Land Forces - Michigan 7 Week 2010 T Ground Forces 7 Week...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Michigan 7 Week 2010 T Ground Forces 7 Week Seniors T— GROUND FORCES 1NC Interpretation: “Military” means land forces AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 2009 (“Military,” 4. Of or  relating to land forces. They don’t meet—the aff includes the Air Force or Navy Vote Negative— 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 TILL 2006 (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 purposes. 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. We were 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 were still wary 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 . In this, they were , of course, quite right . There were also some misgivings amongst the thinkers about how far this could safely go.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 17

Land Forces - Michigan 7 Week 2010 T Ground Forces 7 Week...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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