Michigan 7 Week 2010
T Ground Forces
7 Week Seniors
T— GROUND FORCES 1NC
Interpretation: “Military” means land forces
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 2009
4. Of or
relating to land forces.
They don’t meet—the aff includes the Air Force or Navy
First, predictable limits—allowing the aff to affect other branches multiplies the number of cases because
they could withdraw any service or combination from any country or combination of countries—this
makes neg preparation impossible
Second, predictable ground—their interpretation destroys disads based on shifting from one strategy or
force to another, and changes the core of the topic away from debates about land power versus air and
naval power to debates about overall presence, which requires an entirely different set of neg arguments
Third, they undermine education on the topic—this evidence also supports our ground and limits claims
(Geoffrey, Professor of Maritime Studies in the Defence Studies Department of King's College, The development of British naval thinking: essays in
memory of Bryan McLaren Ranft, p. 130)
Accordingly, the aim of professional military education was to correct
such dysfunctional practices
by encouraging the
development of the joint approach.
In this, professional educators would be serving strategic, operational and, indirectly, even tactical
Richmond’s aim was to help develop what we would now call ‘jointery’, specifically by encouraging naval officers to think
about their interrelationship with their Army and RAF colleagues.
Naval strategy needed to be thought of as an essential but
contributory part of general strategy
: We all, of all three services, worked in the most complete harmony at the college.
too busy seeking to understand each other’s needs, to find ways by which we could combine our efforts, to descend to petty squabbles
about the greater or lesser importance of our respective services.
These early indications of a developing interest in ‘joint’ rather than
simply naval thinking were of course built on foundations laid by Corbett and Callwell before the war.
But all three service chiefs
of the IDC and everything it stood for, partly because they thought it might
well encourage the creation of
institutions, procedures and personnel that could
in due course undermine their own service authority
course, quite right
There were also some misgivings amongst the thinkers about how far this could safely go.