.] This week in Moscow, Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev are holding a summit meeting that will heavily influence the next decade of U.S.Russian relations. If the two leaders strike up a personal and political rapport, it could unfreeze a relationship that became icy in the final years of the Bush and Putin administrations. If the summit produces less favorable results, it could intensify mistrust and leave several foreign policy wounds to fester . The most important agenda item at the summit is the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a 1991 agreement that reduced deployed U.S. and Russian strategic warheads by 40 percent, cut bombers and missiles, and included thorough verification measures. Since START expires in December, Obama and Medvedev are racing against the clock to negotiate a followon agreement. Unfortunately, the political momentum for this agreement has been hindered by other concerns, including congressional Republicans' worries that the U.S. missile defense site in Europe might be traded away during negotiations. Both Obama and Medvedev have stated that this round of negotiations will not deal with missile defense, however, so Republicans' criticism is unfounded and should not distract the American public from the compelling need for a successor agreement to follow START. The only appropriate mission for our nuclear weapons is to deter the use of nuclear weapons against us and our allies. Yet this concept of deterrence does not apply to terrorists, whose willingness to commit suicide in pursuit of fanatical objectives and lack of a fixed geographical territory that the United States can retaliate against make them immune to traditional deterrence strategies . In fact, the massive U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, comprising some 95 percent of the total global stockpile, actually increase the risk that terrorists could steal the materials necessary for a crude but devastating nuclear attack on U.S. soil. Besides reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism, a START followon agreement would bring the United States and Russia back into the habit of working together. Improved bilateral relations might lead to breakthroughs on other important issues. For instance, Russia might be persuaded to take a stronger stance against North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs. Efforts to disrupt terrorist financing operations could be expanded. And Russian energy supplies, so crucial to European markets, could be shielded from the volatility that accompanies disagreements and conflicts between the United States and Russia. In the United States, there is overwhelming bipartisan support for stepbystep nuclear weapons reductions. Republicans in favor of the effort include such luminaries as Senator John McCain, Senator Dick Lugar, Henry Kissinger, former Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz, former Reagan Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, and former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker. These aren't woollyheaded academics or nave idealists. These are men who have devoted their lives to protecting the security of the United States. Their support for a START follow on agreement demonstrates the advantages and widespread support the initiative enjoys. Mutual arms reductions have a long and proud history that stretches back into the darkest days of the Cold War. Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who no one could accuse of being soft on Communism, frequently signed arms control agreements with the Soviet Union to foster stability and control the arms race. The same rationale motivates President Obama today, except that the need for tighter controls over nuclear stockpiles is even greater in this age of new and dangerous threats. With a nuclear arsenal that, even after a START followon agreement, will still be able to wreak incalculable havoc at the press of a button, the United States is in no danger of losing its military dominance anytime soon. Reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles will make both countries safer by lessening the threat of nuclear terrorism and reviving a cooperative relationship between the two nations. It is imperative that progress on these objectives be concluded in Moscow. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 175/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: RELATIONS AND NUKE TERRORISM START is key to improving U.S. Russian ties and stopping nuclear terrorism Kingston Reif June 8th 2009 [http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/060909_nukes_top_issue/ , "Nukes Remain Top Security Issue" Kingston Reif is the Director of Nuclear NonProliferation at the Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation, where his work focuses on arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear weapons, and preventing nuclear terrorism. He has published letters and articles on nuclear weapons policy in such venues as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, Survival, Defense News, and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.] But START expires on December 5, of this year, three years before the Moscow Treaty limit takes effect. Faced with the impending expiration of START, the Bush administration claimed that the United States and Russia no longer needed formal arms control agreements to manage their strategic relationship. In keeping with his campaign promise, President Barack Obama already has taken steps to reverse this approach. On April 1, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a joint statement in which they "agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a stepbystep process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with a new, legallybinding treaty." U.S. and Russian official pronouncements indicate that the followon agreement will call for reductions in deployed warheads below the level of the Moscow Treaty, perhaps in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 warheads. This renewal of the formal arms control process is important for three key reasons . First, together the United States and Russia possess some 20,000 nuclear weapons, about 95 percent of all these in the world. Designed for the Cold War, such massive arsenals don't help against current threats like terrorism. Today, more nuclear weapons mean more opportunities for accidents or theft. Second, though the United States and Russia have serious differences on several foreign policy issues, the formal arms control process can bring predictability and stability to U.S. Russian relations and greatly limit the incentives for renewed strategic competition. Third, deeper nuclear reductions can reinforce the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. Such demonstrations of good faith are essential for retaining the continued commitment of nonnuclear weapons states not to pursue nuclear arsenals. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 176/210 U.S. Russian relations are key to U.S. hegemony Simes 2003 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: RELATIONS KEY TO HEG [Dmitri, President of the Nixon Center, FDCH Political Testimony, 930] At the same time, U.S. leaders increasingly recognized the emerging, interrelated threats of terrorism and proliferation. Though policy makers and experts had devoted some attention to these issues earlier, the tragic events of September 11 rapidly crystallized American thinking about these threats and transformed the struggle to contain them into the principal aim of American foreign policy. Notwithstanding its diminished status and curtailed ambition, Russia has considerable influence in its neighborhood and a significant voice elsewhere as well. Moscow can contribute importantly to U.S. interests if it chooses to do so. Accordingly Russia can markedly decrease, or increase, the costs of exercising American leadership both directly (by assisting the United States, or not) and indirectly (by abetting those determined to resist, or not). US Hegemony is key to solve EVERY scenario for global conflict the alternative is nuclear war. Kagan 2k7 (Robert, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) End of Dreams, Return of History, 7/19/07, Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error, like all other nations, and because of its size and strict obeisance to international law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in the importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order, in which all the world 's powers would be peaceloving equals, conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in real world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world , therefore. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an Americandominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of a post American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington. The return of great powers and great games If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other. National ambition drives China's foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that power is pass; honor, and not just wealth and security, are important for a nation. Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring hence their now twodecadeslong military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including military power, is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that status and postmodern power with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers, is once again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian future looks more like Europe's past than its present. But it also looks like Asia's past. Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical, and typically Russian, blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad," and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia 's international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more traditional greatpower considerations, including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from NATO and the United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. It is the entire postCold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India 's regional ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 177/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW the United States. Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a panEuropean national ambition to play a significant role in the world, and it has become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans [CONTINUED] regard as a safe supranational direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role. Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam, including al Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect, including selfrespect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China had its "century of humiliation." Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which Israel has become the living symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and wouldbe nations is a second defining feature of the new postCold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying its regional as well as its global predominance . Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that 's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world 's great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 178/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene even if it remained the world's most powerful nation could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances It is also . [CONTINUED] optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "evenhanded" policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn 't change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability . In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 179/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: RELATIONS SOLVE INDO PAK, CHINA AND SPACE MIL U.S. Russian relations prevent Indo Pak war, china conflict and space militarization Levigold 2003 [Robert, National Interest, Winter 02/03] Additionally, without a great deal of imagination one can conjure renewed trouble over strategic military developments. This is and will remain a nuclear world. While U.S. attention is rightly focused these days on preventing outlaw states and groups from arming themselves with nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, ultimately the nuclear superstructure will be determined by the major nuclear powers. Currently, U.S. preponderance has permitted the United States to dictate the shape of the U.S.Russian nuclear relationship, and Putin has prudently bowed to an outcome he cannot prevent. In the process, he and parts of the Russian security establishment are coming to accept the possibility of working with the United States and its nato allies on the future role of missile defense. But these are opening gambits in an ongoing process, leading in unknown directionsprobably into space and the uncertainties that competition there will bring, and to a set of Chinese responses that will further complicate the IndoPakistani nuclear nexus and perhaps draw Japan across the nuclear threshold. The United States may for some time enjoy technological leads, permitting it by means of its own choosing to cope with the threats that lie ahead. In the modern era, however, history has been hard on states that assumed they could unilaterally impose a security order of their own devising and make it last. If, on the other hand, Russia is America's ally and not merely a reluctantly compliant foil, the United States would have much more leverage in designing a nuclear regime drained of competitive pressures among established nuclear powers, and thus more capable of circumscribing the behavior of new and wouldbe nuclear states. NUCLEAR WAR. FAI, 1 [Dr. Ghulam Nabi, Executive Director of the Washingtonbased Kashmiri American Council, "India Pakistan Summit and the Issue of Kashmir," aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed 7/8, Washington Times, http://www.pakistanlink.com/Letters/2001/July/13/05.html] The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclearcapable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cutoff Convention . Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 180/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: RELATIONS SOLVE CHINARUSSIA WAR U.S. Russian relations are key to reorienting the Russian military and preventing China Russo nuclear war Newsweek May 15 1995 "Russia," says Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, "is a big country." That it is; lop off the newly independent states born within the old Soviet husk and you've still got a lot left a highly educated work force sitting on top of some of the globe's most valuable resources. True, much of that vast territory has an awful climate (climate mattersfor different reasons than Russia's, it explains why Australia will never be a great power). But unlike India and China, two other "giant" states, Russia will be able to husband its vast resources without the additional strain of feeding and employingmore than a billion souls . It also, of course, is the only country that can launch a devastating nuclear attack on the United States. That kind of power demands respect. And sensitive handling. Stephen Sestanovich, head Russia watcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, argues that present U.S. policy is geared too much to "dismantling Russian military might" a policy that, since it breeds Russian resentment of Western meddling, is selfdefeating. "We have to reorient Russian power," says Sestanovich, "not eliminate it. Because we can't eliminate it." Indeed, Washington should prefer a strong Russia. A Russia so weak, for example, that it could not resist a Chinese land grab of its Far East without resorting to nuclear weapons is a 21stcentury nightmare. All this implies a close U.S. Russian relationship stretching into the future. American officials say it will be a "pragmatic" one, recognizing that Russian and U.S. national interests will sometimes collide. The danger, for the United States, is that a pragmatic relationship could be dominated by security issues. In Western Europe, some futurists say that in the coming decades Russia will talk to the United States about nuclear weapons but to the European Union about everything elsetrade, economic development and the rest. Russia China war ends in extinction Sharavin 2001 [Alexander, Director of the Institute for Military and Political Analysis, What the Papers Say, Oct 3] Chinese propaganda has constantly been showing us skyscrapers in free trade zones in southeastern China. It should not be forgotten, however, that some 250 to 300 million people live there, i.e. at most a quarter of China's population. A billion Chinese people are still living in misery. For them, even the living standards of a backwater Russian town remain inaccessibly high. They have absolutely nothing to lose. There is every prerequisite for "the final throw to the north." The strength of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (CPLA) has been growing quicker than the Chinese economy. A decade ago the CPLA was equipped with inferior copies of Russian arms from late 1950s to the early 1960s. However, through its own efforts Russia has nearly managed to liquidate its most significant technological advantage. Thanks to our zeal, from antique MiG21 fighters of the earliest modifications and S75 air defense missile systems the Chinese antiaircraft defense forces have adopted Su27 fighters and S300 air defense missile systems. China's air defense forces have received Tor systems instead of anti and Il28 airplanes with Su30 fighters, which are not yet available to the Russian Armed Forces ! Russia may face the "wonderful" aircraft guns which could have been used during World War II. The shock air force of our "eastern brethren" will in the near future replace antique Tu16 prospect of combating the Chinese army, which, if full mobilization is called, is comparable in size with Russia's entire population, which also has nuclear weapons (even tactical weapons become strategic if states have common borders) and would be absolutely insensitive to losses (even a loss of a few million of the servicemen would be acceptable for China). Such a war would be more horrible than the World War II. It would require from our state maximal tension, universal mobilization and complete accumulation of the army military hardware, up to the last tank or a plane, in a single direction (we would have to forget such "trifles" like Talebs and Basaev, but this does not guarantee success either). Massive nuclear strikes on basic military forces and cities of China would finally be the only way out, what would exhaust Russia's armament completely. We have not got another set of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarinebased missiles, whereas the general forces would be extremely exhausted in the border combats. In the long run, even if the aggression would be stopped after the majority of the Chinese are killed, our country would be absolutely unprotected against the "Chechen" and the "Balkan" variants both, and even against the first frost of a possible nuclear winter. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 181/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW RUSSIAN WAR MODULE ARMS CUTS PREVENT FULLSCALE U.S.RUSSIAN NUCLEAR WAR AND PROLIF WEINBERG 2004 (Steven, Nobel Prize winning physicist, Glory and Terror: The Growing Nuclear Danger p. 715) There is one possible use of a large American nuclear arsenal: to launch a preemptive attack against Russian strategic weapons. I say "Russian," because the large size of our arsenal would be irrelevant for a preemptive attack against any other power. If we ever found that a hostile "rogue" state were about to deploy a few dozen nucleararmed ICBMs, and if we could locate them, then they could be destroyed by only a tiny fraction of our nuclear arsenal , and in fact even by conventionally armed cruise missiles. On the other hand, even though we were unable to neutralize the Soviet deterrent during the cold war, now as Russian nuclear forces become increasingly immobile, with their missilelaunching submarines tied up at dockside and their landbased mobile ICBMs kept in fixed garrisons, our large nuclear arsenal may put Russian nuclear forces at risk of being destroyed by a preemptive US strike. In the letter of transmittal of the Nuclear Posture Review to Congress, Secretary Rumsfeld said that "the US will no longer plan, size, or sustain its forces as though Russia presented merely a smaller version of the threat posed by the former Soviet Union." But that appears to be just what we are doing. It might seem that the ability to launch a preemptive strike against Russian strategic nuclear forces is a good one to have, but in fact it poses enormous dangers, and to us as well as to Russia. The Russians can count missiles as well as we can, and as "prudent" defense planners they are likely to rate our chances of a successful preemptive attack more highly than we would. Even though they may understand that the US now has no plans for such a preemptive attack, they are bound to consider the possibility that this could change if relations between Russia and the US sour in the future. This possibility is likely to seem more probable if the US proceeds with a national missile defense, which might be perceived to have some effectiveness against a ragged Russian second strike, or if we follow the recommendation of the Nuclear Posture Review that the US should develop real time intelligence capabilities of a sort that would allow us to target even mobile Russian missiles on the road. The danger is not that the Russians will get angry with us, or plan to attack us. The danger is that they will quietly adopt a cheap and easy defense against a preemptive American attack, by keeping their forces on a hairtrigger alert. This presents the US with the threat of a largescale Russian attack by mistake during some future crisis ; for instance, the Russians may receive misleading warning of an imminent American attack and launch their own nuclear weapons before they can be destroyed on the ground. (According to Russian sources, it now takes fifteen seconds for the Russians to target their ICBMs, and then two to three minutes to carry out the launch.) This danger is exacerbated by the gradual decay of Russia's capabilities for surveillance of possible attacks and control of their own forces, a decay that has already led them on one occasion to mistake a Norwegian research rocket for an offensive missile launched from an American submarine in the Norwegian sea. For those who may think that this is a paranoid worry, perhaps left over from cold war movies like Fail Safe or Dr. Strangelove, is instructive to look back at mistakes made by American strategic forces during the Cuban missile crisis, the most dangerous crisis of the cold war: (1) On August 23, 1962, a navigational error led a B52 bomber on airborne alert--i.e., ready to retaliate if the US were attacked--which was supposed to be on a nonprovocative course heading over the Arctic Ocean toward Alaska, to head instead directly toward the Soviet Union. Its error was noticed when the bomber war only three hundred miles away from Soviet airspace. Despite this incident, and the wellknown difficulties of navigation above the Arctic Circle, the routes of US bombers on airborne alert were not changed for months, not until after the October missile crisis. Luckily no similar navigational errors were made by our bombers during the missile crisis. (2) On October 26, 1962, when US and Soviet forces were already at a heightened state of alert, an intercontinental ballistic missile was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, as part of a test program that no one had thought to cancel. We do not know if the Soviets detected this launch, but they might have. (3) The Cuban missile crisis happened to come at a time when new Minuteman I missiles were being installed at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. In order to get these missiles ready for possible launch, Air Force and contractor personnel apparently bypassed safeguards that had been designed to prevent a launch by a single officer. Fortunately no officer decided to launch the missiles under his control. We don't know what mistakes may have been made on the Soviet side. Whatever mistakes were made on either side did not lead to war, but this was evidently not because national leaders are able to completely control their forces under crisis conditions. As President Kennedy said during the Cuban missile crisis, "There is always some sonofabitch who doesn't get the word." Even though the threat of a large Russian mistaken attack is not acute, it is chronic. It is also the only threat we face that could destroy our country beyond our ability to recover. Compared with this threat, all other concerns about terrorism or rogue countries shrink into insignificance . This brings me to the one real value of our large nuclear arsenal: we can trade away most of our arsenal for corresponding cuts in Russian forces . I don't mean cuts to about two thousand deployed weapons, but to not more than a few hundred deployed weapons on each side, and with each side having not more than a thousand nuclear weapons of all sorts, including those in various reserves, as called for by a 1997 report of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences. In that way, although the danger of a mistaken Russian launch would not be eliminated, the stakes would be millions or tens of millions of casualties, not hundreds of millions. Such cuts would also reduce the danger that Russian nuclear weapons or weapons material could be diverted to criminals or terrorists. Instead of seeking the maximum future flexibility for both sides in strategic agreements with the Russians, we should be seeking the greatest possible irreversibility on both sides, based on binding ratified treaties . We ought also to be spending more on the program, originally sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar, that assists the Russians in controlling or destroying their excess nuclear materials. At this moment, when the Russians are eager to improve their relations with the West, when considerations of economics provide them with a powerful incentive to reduce their nuclear forces, and when for the first time they have a president powerful enough to push such reductions through their Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 182/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW military and political establishments, we have an unprecedented opportunity to begin to escape from the risk of nuclear annihilation. It is tragic that we are letting this opportunity slip away from us. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 183/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW IRAN PROLIF MODULE START is key to denuclearizing Iran John Isaacs 09 [http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/how_the_new_start_treaty_increases_us_s ecurity/, John Isaacs is the Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and NonProliferation where his work focuses on national security issues in Congress, Iraq, missile defense, and nuclear weapons. Isaacs has published articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Christian Science Monitor, Nuclear Times, Arms Control Today, American Journal of Public Health, and Technology Review."How the New Start Treaty Increases U.S. Security"] New START is a key part of global efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. The new treaty sends a strong signal that the U.S. plans to play a key leadership role in reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and that it is committed to upholding its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT ). U.S.Russian nuclear reductions can help augment U.S. efforts to secure international support for tougher nonproliferation and nuclear security measures, which in turn would strengthen the NPT. It will also strengthen the Obama administration's hand at the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit and NPT Review Conference.New START is an important means to improve U.S.Russian relations and sets the stage for discussions on deep nuclear reductions. The formal arms control process can enhance U.S.Russian relations, thereby making it easier to pursue other vital U.S. objectives that require Russia's help, including buttressing programs to secure and safeguard nuclear material stockpiles and warheads and reigning in Iran's nuclear program. Iranian nuclearization increases the risk of conventional war by undercutting U.S. regional security guarantees and emboldening Iranian aggression James S. Robbins, author of the forthcoming Last in Their Class: Custer, Picket and the Goats of West Point and an NRO Contributor. "Let Iran Go Nuclear?" January 2006, http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200601100812.asp I am not concerned about whether or not the Iranians will be deterred. I am worried that the United States will be deterred. Even if the Iranians never use their nuclear weapons, they will have made themselves immune from attack. That would be just fine if they were likely to mind their own business. However, Iran has a long track record of fomenting instability in the region, particularly through terrorist surrogates. Furthermore, the regime in power has made it clear that they are intent on increasing the threats to their neighbors, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia. They do not like us very much either. Now add nuclear weapons to the equation. Forget the "nuke Tel Aviv" scenario, that is child's play. Which is not to say they would not do it, in time they probably would. But the proponents of Middle East MAD are much too focused on the high end of the equation. Nuclear weapons are not most effective when lobbed between nuclear powers; they are best used as leverage to augment military actions in the conventional or unconventional realm by arming countries with the threat of escalation. Let's look at some examples. Scenario One, very familiar to U.S. war planners. Tehran closes off the Straits of Hormuz and subjects the world to energy blackmail, an "access denial" strategy. Currently the Coalition would respond by sending a flotilla to force an entry, probably accompanied by a punitive air campaign against every available worthwhile target in Iran. At present the regime would have no effective way to respond to that. But if they had nuclear weapons, particularly with longrange missiles or other delivery systems, our war planning would be immensely complicated. How close would we risk sending a Carrier Battle Group? How punitive would we pursue an air campaign, knowing that when we bomb Tehran the Iranians might have the capability to strike back , perhaps against domestic targets using terrorist surrogates? Can we count on our allies if Iranian missiles can reach Europe -- they cannot now, but if they have nukes, how can we stop Iran from developing longerrange weapons? Scenario Two. Iran launches a ground invasion through southern Iraq and into Kuwait, then, not making the mistake Saddam Hussein made, drive right on into Saudi Arabia. They would control four of the top five oil reserves in the world. Iran makes no further demands, and keeps the oil flowing. How would we respond, knowing that Iran would have recourse to nuclear weapons if the fight got too tough? Would we even take action and risk shutting off most Middle Eastern energy exports? Would we really care whether Arabia was under the sway of Wahabbism or Shia Fundamentalism -- and if we did care would it be worth the risk? Scenario Three. The longawaited democratic revolution begins to develop in Iran. Massive crowds turn out in the streets demonstrating against the increasingly harsh laws imposed by the radical government. Students, liberal oppositionists -- even joined by some army and police units -- begin to coalesce into a true revolutionary force. The regime sends in the Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guards, the only instrument left they can trust, to put an end to it. In a Tiananmen Squarestyle crackdown, tanks roll in to crush (literally) the revolutionaries, who plea for Coalition intervention. If it happened tomorrow, we could give the uprising enough air and other means of support to at least stave off catastrophe, maybe to tip the balance in their favor, and do so with majority support of the international community. But if the regime had nuclear weapons, would we risk intervening? Or would it be Hungary 1956 all over again? Moreover, say the liberal revolution looked like it would succeed without anyone's help -- would we be as eager to see the current regime destabilized if the endgame for the mullahs was a lastminute Armageddonstyle nuclear launch when they were going down and had nothing to lose? Wouldn't we tell the democratic opposition to cool it? There are scores of similar scenarios that do not involve actually going to nuclear war but all of which demonstrate that deterrence at the nuclear level does not translate into stability at lower levels of conflict. In fact, it leads to permanent instability as regimes pursue conflict by other means, relying Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 184/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW on their nuclear insurance cards to deter the U.S. or any other power from settling things decisively. This is why the United States had to withdraw from Vietnam rather than invade north and risk a Soviet or Chinese response; it is why the Soviet Union was unwilling to impose its will on Afghanistan by invading Pakistan and risking a U.S. response. Consciously allowing the Iranian regime to assume the mantle of a nuclear power would be an act of strategic negligence that would make the world a much more dangerous place. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 185/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW AT: RUSSIA WILL CHEAT NEW INSPECTION LAWS SOLVE RUSSIA CHEATING GSN 628 [""New START" Offers Close Look at Russian Nukes, U.S. Officials Say", NTI, http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100628_2879.php] A new nuclear arms control deal with Russia would allow the United States to keep a close eye on the strategic arsenal of its former Cold War rival, two senior Obama administration officials said last week (see GSN, June 25).U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April signed the "New START" pact, which would require each nation to cut its deployed strategic nuclear forces to 1,550 warheads down from a maximum of 2,200 allowed by 2012 under the 2002 Moscow Treaty and 700 delivery vehicles. The U.S. Senate and Russia's legislature must ratify the treaty. Cabinet members and other top representatives have in recent months made the case for the pact in a series of hearings on Capitol Hill. Principal Deputy Defense Undersecretary for Policy James Miller said Thursday that the new deal includes stronger terms for onsite stockpile inspections than its predecessor, which expired in December, the Defense Department stated. Such checks "provide the cornerstone of the treaty's verification regime" and would enable U.S. officials to visit highsensitivity sites in Russia, he said. "This, in turn, will establish a strong disincentive to Russian cheating," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "More broadly, these inspections and exhibitions will give us a detailed picture of Russia's strategic delivery systems and associated infrastructure." Under New START, Moscow and Washington would be authorized with little advance warning to send inspectors to conduct nuclear examinations in the other country up to 18 times per year. That is a smaller number than enabled under the old treaty. It would cover up to 10 "Type 1" visits covering inspections of ICBMs, submarines and other strategic systems and no more than eight "Type 2" checks of storage installations, test sites and associated infrastructure. Such visits would enable Washington to verify data gleaned under other aspects of the treaty, which allows for sharing of technical, deployment and other information regarding nuclear weapons. The pact would require either nation to be notified if a system is retired or otherwise adjusted, Miller said. "Inspections will not be `shots in the dark,'" he said. "We can choose to inspect those facilities of greatest interest to us." Matters of concern could be addressed through a U.S.Russian commission or with more senior officials in Moscow, according to Miller. Inspections could be conducted at 35 sites in Russia and 17 locations in the United States, said Kenneth Myers, head of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency. A shortnotice visit would require only 32 hours advance warning during standard working periods, he said. Officials from the agency would be trained to conduct inspections and to accompany Russian visitors doing their own assessments in the United States, according to Myers. "We will be prepared to carry out all of its inspection and escort provisions with the utmost accuracy and efficiency," he told lawmakers (U.S. Defense Department release, June 25). Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 186/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW DETERRENCE MODULE START kills U.S hegemony loss of ability to remain a credible deterrent Inhofe 10 member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives (Jim, June 18, "Concerns with the start Treaty", http://www.criticalbias.com/2010/06/18/concernswiththestarttreaty/) To put it bluntly, this treaty will have profound negative implications for US national security . We are being told repeatedly that it is this treaty or nothing...that is not an accurate statement. The United States and Russian are still committed under the 2002 Moscow Treaty. This treaty mandates a reduction of the number of deployed nuclear weapons to a range between 1,700 and 2,200...a decrease from 6,000 under START I Additionally, in 2009, the United States and Russia had the option to extend START I for 5years, keeping in place the detailed verification and inspection protocols under START I. It was the decision of the Obama Administration to abandon the START I protocols and rush forward with new START. Nevertheless, both countries remain bound by the Moscow Treaty. Yes, new START further reduces United States and Russian strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 warheads and reduces launchers such as ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers to 800 total and 700 `deployed' armed with nuclear weapons. However, prior to new START negotiations, neither the U nited States or Russia were increasing their nuclear arsenals and, in fact, due to fiscal concerns, Russia was looking at decreasing their levels of strategic nuclear weapons. So what does this treaty accomplish, or more importantly, what does it fail to accomplish? I said this when the Treaty was signed in April and my sentiments remain the same: I remain concerned about several critical pieces of this security treaty: modernization, force structure, missile defense, verification and most importantly, our overall ability to deter our enemies. Modernization The PerrySchlesinger Commission, a Bipartisan Congressional Commission on Strategic Posture of the United States, were unanimously alarmed by the serious disrepair and neglect of our nuclear weapons stockpile and complex. Sec Gates warned last October, saying: "there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program." General Chilton, Commander of US Strategic Command, testified that modernization was not only important but "essential." And the preservation of deterrence is the only way to check nuclear war trumps all other methods Dwyer 7 professor emeritus of Anthropology (David, January 15, "Deterrence is a red herring", https://www.msu.edu/~dwyer/Nuclear %20Deterrence%20is%20a%20Red%20Herring.doc) 15) Is the rationale consistently applied? No: in some cases we argue for diplomatic solutions and in others some form of violence. Nuclear deterrence is the epitome of the necessity rationale because the consequence of not practicing nuclear deterrence is the loss of our very survival. Thus the nuclear deterrence red herring absolutely trumps the arguments of some lawyers (nuclear weapons are illegal under international law), philosophers and clergy (nuclear weapons are immoral) and security analysts (nuclear deterrence doesn't work). 16) Is nuclear deterrence based on commonsense assertions like war is inevitable, poverty will always be with us, or some people are just plain bad? Yes: commonsense says that if I threaten to retaliate by doing something bad to you if you do something bad to me, you won't do it. In addition, the rationale for nuclear deterrence is strongly supported by other commonsense axioms: some people are just bad; war is inevitable; we are good and civilized; and God is on our side. So it seems reasonable that nuclear deterrence would work and as a result we don't need to give it much more thought. It is not surprising, therefore, that the rationale for nuclear deterrence has not been subject to serious criticism by the general public or for that matter, the establishment. 17) Can the authors of the nuclear deterrence rationale be identified? How are they related to those who benefit from the practices recommended by the response? Unsurprisingly, serving military leaders go along with the dogma of nuclear deterrence; but when they retire, they frequently acknowledge its irrationality and impracticality. Such Damascene conversions have been made by former strategists and civil servants (e.g., Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara). ***START BAD IMPACTS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 187/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: DETERRENCE/ALLIED PROLIF START stops U.S from developing nuclear defenses Kills deterrence and ability to protect allies DeMint 10 chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, (Jim, May 18th, "Will START Treaty Weaken U.S. Missile Defense? Senator Kerry Seems to Hope So", http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/18/guestbloggerwillstarttreatyweakenusmissiledefensesenatorkerryseemstohopeso/) And with his response, Senator Kerry proved why Americans have a hard time fully trusting the left to put American interests first in foreign affairs. While the goal of reducing global levels of nuclear weapons is noble, it cannot take priority over our duty to protect Americans. It seems the goal of this administration and liberals in Congress is to condition American security into parity with Russia, which makes no sense. Russia and the U.S. are not equal, we have different roles in the world. America is a protector of many nations and a threat to none, while Russia is a threat to many nations and a protector of none. President Reagan fought to achieve peace through strength. And in doing so he led the U.S. to win the Cold War and put in place the beginnings of groundbreaking missile defense technology to protect our nation from rising threats. And ever since, the left has sought to stop, block, and defund our critical missile defenses that are continually proving to be successful and necessary. Now, President Obama's administration and this liberal Congress are trying to push through a new arms reduction treaty which seeks to lower the number of strategic nuclear weapons in both nations. However, it states clearly in its preamble that U.S. missile defenses will be linked to offensive weapons. And Russia has stated clearly that they will walk away from the treaty if the U.S. continues to build up our missile defenses around the world that protect Americans and our allies. When Secretary Clinton was asked to provide the full treaty negotiating committee as recently as the INF Treaty under President Reagan. The U.S. should not sign a treaty that weakens our ability to record to Senators, for full transparency of U.S. compromises, Secretary Clinton refused, stating that the treaty negotiating record had not been provided all the way back to President Washington. Senator Kerry corrected her testimony, pointing out that the full negotiating record had been provided to the protect Americans and our allies from nuclear weapons. While our missile defense systems are currently engineered to deter threats from rogue nations like Iran and Syria, our goal should be to continue to improve and expand those defenses to protect our people from any nuclear threats. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 188/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW PROLIF MODULE New START leads to prolif and decreases in defense A Good treaty 4/24 (Researcher in Washington DC, has a graduate degree in Soviet History, "Why `New START' is LoseLose for Neocons" , http://agoodtreaty.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/whynewstartisloselose/) That said, the treaty does reintroduce compliance verification measures something Bush's 2002 treaty totally ignored. If only for that, we ought to welcome the ObamaMedvedev deal as "a modestly good treaty." New START now heads to the Senate and the Duma for ratification. Rightwing Senators have indicated that they're considering challenging the treaty, or at the very least hoping to delay ratification by up to a year. Suddenly, the conservative oped pages are littered with expedient tributes to the "advise and consent" clause, urging the Senate to "abide by the Constitution" and "not rush things," and so on. You don't have to search hard to find the rightwing's list of grievances, but here is a general summary: * The U.S. is reducing its nuclear arsenal to Russian levels, despite the fact that Russia would make such reductions with or without American reciprocity. * New START undermines U.S. missile defense plans, as Russia can withdraw from the treaty if American BMD displeases Moscow. * New START limits America's ability to redeploy nuclear delivery systems as conventional weapon delivery systems (aka, "prompt global strike"). * Ending mandatory telemetry and Votkinsk Facility monitoring will compromise compliance verification. * The bomber counting rule will give Russia a strategic advantage. * The U.S. nuclear umbrella will be undermined, leading to greater nuclear proliferation. There are plenty more complaints and objections conservatives have raised, and you can read a comprehensive list (and a series of excellent rebuttals) here, at the Center for Arms Control. This proliferation leads to global nuclear wars Roberts 99, Researcher @ Institute for Defense Analysis (Brad; Research Staff Institute for Defense Analysis, Chair Research Advisory Council for the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute) The Nonproliferation Review Fall http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/64/robert64.pdf] This brings us then to the question of what is at stake in the effort to combat proliferation. There are two standard answers to the question of what's at stake: human lives, and stability. NBC weapons are weapons of mass destruction--all of them, though in different ways. The most deadly of these weapons systems can kill millions--and much more quickly than conventional weaponry (though it too is capable of killing millions). A regional war employing mass destruction as a matter of course could cause suffering and death unknown in human experience. Such a war would cast a harsh light on the argument now in vogue that landmines, small arms, even machetes in the hands of drunk young men are the real weapons of mass destruction. Strictly from the perspective of limiting the effects of war, then, the world community has an interest in preventing the emergence of an international system in which the possession and use of NBC weapons is accepted as normal and customary. The stability argument relates to the unintended consequences associated with acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It focuses on the weaponsacquiring state and its neighbors and the risk of war that grows among them, including both preemptive and accidental wars. Although it is an old truism that proliferation is destabilizing, it is not always true--not where the acquisition of strategic leverage is essential to preservation of a balance of power that deters conflict and that is used to create the conditions of a more enduring peace. But those circumstances have proven remarkably rare. Instead, the risks associated with the competitive acquisition of strategic capabilities have typically been seen to outweigh the perceived benefits to states that have considered nuclear weapons acquisition. Argentina and Brazil, for example, like Sweden and Australia before them, have gotten out of the nuclear weapons business because they see no reason to live at the nuclear brink even if living there is within their reach. But the standard answers don't really take us very far into this problem any more. To grasp the full stake requires a broader notion of stability--and an appreciation of the particular historical moment in which we find ourselves. It is an accident of history that the diffusion of dualuse capabilities is coterminous with the end of the Cold War. That diffusion means that we are moving irreversibly into an international system in which the wildfirelike spread of weapons is a real possibility. The end of the Cold War has brought with it great volatility in the relations of major and minor powers in the international system. What then is at stake? In response to some catalytic event, entire regions could rapidly cross the threshold from latent to extant weapons capability , and from covert to overt postures, a process that would be highly competitive and risky, and which likely would spill over wherever the divides among regions are not tidy. This would sorely test Ken Waltz's familiar old heresy that "more may be better"7--indeed, even Waltz assumed proliferation would be stabilizing only if it is gradual, and warned against the rapid spread of weapons to multiple states . At the very least, this would fuel NBC terrorism, as a general proliferation of NBC weaponry would likely erode the constraints that heretofore have inhibited states from sponsoring terrorist use of these capabilities. Given its global stature and media culture, America would be a likely target of some of these terrorist actions. What kind of catalytic event might cause such wildfirelike proliferation? The possibilities are not numerous and thus we should not be too pessimistic, although history usually surprises. One catalyst could be a major civil war in a large country in which NBC weapons are used. Another catalyst might be a crisis in which NBC weapons are used to call into question the credibility of US security guarantees. Such a crisis would have farreaching consequences, both within and beyond any particular region . If the threat of the use of such weapons is sufficient to dissuade the United States from reversing an act of aggression, or if their use is successful in defeating a US military operation, there would be hell to pay. How, for example, would Japan respond to a US decision not to seek to reverse NBCbacked aggression on the Korean peninsula? How might NATO partners respond to a collapse of US credibility in East Asia? This stake isn't just America's stake. Any country whose security depends to some extent on a regional or global order guaranteed by Washington has a stake in preventing such wildfirelike proliferation. This is truest of America's closest security partners, but Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 189/210 it is true of the many small and mediumsized states that depend, to some degree, on collective mechanisms for their security. It seems reasonable to expect that many of these states would respond to a loss of US credibility and to the fear of greater regional instability by CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW moving up the latency curve. If they were also to cross the threshold to weapons production, the international system would have a hard time coping. It seems likely that such proliferation would cause the collapse of nonproliferation and arms control mechanisms. This, in turn, would precipitate a broader crisis of confidence in the other institutions of multilateral political and economic activity that depend on some modicum of global stability and cooperation to function. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 190/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: ALLIED PROLIF New Start fails to reset Russian relations and causes allied prolif Graham 6/25 [Owen, a research assistant at the Katherine and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Policy at the Heritage Foundation, "Why the United States Should "reSTART" the "Reset"", Heritage Foundation, http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/25/whytheunitedstates should"restart"the"reset"] Instead of focusing on what else we can give to the Russians to placate them, the Obama administration needs to focus more on how an unfettered strategic missile defense program will further the cause of resetting USRussian relations. What is likely to happen if we decide to lower numbers of nuclear weapons, commit to dealerting them, commit to develop no new weapon designs unless absolutely necessary, and undermine the policy of constructive ambiguity? Allies will question our commitment to their security. They are more likely to develop their own nuclear capabilities. Ironically, Obama's nave goal of a nuclearfree world will be turned upside down. Overall, missile defense is about much more than defending against a missile attack. In conjunction with our nuclear umbrella, both systems will be vital in preventing global weapons proliferation. Missile defense plays a central role, therefore, in decreasing the role of nuclear weapons in overall strategic thinking. While Obama's "road to zero" is a road to nowhere, a comprehensive missile defense system will render the logic of a nuclear attack with ballistic weapons obsolete and ultimately may make the acquisition of such weapons irrelevant. President's Obama lack of leadership on vital issues of national security is incomprehensible. The only hope we have of resetting the relations with Russia at this point is if the Senate rejects the New START Treaty and start from the scratch. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 191/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW NO WITHDRAWAL CLAUSE/HEGE MODULE No withdrawal clause in START that violates US sovereignty and crushes military flexibility Misher and Radzinsky 2010 (Kimberly and Brian; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 18 2010; "Stop the START Scare", http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=31004) Additionally, it is curious that in their letter Senators Kyl, McCain, and Lieberman would not insist on including a withdrawal clause in a START followon treaty. Such clauses hedge against an uncertain future in which the fundamental assumptions of an international agreement may change. By rejecting a withdrawal clause in the new treaty, Senators Kyl, McCain, and Lieberman advocate hamstringing the ability of a future President or Congress to make critical national security decisions. The inclusion of withdrawal clauses is not only customary in international treaties in general, but in arms control agreements with Russia in particular. Both the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) and the 1993 START II, signed by President George H.W. Bush include provisions for withdrawal (Article XVII, Item 3; Article VI, Item 4). The 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), signed by President George W. Bush also includes a withdrawal provision (in Article IV, Item 3). And most notably, the United States invoked the withdrawal clause of the AntiBallistic Missile Treaty (Article XV, Item 2) when it backed out of the treaty on December 13, 2001, citing fundamental changes to its national security priorities. Excluding a similar provision would not only fly in the face of international precedent, but would also unnecessarily limit U.S. sovereignty. Extinction Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, US ambassador to the UN, Spring, Washington quarterly) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best longterm guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and lowlevel conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 192/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: NO WITHDRAWAL CLAUSE/FAVORS RUSSIA START wont enforce Russian nuke cap makes U.S more vulnerable Feulner 10 (June 9th, President of the think tank Heritage Foundation , http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/stopthenewstart/? page=1) "If Russia exploits the legal lapses in New START, there is no actual limit in the new treaty on the number of strategic nuclear warheads that can be deployed," writes the New START Working Group in a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation. "The number of Russia's strategic nuclear warheads would be limited only by the financial resources it is able to devote to strategic forces, not by New START warhead ceilings which would be the case without this new Treaty." And the Russians are making no secret of the fact that they won't cut their forces. After the pact was signed, Gen. Nikolay Makarov, chief of the Russian General Staff, insisted, "The Strategic Rocket Forces will not be reduced. The forces will be armed with modern mobile missile launchers." Furthermore, under New START, U.S. conventional warheads would be counted toward the treaty's warhead and launcher limits, but tactical nuclear weapons wouldn't be counted . That's a problem, because Russia enjoys a 10to1 numeric advantage over the United States in such weapons, according to the 2009 report of the bipartisan Congressional Strategic Posture Commission. So the United States could find itself facing an actual nuclear missile gap . But we'll still have something the Russians won't, right? A tested, effective and expanding missile defense system? Well, not quite. As the Working Group explains, "New START contains many provisions relating to missile defense (including legal prohibitions) and could set the stage for further limitations without the advice and consent of the Senate." That's certainly how the Russians see things. Gen. Yevgeniy Buzinskiy says that Russia wouldn't hesitate to withdraw from the are not undermining the viability and effectiveness of their strategic offensives forces. This makes it possible for us, in case the Americans increase their strategic ABM system, to claim that they are not observing [the terms] of the treaty." To get the Russians to sign this START, the new treaty if the U.S. tries to expand our European missile defenses . "The sides agreed that the present strategic defensive arms Obama administration scrapped plans to build missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, sites that the Bush administration had negotiated long and hard to establish. So, it's safe to assume that we won't be installing any new defensive positions, out of fear that doing so would cause the Russians to pull out of the treaty . International agreements can help maintain peaceful relations between nations. But there's no question that maintaining a strong and capable American military is the best way to keep the peace. New START would take us several steps in the wrong direction. It would make America more vulnerable, not less. When asked to ratify the treaty, senators should recognize it for what it is a nonstarter. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 193/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Start allows Russia to develop more nuclear weapons and leads to Russian aggression CARAFANO 621 [James, a leading expert in defense affairs, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at theHeritage Foundation, "New Start Leads to Bad End", SF Examiner, http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/james_carafano/_NewSTART_leadstobad end96761834.html] Spring will soon publish the results of his nuclear games. In one scenario, Spring directed the U.S. player to stick to President Obama's RUSSIAN AGGRESSION MODULE strategy for creating a nukefree world: pursue arms control, let the U.S. arsenal atrophy, and minimize the role of missile defense. The results offered good news (of a kind) and bad news. The good news: At game's end, there were, indeed, fewer nuclear weapons in the world. The bad news: It was because so many were used in the ensuing nuclear war. That's the great tragedy of Obama's "road to zero": It is likely to achieve the opposite results of its aim . A deliberately selfweakened United States will exert little influence on the nuclear inventories and programs of other nations. Rather, potential competitors will feel emboldened. They'll step up their programs. Allies will feel increasingly insecure and take matters more into their own hands. The gateway to this road to disaster is the New START agreement that the president wants Congress to ratify. It's a bad agreement . It makes Russia a more dominant nuclear power, and it makes Russia more, not less, dependent on nuclear weapons. Under this agreement, Russia can actually build more delivery systems. It can modernize its nuclear weapons just as much as it wants. And it does not have to count its tactical nukes . The latter is a huge problem because (a) it has way more tactical nukes than we do and (b) since Russia can use its tactical nukes to threaten nearby neighbors, they serve as potent strategic weapons, too. The whole point of war games is to help strategic leaders avoid making stupid choices . America's New START negotiators could have benefited mightily from the lessons of Spring's "Nuclear Games." Here's hoping the "beautiful minds" of the Senate do better. World War 3. Hellman, 2008 [Martin, prof of electrical engineering @ Stanford University. A renowned mathematician who has worked for over 25 years during nuclear war risk assessment "Soaring, cryptography and nuclear weapons," Asia Times, Oct 23, 2008, pg. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JJ23Aa01.html] A similar situation exists with nuclear weapons. Many people point to the absence of global war since the dawn of the nuclear era as proof that these weapons ensure peace. The MX missile was even christened the Peacekeeper. Just as the laws of physics are used to ensure that a pilot executing a low pass will gain enough altitude to make a safe landing, a law of nuclear deterrence is invoked to quiet any concern over possibly killing billions of innocent people: Since World War III would mean the end of civilization , no one would dare start it. Each side is deterred from attacking the other by the prospect of certain destruction. That's why our current strategy is called nuclear deterrence or mutually assured destruction (MAD). But again, it's important to read the fine print. It is true that no one in his right mind would start a nuclear war, but when people are highly stressed they often behave irrationally and even seemingly rational decisions can lead to places that no one wants to visit. Neither US president John F Kennedy nor Russian premier Nikita Khrushchev wanted to teeter on the edge of the nuclear abyss during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, but that is exactly what they did. Less well known nuclear near misses occurred during the Berlin crisis of 1961, the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) Able Archer exercise of 1983. In each of those episodes, the law of unintended consequences combined with the danger of irrational decisionmaking under stress look shows that the Cold War, rather than ending, merely went into hibernation. In the West, the reawakening of this specter is usually created an extremely hazardous situation. Because the last date for a nuclear near miss listed above was 1983, it might be hoped that the end of the Cold War removed the nuclear sword hanging over humanity's head. Aside from the fact that other potential crises such as Taiwan were unaffected, a closer attributed to resurgent Russian nationalism, but as in most disagreements the other side sees things very differently. The Russian perspective sees the United States behaving irresponsibly in recognizing Kosovo, in putting missiles (albeit defensive ones) in Eastern Europe, and in expanding NATO right up to the Russian border. For our current purposes, the last of these concerns is the most relevant because it involves reading the fine print in this case, Article 5 of the NATO charter, which states that an attack on any NATO member shall be regarded as an attack on them all. It is partly for that reason that a number of former Soviet republics and client states have been brought into NATO and that President George W Bush is pressing for Georgia and the Ukraine to be admitted. Once these nations are in NATO, the thinking goes, Russia would not dare try to subjugate them again since that would invite nuclear devastation by the United States, which would be treaty bound to come to the victim's aid. But, just as the laws of physics depended on a model that was not always applicable during a glider's low pass, the law of deterrence which seems to guarantee peace and stability is modeldependent. In the simplified model, an attack by Russia would be unprovoked. But what if Russia should feel provoked into an attack and a different perspective caused the West to see the attack as unprovoked? Just such a situation sparked World War I. The assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist led Austria to demand that it be allowed to enter Serbian territory to deal with terrorist organizations. This demand was not unreasonable since interrogation of the captured assassins had shown complicity by the Serbian military and it was later determined that the head of Serbian military intelligence was a leader of the secret Black Hand terrorist society. Serbia saw things differently and rejected the demand. War between Austria and Serbia resulted, and alliance obligations similar to NATO's Article 5 then produced a global conflict. When this article was first written in May 2008, little noticed coverage of a dispute between Russia and Georgia reported that "both sides warned they were coming close to war". As it was being revised, in August, the conflict had escalated to front page news of a lowintensity, undeclared war. If Bush is successful in his efforts to bring Georgia into NATO, we would face the unpleasant choice of reneging on our treaty obligations or threatening actions which risk the destruction of civilization. A similar risk exists between Russia and Estonia, which is already a NATO member. Returning temporarily to soaring, although I will not do low passes, I do not judge my fellow glider pilots who choose to do them. Rather, I encourage them to be keenly aware of the risk. The pilot in the photo has over 16,000 flight hours, has been doing low passes at air shows for over 30 years, will not do them in turbulent Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 194/210 conditions, ensures that he has radio contact with a trusted spotter on the ground who is watching for traffic, and usually does them downwind so that he only has to do a "tear drop" turn to land. The fact that such an experienced pilot exercises that much caution says something about the risk of the maneuver. The danger isn't so much in doing low passes as in becoming complacent if we've done them 100 times without incident. In the same way, I am not arguing against admitting Georgia to NATO or suggesting that Estonia should be kicked out. Rather, I encourage us to be keenly aware of the risk. If we do that, there is a much greater chance that we will find ways to lessen the true sources of the risk, including patching the rapidly fraying fabric of RussianAmerican relations. The danger isn't so much in admitting former Soviet republics into NATO as in becoming complacent with our ability to militarily deter Russia from taking actions we do not favor. Substates Part of society's difficulty in envisioning the threat of nuclear war can be understood by considering Figure 2. The circle on the left represents the current state of the world, while the one on the right represents the world after a fullscale nuclear war. Because World War III is a state of no return, there is no path back to our current state. Even though an arrow is shown to indicate the possibility of a transition from our current state to one of global war, that path seems impossible to most people. How could we possibly transit from the current, relatively peaceful state of the world to World War III? The answer lies in CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW recognizing that what is depicted as a single, current state of the world is much more complex. Because that single state encompasses all conditions the substates far removed from World War III and which has little or no chance of transiting to that state of no return. But it is possible to move short of World War III, as depicted below, it is really composed of a number of substates world situations short of World War III, with varying degrees of risk: Society is partly correct in thinking that a transition from our current state to fullscale war is impossible because, most of the time, we occupy one of from our current substate to one slightly closer to the brink, and then to another closer yet. As described below, just such a sequence of steps led to the Cuban missile crisis and could lead to a modern day crisis of similar magnitude involving Estonia, Georgia, or other some other hot spot where we are ignoring the warning signs. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 195/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW RUSSIA WILL CHEAT & COLLAPSES HEG Russia wouldn't abide by the treatyhas cheated on every single treaty and would collapse hegemony Pyne 2002 [David, Defense analyst, august 1, http://www.americasvoices.org/avarc2002/archives2002/PyneD/PyneD_080102.htm] The historic signature of the SinoRussian Alliance Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation in July 2001 aimed against the U.S. was one of the biggest recent steps taken towards the realization of the Eastern vision of a New World Order . The next major step towards the achievement of both the Western, and especially the Eastern, vision of a New World Order will be full implementation of the recentlysigned Treaty of Moscow. Given the Russian record of violating every treaty it has ever signed, the implementation of this onerous treaty will most likely serve to unilaterally disarm the United States of three fourths of its strategic nuclear deterrent, while leaving the bulk of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal intact. This, in turn, will have the effect of eliminating the U.S. as a global superpower and will thus serve to increase the relative power of the SinoRussian alliance. It will also go far to make the world safe for nuclear war and/or nuclear blackmail by vastly increasing the current Russian superiority in offensive nuclear and strategic defensive might over the United States. U.S. Hegemony is Critical to Preventing Global Nuclear War Khalilzad 1995 (Zalmay; RAND Institute, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War" Washington Quarterly Spring l/n wdc/wbw) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for world in which theUnited States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive American values democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. to Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and lowlevel conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best longterm guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 196/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW EXT: RUSSIA WILL CHEAT Russia won't implement the treaty they will cheat Brooks 9 (Peter Brooks, 9/2/09 New York Post "Don't Get Scammed by Russia Again" (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/don_get_scammed_by_russia_again_bMq6vA e17UkGwNosvttQoM) Strategic arms: Even as it negotiates a new START treaty, the Kremlin is fudging on the existing one. A 2005 State Department report points to multiple Russian violations, including restrictions on inspections of its intercontinental ballistic missiles and warheads. There's more: One expert recently noted Russia is testing its SS27 ICBM with multiple warheads. But START identifies the SS27 as a single warhead missile and permits testing/deployment only in that configuration. Proliferation: Others say Russia has been cutting corners on accepted non proliferation standards notably, by helping Iran and North Korea develop ballistic missiles and nuclear knowhow. This is no small matter, considering the threat to America. Indeed, the director of national intelligence sent a letter to the State Department in March 2007, stating: "We assess that individual Russian entities continue to provide assistance to Iran's ballisticmissile programs" which implies either Kremlin involvement in, knowledge of, or failure to intervene into these activities. Some analysts also think North Korea got Russian help in the form of key components for its April longrangemissile test. Others see Moscow's aid to the Iranian nuclear program going beyond the reactor it's building at Bushehr. Adding to fears Obama's negotiators won't bring up these issues in the Vienna talks is the tentative deal he struck with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev on dualuse strategicdelivery systems this summer, drastically cutting US subs and bombers that have conventional military roles, too. They may also throw Iranfocused, Europebased US missile defense, which the Russkies hate, under the bus in order close a deal. Successful arms control depends on actually controlling weapons in ways that serve US nationalsecurity interests, not by merely inking new pacts for the sake of concluding a deal thatsounds good. Before we rush into signing onto any more armscontrol treaties, we need to get to the bottom of Russia's noncompliance with existing armscontrol and nonproliferation promises. If we don't, the Russians will have little if any incentive to correctly implement any new treaty and every reason to find clever ways to cheat, as it looks like they're doing now, further jeopardizing our national security. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 197/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POLITICAL CAPITAL INCREASING POL CAP HIGHBP REPARATIONS INCREASED HIS POWER PARIS POST INTELLIGENCER 617 ["Oil damage fund a political plum" http://www.parispi.net/articles/2010/06/17/opinion/editorials/doc4c1a3ed931211509794522.txt] President Barack Obama will win political capital from BP's agreement to set up a $20 billion fund to pay for damages from the Gulf oil spill. Apparently, at least, he used the power of the Oval Office to exact a guarantee and an apology from the British oil giant's chairman. He looked presidential doing it; it's what people expect from the leader of the free world. The details of how the deal came about aren't known, but the announcement on Wednesday followed four hours of intense negotiations at the White House. Politicians are good at spinning things their way, and the president is a master politician. So when he said in his address to the nation Tuesday evening that he would "make BP pay," there's room to suspect it was not entirely a matter of Obama forcing company executives to knuckle under. No matter. The outcome is what Americans wanted, and Obama gets a feather for his cap. Obama's Political Capital is increasing His efforts at punishing BP are working The Paris Post Intellegencer, June 17th [Oil damage fund a political plum, http://www.parispi.net/articles/2010/06/17/opinion/editorials/doc4c1a3ed931211509794522.txt] President Barack Obama will win political capital from BP's agreement to set up a $20 billion fund to pay for damages from the Gulf oil spill. Apparently, at least, he used the power of the Oval Office to exact a guarantee and an apology from the British oil giant's chairman. He looked presidential doing it; it's what people expect from the leader of the free world. The details of how the deal came about aren't known, but the announcement on Wednesday followed four hours of intense negotiations at the White House. Politicians are good at spinning things their way, and the president is a master politician. So when he said in his address to the nation Tuesday evening that he would "make BP pay," there's room to suspect it was not entirely a matter of Obama forcing company executives to knuckle under. No matter. The outcome is what Americans wanted, and Obama gets a feather for his cap. The $20 billion, both the government and the company said, is not to be taken as a cap on BP's liability. It's an initial fund for reparations, to be paid in installments over the next four years. And $20 billion, by the way, is approximately BP's profit from one year's operations. A separate fund of $100 million will support oil rig workers during the government's sixmonth moratorium on new drilling in deep seas. For its part, BP seems to have learned a valuable lesson in public relations: Eat humble pie. Part of the company's problem until now has been an apparent haughtiness, a lack of concern for the trouble it has caused. The company's chairman apologized Wednesday for "this tragic accident that should never have happened." And its CEO added, "We will not rest until the well is under control, and we will meet all our obligations to clean up the spill and address its environmental and economic impacts." /03/obamaleakspoliticalcapital#ixzz0rWUcKncM ***GENERIC INTERNAL LINK UNIQUENESS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 198/210 Obama's political capital is dead multiple warrants Time on CNN, June 14th [Can Obama Regain the Backing of Big Business?, CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POLITICAL CAPITAL LOWMULTIPLE WARRANTS http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1996350,00.html?xid=rsstopstories] After all, to overgeneralize, two years ago, a fedup business world turned away from the policies and perceived flaws of George W. Bush and John McCain and instead bet on a young, untested Democrat. Obama has spent an enormous amount of political capital to address the conditions that earned him such valuable allies. Business demanded federal action to stave off a worldwide financial depression; Obama as a candidate in 2008 worked closely with the Bush Administration and the Fed to get a Democratic Congress to pass a bailout. Business demanded action be taken to stimulate job creation and save the U.S. auto industry; Obama acted almost immediately after taking office on those challenges. They demanded tax credits for job creation, especially for small business; Obama worked to pass a series of such measures. They demanded a new health care system that would end the crushing financial burden of medical insurance costs; Obama defied history by passing landmark legislation that rationalized many aspects of the health care structure. They demanded an improved education system to provide smarter, betterequipped workers for the future; Obama took on the education establishment and created a reform competition between the states that many conservatives applauded. Granted, Obama has executed many of these changes and programs in ways that have offended the ideological moorings of the business community. From its point of view, there has been too much government bureaucracy, too much fidelity to union goals, too much spending -- and too little reliance on free markets, too little respect for creditors and too little input from individuals with business experience from within the Administration. The President's current priorities are all liable to make a now bad relationship that much worse. The financial regulation bill is viewed as a typically ignorant Washington overreach. The ongoing efforts to deal with the BP spill are seen as proof that Obama is an incompetent manager and serial scapegoater of large corporate interests. And the attempt to use the Gulf crisis to revive the stalled effort to get Congress to pass major energy legislation appears to many business types as a backdoor gambit to raise taxes on corporations, momandpop enterprises and consumers. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 199/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Political Capital Low battling with big business Reuters, June 18th [Analysis: Will BP foul Obama's relations with business?, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65H3GA20100618] Executives have become increasingly disenchanted with Obama since he swept to the White House in 2008 with more support from business leaders than most Democrats usually enjoy. Passage of Obama's healthcare reforms, his bid to tighten regulation of big financial firms, his reference to Wall Street executives as "fat cats" and his angry rhetoric about BP worry executives. They increasingly view Obama as hostile and his platform as an expensive expansion of government at the expense of the private sector. "It (the friction with BP) cements the administration's reputation as being fundamentally antibusiness," said Douglas HoltzEakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "What have they done that is not in the category of making it harder for businesses to operate?" asked HoltzEakin, who was an economic policy adviser to Republican John McCain during his losing 2008 presidential campaign against Obama. Time magazine ran an article this week asking if Obama can regain the backing of big business. Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger said: "The beating Mr. Obama is giving BP isn't the exception. It's the rule when this president finds himself in tension with the private sector. I can't recall any previous president with this depth of visceral, antibusiness POLITICAL CAPITAL LOWBUSINESS animosity." Some experts say many in the business world who supported Obama and other Democrats in 2008 may not only turn from the party, but actively work to eliminate Democratic majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate this year and try to remove Obama from the White House in 2012. Campaign funding from big companies may drop, leaving the Democrats with an ever harder task at the polls in November, they say. 'WHAT PLANET'? Obama aides retort that the president is only doing what he has to do to fix the damaged U.S. economy he inherited from Republican President George W. Bush and address fundamental problems that hurt the general public, even as they enriched a few individuals. "It's hard to tell what planet these people live on," Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said when asked about labeling of the BP escrow deal as an example of Obama's socialist intervention in the private sector. "It's hard to understand their viewpoint, but it may explain their votes on financial regulation. It explains how they view whether or not the banks ought to be able to write their own rules and play the game the way they played it several years ago that caused our economy to crash," he said. Analysts say the White House's problems with business are real, and have consumed political capital that Obama will need as he pushes Congress to pass his energy overhaul. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 200/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POLITICAL CAPITAL LOWOIL SPILL NOT ENOUGH POL CAP TO PASS ENERGY BILLBUISNESS PROBLEMS REUTERS 618 [Patricia Zengerle, Staff Writer, "Analysis: Will BP foul Obama's relations with business?", http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65H3GA20100618] Obama aides retort that the president is only doing what he has to do to fix the damaged U.S. economy he inherited from Republican President George W. Bush and address fundamental problems that hurt the general public, even as they enriched a few individuals. "It's hard to tell what planet these people live on," Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said when asked about labeling of the BP escrow deal as an example of Obama's socialist intervention in the private sector. "It's hard to understand their viewpoint, but it may explain their votes on financial regulation. It explains how they view whether or not the banks ought to be able to write their own rules and play the game the way they played real, and have consumed political capital that Obama will need as he pushes Congress to pass his energy overhaul. "From a political standpoint I totally disagree with the president of the Unites States telling a company that they have to put up money in the event that it isn't necessary. I don't like that. I think it interferes too much with free enterprise," said Christopher Zook, chairman and chief investment officer, CAZ Investments in Houston POL CAP WAS DESTROYED BY OIL SPILL BUISNESS SPECTATOR 621 it several years ago that caused our economy to crash," he said. Analysts say the White House's problems with business are [Natasha Stott Despoja, Staff Writer, "Will Mama Grizzlies Devour Obama", http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/BarackObamaBPoil spillUSeconomyKevinRuddpopd201006216LS6D?OpenDocument] In the week that President Obama was expected in Australia, I was in Washington DC.As we know, the President could not make it cancelling his trip to Indonesia and us again instead, remaining in the United States to attend to the growing oil spill crisis. As one official explained to me, Australians understand the need for leaders to be present for a corporate calamity with national implications but Indonesia may not have the same level of sympathy. It may have deprived our Prime Minister of desperately needed positive media opportunities but it might have been a welcome break for President Obama as well.Prime Minister Rudd's polling may be in freefall but the leader of the `free world' has his own problems in the lead up to primary campaigns and the November midterm elections. There are parallels between Australian and US politics at the moment: two leaders of almost unprecedented popularity when elected are now facing some of the harshest criticism and dissatisfaction before even the end of their first terms. While the GFC and health care dominated much of President Obama's first term, it's been the recent BP oil spill that has affected his support recently.My attempts to draw an analogy between President Obama's handling of the oil spill with that of President George W Bush's Hurricane Katrina strategy are dismissed by US political professionals. Despite my concerns that Americans may have been unnecessarily harsh on their President, most strategists claim there is a difference. They consider President Bush's response to the September 11 attacks more pertinent Bush was quick to demonstrate a passionate and personal connection with the victims and his fellow countrymen and women when he spoke from the rubble on the Trade Centre site.In contrast, people are angry that it took the current President 57 days into the spill to visit the Gulf of Mexico and, even then, his emotions were telegraphed by media minders in advance. Apparently, his spokesman Robert Gibbs continually briefed journalists that the President was "angry", so when the President did speak publicly his behaviour was interpreted as manufactured emotion as opposed to an instinctive and impassioned response .When the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, accused Americans of being "xenophobic" because of their antagonism towards British Petroleum (BP), he was reading a mood (albeit a little wrongly).Understandably, the US is infuriated by the petroleum company but legislators on Capitol Hill are quick to point out this has nothing to do with the British people. Mind you, the parodies of BP chief Tony Hayward are all the more devastating because his accent implies the proverbial silver spoon. On the weekend, his reputation was not helped by images of him yachtracing on day 61 of the crisis. Hayward's appearance before Congress had the Capitol in a spin. I met with anxious legislators beforehand all gasping for an opportunity to grill their witness. They weren't disappointed although, one prominent Republican offering an apology to BP for the President's handling of the issue did little to increase Republican stocks (the apology was later withdrawn).Nevertheless, Republicans are hoping to exploit Obama's diminished political capital due to the spill in the November elections. And they do need a boost: there's no obvious leader among their ranks as different groups and factions gain prominence. There are figureheads from an array of movements the standouts are Ron Paul from the Libertarians and former VicePresidential candidate, Sarah Palin, from the burgeoning Tea Party movement.The Tea Party Patriots (who claimed to be 'Taxed Enough Already') have had some small success in the primaries but are facing their own paradox how do you reconcile being antiWashington, with running for Congress? On her first trip to the Capitol post preselection, Nevada's Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle even refused to speak to the media causing shortlived commotion.She is one of the female Republican primary candidates victorious on "Ladies Night" two weeks ago along with women such as former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and EBay Founder Meg Whitman.But it's still Palin who is the force with which to be reckoned she's the cover story of this week's Newsweek and is expanding her posse of conservative female allies or "mama grizzlies" (describing fellow "liberty loving women" who are "fiercely willing to protect their cubs").These women are cashed up, conservative and giving President Obama a run for his money in November. Strategists argue in order to "stem the blood loss" in the midterms, the President needs to polish those skills that got him elected, secure muchneeded political capital and then use it in a allout Obamaled campaign .Our Prime Minister also needs some political capital, especially given voters and commentators continue to slam his handling of the mineral industry super profits tax which, according to US newspapers at least, is Australia's current political crisis. BP oil spill is killing Obama's political capital Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab 201/210 JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW CQpolitics, June 14th [BP Political Fallout: Apocalypse Now or Not, http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news 000003682453&cpage=2] Republicans aren't saying much about Obama's handling of the crisis because they don't have to. Every day that the hole goes unplugged, every 24hour news cycle that the disaster dominates cable news is a mark against Obama. Every day when even sympathetic commentators are yelling at him to emote more, to seethe at BP and to feel the pain, Bill Clintonstyle, of the Gulf communities, then Obama is losing political points and political capital. Primary results over the past month have revealed a hodgepodge of political trends; one week's story line seems to contradict the previous week's. Which probably means that when November rolls around, it will be a conventional midterm election after all, and the president's party stands to do badly. So Obama is doing himself -- and his party -- no favors as the BP crisis hurdles toward its third month. SLOW REACTION TIME TO THE OIL SPILL TANKED POL CAP PORTFOLIO 63 [Kent Hoover, Staff Writer, "Obama Leaks Political Capital", http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2010/06/03/obamaleakspoliticalcapital] President needs to contain damage of oil spill in order to regain public trust President Barack Obama will return to Louisiana Friday to try and stop a devastating leak to his political capital. It's been more than six weeks since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig started spewing millions of gallons into the Gulf of Mexico. The failure to stop the leak mostly sits on BP's shoulders--the oil company, not the federal government, has the engineering expertise to deal with this extraordinarily complicated problem. But it's Obama's responsibility to minimize the damage this spill will do to the Gulf Coast's environment and economy, even though BP will pick up the tab. The president's trip Friday will be his third visit to Louisiana since the spill occurred. He'll meet with Gulf state governors, local officials, Guard Admiral Thad Allen, who is directing the government's response to the spill. This attention is overdue. The oil slick is an fishermen and other smallbusiness owners whose livelihoods are threatened by this environmental calamity. He'll also get a firsthand briefing from Coast imminent threat, and should have been treated with the same urgency as a terrorist attack. In the first few weeks of this crisis, however, Obama appeared to be deferring to BP, while assuring Americans that the oil company would pay for all the damage. He didn't mobilize all the resources of the federal government to contain the damage, which draws closer to the coasts of more states in the Gulf every day. He waited too long to approve Louisiana's proposal to build barrier islands made of sand to protect its marshlands. Now nearly 40 percent of the gulf has been closed to fishing, and we could soon start seeing oil coat the pristine sugarwhite beaches of the Florida panhandle. That's a terrible sight at any time, but it's especially galling when it happens more than 45 days after the oil spill started. We're the most innovative nation on earth--couldn't we have done something to prevent this calamity, given the long lead time the slowmoving slick gave us? It's questions like this that have undercut Obama's standing with the American people. His press conference last week didn't help, especially when he said he didn't know if the head of the Minerals Management Service, the agency that oversees offshore drilling, had been fired or quit. He interrupted his Memorial Day weekend in Chicago to make a brief visit to Louisiana last Friday, and once again said, "I ultimately take responsibility for solving this issue." But by yesterday, it was politics as usual. He flew to Pittsburgh--far away from any oil slicks--to give a speech on the economy, an address that repeated the same themes he's hit on time and time again: He inherited an economy in crisis, he's done a lot to fix it, he's reformed health care, is on the verge of reforming financial regulation and will now push for climate change legislation. Republicans, meanwhile, are sitting on the sidelines and jeering from the bleachers instead of helping out. Then he flew back to Washington and enjoyed a White House concert by Paul McCartney, with a little help from his friends like Stevie Wonder and Elvis Costello. (Plus, Obama's kids got to see the Jonas Brothers!) The president also is juggling geopolitical crises, from Israel to Iran to Korea, and political ones, such as today's revelation that administration officials dangled the prospects of a presidential appointment to try to convince yet another Democrat from challenging a Democratic incumbent in a Senate primary. Obama can't ignore these geopolitical crises, but he could can the politics until he fulfills his first duty as commander in chief: protecting our country from weapons of mass destruction--in this case, oil slicks. If the president accomplishes this, he won't need to make so many speeches. His political standing will rise. The American people will give him credit for protecting the environment and the Gulf states' economy, and they'll be more responsive to the rest of his agenda. But if the president fails on this, he might as well start making plans for his presidential library. He would have flunked the first major crisis of his presidency . Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 202/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POLITICAL CAPITAL LOWGENERIC Obama has no more political capital Gulbransen 6/27 (Scott, 6/27/10, Five Ways Obama Recovers and Wins in 2012, http://technorati.com/politics/article/fivewaysobama recoversandwins/) President Barack Obama has hit a new low as his polling numbers, counting Americans who disapprove of him, continue to nosedive. Obama, once seen as an untouchable force in American politics after his unprecedented win in 2008, has suddenly run out of political capital. Just because Obama is down, don't think he's out for the count just yet. Although I agree with Technorati contributor Matthew Avitabile his excellent muse on on how Obama's poll numbers will never fully recover, Obama can still turn it around enough to win a second term in 2012. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 203/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW POPULARITY LOWBIG BUSINESS 20 MILLION IN REPARATIONS FOR BP SCARED BIG BUISNESS AWAY FROM OBAMA REUTERS 618 [Patricia Zengerle, Staff Writer, "Analysis: Will BP foul Obama's relations with business?", http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65H3GA20100618] But now he has to convince business he is on its side, as he struggles to boost the economy and foster job growth while his fellow Democrats fight to keep control of Congress in the November election. Executives have become increasingly disenchanted with Obama since he swept to the White House in 2008 with more support from business leaders than most Democrats usually enjoy. Passage of Obama's healthcare reforms, his bid to tighten regulation of big financial firms, his reference to Wall Street executives as "fat cats" and his angry rhetoric about BP worry executives. They increasingly view Obama as hostile and his platform as an expensive expansion of government at the expense of the private sector. "It (the friction with BP) cements the administration's reputation as being fundamentally antibusiness," said Douglas HoltzEakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "What have they done that is not in the category of making it harder for businesses to operate?" asked HoltzEakin, who was an economic policy adviser to Republican John McCain during his losing 2008 presidential campaign against Obama. Time magazine ran an article this week asking if Obama can regain the backing of big business. Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger said: "The beating Mr. Obama is giving BP isn't the exception. It's the rule when this president finds himself in tension with the private sector. I can't recall any previous president with this depth of visceral, antibusiness animosity." 2012.Campaign funding from big companies may drop, leaving the Democrats with an ever harder task at the Some experts say many in the business world who supported Obama and other Democrats in 2008 may not only turn from the party, but actively work to eliminate Democratic majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate this year and try to remove Obama from the White House in polls in November, they say. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 204/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW BIPARTISANSHIP HIGHENERGY BILL BIPART ENERGY BILL COALITION JUST HAPPENED THE HILL 616 [Eric Zimmerman, Staff Writer, "Obama to call for bipartisan energy meeting", http://thehill.com/blogs/e2wire/677e2wire/103527obamatocallfor bipartisanenergymeeting] President Barack Obama will gather a bipartisan group of senators at the White House next week to discuss comprehensive climate change and energy legislation, Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday night. The White House Chief of Staff told Charlie Rose that Obama would bring in "bipartisan members who worked on this in the Senate to the White House to get the best ideas from all the legislation to address it on a comprehensive basis." The BP oil spill should be a wake up call to pass an energy bill, Emanuel said, noting that the House has already acted."Obviously if we don't, it's a lost opportunity. And the president thinks this is the opportunity to finally get done what hasn't been done to date for the country," Emanuel said."Never allow a good crisis to go to waste when it's an opportunity to do things that you have stopped yourself from doing before," he added. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 205/210 BIPART HIGH NOWMEDICARE AGREEMENTS IN THE SENATE FOX NEWS 618 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW BIPARTISANSHIP HIGHMEDICARE ["In Rare Agreement, Senators Delay Medicare Doc Cut At No Expense to Taxpayer". The Speakers Lobby, http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/inrareagreementsenatorsdelaymedicaredoccutatnoexpensetotaxpayer/] In an exceedingly rare show of bipartisanship, Senate Democrats and Republicans came together Friday to avert a major cut in federal reimbursements for Medicare providers. Medicare beneficiaries are still not able to rest easy, because the short term patch must still be approved by the House, though swift action next week is likely. Republicans won out on a measure that is fully paid for, in other words, not a dime goes to increase the deficit. Senate Democratic leaders must still craft a separate package of tax and jobless benefits, a move that has so far proven impossible. An angry Senate Majority Leader, D Nev., castigated Republicans Thursday night for not supporting the latest iteration of an "extenders" bill (socalled because it extends tax incentives and unemployment insurance benefits for the longterm unemployed). Republicans had supported a bill earlier this year with deficit spending, but an aide to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, RKy., told Fox, "A lot has changed, for one the has hit the $13 trillion debt mark." Reid also needs to convince two of his Democraticvote holdouts, Sens. Joe Lieberman, ICt., and Ben Nelson, DNeb., as both rejected the measure for sending $55 billion to the deficit (a reduction from earlier versions). But Friday was all smiles and agreement. McConnell said to Reid, "Let me just say to my friend, the majority leader, this is a good example of bipartisanship here." And Reid to his colleague, "Sometimes the Senate can be terribly disconcerting, aggravating, but that's the way the Senate is....I'm glad we were able to work this out." Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 206/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW BIPARTISANSHIP LOWMULTIPLE WARRANTS NO BIPARTISANSHIP ON ANY MAJOR ISSUESNOT WILLING TO COOPERATE THE HILL 527 [Bob Cusack, Staff Writer, "Alexander: Obama White House is `absolutely tone deaf' on bipartisanship" http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/100377 alexanderobamaistonedeafonbipartisanship?page=3#comments] Sen. Lamar Alexander (RTenn.) said Thursday the Obama White House is "absolutely tonedeaf" on bipartisanship. In a CSPAN "Newsmakers" interview, Alexander said he is "puzzled" by how President Barack Obama works with Republicans on Capitol Hill. "On the big issues, on healthcare, on socalled financial regulation, the stimulus, the White House has been absolutely tonedeaf to bipartisanship," Alexander said. Alexander's remarks come just days after a testy meeting Senate Republicans had with the president earlier this week. The Tennessee legislator said Republicans always welcome the president, but noted that Obama didn't say why he was coming "so there wasn't any real effort" to engage with Republicans. A White House spokesman did not comment by press time. Alexander, who is regarded as a centrist Republican, challenged Obama several times during the bipartisan healthcare summit at the White House in February. Obama fired back that Alexander's claims on how the health bill would increase premiums "are not factually accurate." "I have a good, personal relationship with the president. I served with him. I like him," Alexander said. "But as far as my ability to be involved in his objectives, they're limited." The former Tennessee governor did give credit to Obama's education and energy secretaries for working with him on various issues, but said the White House is the problem. "Either the White House doesn't want to work in a bipartisan way on the big issues or doesn't know how," he said. BIPARTISANSHIP IS DEADHEALTCARE, IMMIGRATION, AND NO COOPERATION THE HILL 430 [Michael O'Brien, Staff Writer, "McCain: Bipartisanship dead rest of Congress", http://thehill.com/blogs/blogbriefingroom/news/95263mccain bipartisanshiplargelydeadtherestofthiscongress] Bipartisanship "for all intents and purposes" is dead, Sen. John McCain (RAriz.) said Friday.The remarks from the 2008 GOP presidential candidate represent his latest analysis on party politics in Washington.In March, McCain warned as healthcare reform neared President Barack Obama's desk that Republicans wouldn't cooperate on legislation for the rest of this year. But later, he backed off the claim. On Friday, McCain once again indicated there would be little cooperation between parties this year. Bipartisanship was "for all intents and purposes" dead, McCain said in an interview with the conservative Newsmax magazine. "I would say that, largely so," McCain added. "There are certain areas where we can work together," said McCain, who pointed to his work on the Armed Services Committee. "But for all intents and purposes, yes." Republicans have been angered by signals from Democrats that they plan to move forward with an immigration reform bill. Democrats this week tried to put the GOP in a tough spot by scheduling repeated votes to move forward on debating legislation to reform Wall Street.McCain had drawn criticism in March for saying Republicans wouldn't cooperate. He later backtracked by clarifying there would be some areas in which the parties could work together. But the Arizona Republican, who's tacked rightward while fending off a primary challenge from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R), said he blamed the Obama administration for having poisoned the well of bipartisanship in the interview released Friday. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 207/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW BIPARTISANSHIP LOWOIL SPILL NO BIPARTOBAMA DIDN'T GO TO THE SENATE ABOUT OIL SPILL THE SPOKESMAN REVIEW 622 [Lloyd Brown, Staff Writer, "Calm, quiet, and effective", http://www.spokesman.com/letters/2010/jun/22/ourpresidenthasaccomplishedwhatfew presidents/] Some people want a "fire and brimstone" type president. You know, the type who pounds his fists on the table and shows anger.I myself prefer the kind who quietly, behind closed doors, negotiates a $20 billion fund to help "those small people" in the Gulf states. He even managed to secure an additional $100 million to help those whose jobs will be affected by the temporary halt in drilling.By Obama's actions, it saves himself the heartache of having to deal with a Senate where it would take 60 votes to lift any ceiling on monetary restitution to those impacted by this terrible disaster in the Gulf.Let's face it, with all those angry tea parties talking about "taking our government back," he will never be in any position approaching bipartisanship the remainder of his term, as if he ever was. So, "shakedown" or not, "slush fund" or not, our president has managed to accomplish something few presidents would ever be able to pull off. And thank God he didn't have to rely on an ineffective bunch of morons in Washington to bring about some positive results. Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 208/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW AT: INTRINSICNESS Intrinsicness is illegitimate and a voting issue moving target the affirmative gets infinite prep to write the most strategic plan, allowing revisions after they have heard our strategy is unfair moots negative ground most disads can be resolved through US action there is no logical limit infinite regress if we read a disad to the intrinsicness argument they can make another to get out of it Counter interpretation: the affirmative can make topical intrinsicness arguments this provides the best middle ground and maintains resolutional focus. Non topical intrinsicness arguments are unlimiting and disprove the necessity of the resolution. ***THEORY ARGUMENTS Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 209/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW AT: BOTTOM OF THE DOCKET The affirmative must defend immediate unconditional implementation of the plan key to negative ground every disad relies on a temporally sensitive uniqueness argument delaying plan implementation kills all negative ground No logical limit every alternative to immediacy is arbitrary, allowing this choice to occur in the 2AC compounds the abuse the affirmative gets infinite prep time to write the most strategic plan allowing revisions after they have heard our strategy unlimits Non topical should is the present tense Takes out solvency the bottom of the docket is not guaranteed to ever get addressed, vote negative on presumption Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File 210/210 CCLP 7 Week Juniors Lab JDB, AG, BH, GL, LS, NS, HT, TS, IW Politics disads are good for debate education they are the only way to introduce current events and international affairs into stale domestic topics encourages research time sensitive uniqueness forces constant updates, you can't just rely on camp files Real world knowledge most people won't go into poverty law, all debaters will have the opportunity to vote and can use the skills they learn from politics to make critical decisions about political affiliation POLITICS DISADS GOOD ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at Berkeley.

Page1 / 210

Straight Up Politics - Politics Disad Michigan 7 week File...

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