C2 Peace directly relies on the US and the only option is to increase spending

C2 peace directly relies on the us and the only

This preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 7 pages.

C2: Peace directly relies on the US, and the only option is to increase spending. Kagan, Robert. "The Importance of U.S. Military Might Shouldn't Be Underestimated." The Washington Post . WP Company, 2 Feb. 2012 . Web. 09 Jan. 2017. The international system is not static. It responds quickly to fluctuations in power. If the United States were to cut too deeply into its ability to project military power, other nations could be counted on to respond accordingly . Those nations whose power rises in relative terms would display expanding ambitions commensurate with their new clout in the international system. They would, as in the past, demand particular spheres of influence. Those whose power declined in relative terms, like the United States, would have little choice but to cede some influence in those areas. Thus China would lay claim to its sphere of influence in Asia, Russia in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. And, as in the past, these burgeoning great-power claims would overlap and conflict: India and China claim the same sphere in the Indian Ocean; Russia and Europe have overlapping spheres in the region between the Black Sea and the Baltic. Without the United States to suppress and contain these conflicting ambitions, there would have to be complex adjustments to establish a new balance. Some of these adjustments could be made through diplomacy, as they were sometimes in the past. Other adjustments might be made through war or the threat of war, as also happened in the past. The biggest illusion is to imagine that as American power declines, the world stays the same. C3: There are many people that need the US’s help Salmon, Diem Nguyen . "A Proposal for the FY 2016 Defense Budget." The Heritage Foundation , 30 Jan. 2015 . Web. 04 Dec. 2016.
Image of page 2
Morse/Bogar Pro January First , the security situation in many parts of the world has shifted in directions unfavorable to U.S. interests. In the past few years, the constellation of threats to the U.S. has changed, and the U.S. needs to reexamine current defense spending levels, which were set in 2011. Reality soon intruded on President Obama’s desire to focus solely on domestic concerns, beginning with Tunisia in December 2010. The Arab Spring protest movement, which afected every country in the Middle East and North Africa to varying degrees , ousted several regional leaders from power and upended the existing geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East. Instability and unrest persist in many of these countries—including Libya, Egypt, and Yemen—with little promise of resolution or stability anywhere on the horizon. Fragile as those countries are, the legacy of the Arab Spring is nowhere more painfully evident than in border areas of Iraq and Syria. The March 2011 uprising against Bashar al-Assad, Assad’s violent response, and the increasing sectarian strife in Iraq after the withdrawal of American troops would have been unwelcome developments on their own merits, but the turmoil in Iraq and the burgeoning civil war in Syria also paved the way for the emergence of the Islamist terrorist organization known as the Islamic State (ISIS).
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 7 pages?

  • Fall '18
  • military, Spending, United States Department of Defense, military spending, United States armed forces, United States Army, militarism, Military of the United States, PF

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes