Docstoc

Afghanistan PMCs Affirmative - Juniors - GDS 2010

Document Sample
Afghanistan PMCs Affirmative - Juniors - GDS 2010 Powered By Docstoc
					PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                   GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                            Juniors
                                                                PMC Affirmative
***1AC*** ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
1AC – Plan .............................................................................................................................................................. 2
1AC – Human Rights .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1AC – Rape ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
1AC – COIN ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
***Topicality*** .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Noncombat Troops................................................................................................................................................ 14
Boots on Ground ................................................................................................................................................... 16
Don‘t Fly the Flag ................................................................................................................................................. 17
PMC Definitions ................................................................................................................................................... 18
PMCs defined........................................................................................................................................................ 18
***Human Rights*** ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Human Rights – Prevents Extinction .................................................................................................................... 19
Human Rights – Outweighs Security.................................................................................................................... 20
Human Rights – Key to Policy ............................................................................................................................. 21
PMCs Effect Human Rights.................................................................................................................................. 22
***Patriarchy*** .................................................................................................................................................. 22
Patriarchy Comes First .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Impact – Nuclear War ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Impact – War......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Impact – Environment........................................................................................................................................... 27
Impact – Extinction ............................................................................................................................................... 28
Root Cause ............................................................................................................................................................ 29
***Terrorism***................................................................................................................................................... 30
Civilian Casualties Doom Afghanistan Efforts..................................................................................................... 31
Local Support is Key ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Plan Popular/Unpopular*** .................................................................................................................................. 32
Plan Popular .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Plan Unpopular ..................................................................................................................................................... 34
***Addons*** ...................................................................................................................................................... 34
Rape Addon .......................................................................................................................................................... 35
***Miscellaneous*** ........................................................................................................................................... 35
PMCs K2 Security Vacuum .................................................................................................................................. 36
List of PMC Services ............................................................................................................................................ 37




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                        1
                                                                         ***1AC***
PMC Affirmative                                                             GDS 2010
Anik                                                                               Juniors
                                         1AC – Plan
Plan: The United States Federal Government should remove its Private Military Contractors
from Afghanistan.




We‘ll Clarify.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                     Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                        2
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                                                                 GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                                                                             Juniors
                                                                            1AC – Human Rights
Contention 1 Human Rights

PMCs committing human rights violations now
Human Rights First, leading think tank on HR work, 5/18/10
(http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/usls/2010/alert/624/)

       The U.S. government has relied more on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan than at any other time. With this increased reliance on
       contractors have come increased incidents of serious criminal violations. Yet, only a handful of U.S. contractors have been prosecuted for criminal
       misconduct. The most notorious incident—the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisoor Square in 2008 by Blackwater
       employees—symbolizes the ―culture of impunity‖ that Human Rights First reported on in 2008. Contractors have been implicated in a range of abuses across theaters and in
       multiple capacities. They have been accused of participating in torture4 and of imposing wanton violence on local civilian populations.5 In an incident that eerily mirrors the Nisoor Square violence,
       Blackwater subcontractors are accused of the unprovoked murder of two Afghan men and injuring one other after firing at a nearby vehicle in a Kabul intersection.6    By failing to hold
       contractors accountable for acts of violence and abuse abroad, the United States has created a culture of impunity which has
       fostered great hostility among civilian populations towards the United States. This threatens the safety of U.S military
       personnel and contractors as well as undermines the U.S. mission. These abuses, and the accompanying lack of accountability, are inextricably
       linked with the tasks that we ask private security contractors to perform. In this testimony we focus on each aspect of that link and offer potential solutions to
       ensure that the United States‘ use of contractor personnel, who often contribute to mission success in important ways, conforms to U.S. values and policy interests. In short , minimizing the
       likelihood that security contractors will be drawn into hostilities, while ensuring appropriate accountability and oversight,
       can restore America‘s position as a leader on human rights issues while strengthening our ability to accomplish important
       national security objectives.

Human rights responsibility key to prevent extinction
Copelan 99
(Rhonda Copelan, law professor, NYU, NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW, 1999, p. 71-2)

       Inattention to the international framework of human rights as a measure of domestic policy is also bolstered by the myth that the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of
       Rights, is the best and most effective guarantor of human rights in the world. This bias is further ensured by the lack of human rights education as part of educational curricula at
                                                                                                                there is little popular
       all levels. Neither international law nor human rights are required courses in most law schools, let alone in other contexts. Accordingly, today
       sense of entitlement to the full range of human rights or knowledge of the principle of governmental responsibility. The
       United States has also used the myth of constitutional superiority to hold itself above international scrutiny and continues to do so
       today in its refusal to ratify the ICESCR and the Women's and Child Rights Conventions and in the limits it imposes when it does ratify human rights treaties. In the
                             United States has consistently deprecated social and economic rights--the second-generation rights--as simply
       international arena, the
       aspirations: they are not real rights to which states could be held accountable, and they involve too much intrusion into domestic policy. While the issues of definition and
       standard [*71] setting are indeed challenging, this deference to sovereignty or self-determination in regard to economic and social rights ironically evaporates when U.S. foreign
       aid or the assistance of the World Bank or International Monetary Fund are at issue. There, for example, extensive economic restructuring is demanded in return for debt relief
                                            hostility to social and economic rights as mandated entitlements together with the myth
       and continuing international assistance. n35 U.S.
       of constitutional superiority has hindered popular knowledge as well as advocacy in the United States of the UDHR's indivisible
       framework. On the domestic level, neither the welfare rights movement of the 1960s nor its legal advocates made the UDHR or the ICESCR a theme or used them as a
       normative frame of reference. Major U.S.-based international human rights groups traditionally have excluded economic and social rights from their purview, although this is
       under review today. And significantly, grass roots movements have begun explicitly campaigning for human rights, including economic rights. n36 Until recently, it may have
       seemed that the New Deal social welfare programs of the 1930s and the civil rights legislation of the mid-1960s were a permanent part of the legal landscape, albeit not by
       constitutional compulsion. Thus, just over a decade ago, a leading U.S. human rights scholar argued that the United States had become a welfare state and that "the welfare
       system and other rights granted by legislation (for example, laws against racial discrimination) are so deeply imbedded as to have near constitutional sturdiness." n37 Given the
       recent stripping away of social welfare entitlements, the need for attention to the international framework as a normative basis for social and economic rights in the Constitution
       is pressing. Theindivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the
       international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority [*72] of the U.S. version of rights, to rebuild
       popular expectations, and to help develop a culture and jurisprudence of indivisible human rights . Indeed, in the face of
       systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and
       military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being
       broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of
       women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and
       betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new
       mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries . The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development,
       environmental protection, peace, and security. n38 Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as well as our role
       in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy.



Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                                   Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      3
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                                        GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                                                   Juniors
Human rights impacts always outweigh impacts of ―National Security‖.
Smiley, Pulitzer Prize winner (essayist and writer), 07
(Jane, The Huffington Post, November 19, ―Why Human Rights are More Important than National Security‖, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/why-human-rights-are-
more_b_73286.html)

      On Friday, the morning after the Democratic debate, I was stunned to read in the War Room column over in Salon that Governor Bill Richardson had said the wrong thing about
      national security versus human rights. Tim Grieve wrote, "We're not sure which office Richardson is seeking these days, but he came pretty close to disqualifying himself from
      either of them last night when he insisted that human rights are more important than America's national security." I'm not sure what planet Tim Grieve is living on, but on our
      planet, it is human rights that are precious and rare and always to be preserved and "national security" that is ever and anon a cant boondoggle. I was not alone in my dismay. I
      read War Room almost everyday and have liked Grieve's posts in the past. When I first read what he was saying, I thought he was joking; so did other readers. The entry got 57
                                                                                Human rights are defined, most notably in the
      responses. Almost all of them were outraged, and several called on Tim to explain himself. He never did.
      U.S. Bill of Rights. They are defined because the Founding Fathers realized that if they were not defined, they would be
      more likely to be abrogated or lost entirely. The Founding Fathers understood the temptation on the part of governments to
      give and remove human rights arbitrarily, because they had experienced such things before the Revolutionary War -- in the Stamp Act, in
      the quartering of British soldiers on American households, and in illegal searches and seizures, in no taxation without representation. They recognized that although British Law
      customarily acknowledged various human rights, it was essential to name, codify, and write them down to make it less likely that they could be taken away. humans rights
      theory, if someone is human, he or she has the same rights as every other human. The rights of American citizens as described in the Bill of Rights have been expanded and
      extrapolated around the world so that they apply not only to us but to everyone. While in the U.S. this idea is a bit controversial, in other countries it is standard, accepted, and
                                                                                                                   roll back human
      cherished. The codification of human rights, and the widespread acknowledgment of this, is one of the things that makes the modern world modern. To
      rights, even for some individuals, is to return to a more primitive, hierarchical, and un-American theory of human relations.
      One example, of course, concerns women. Can women routinely be imprisoned, sold, mutilated, or killed by their relatives? U.S. law says they cannot; in practice, many are, but
                                            a candidate, even a Republican, ran on a platform of reducing the legal rights of
      no one openly promotes what many secretly do. If
      women, he wouldn't get far (ask me again in 10 years, though). Or consider lynching. The U.S. has a long tradition of
      lynching. It was only after the Second World War that the Federal Government and state governments began enforcing their
      own anti-lynching laws. This was a victory for human rights. Do you want to go back? The Republicans would like you to,
      in the name of: "national security." Guess what? There is no such thing as "national security"; it's a concept that not only
      hasn't been defined, it can't be defined. It is a psychological state. The very phrase describes an impossibility. All boundaries in the U.S. and in every
      other country are porous. Planes come and go, as do ships, trains, trucks, autos, information superhighways, human relationships, and human emotions. In addition, the smaller
                                              no longer live in the world of Mutually Assured Destruction, where our thousands
      any threat becomes, the less safe we are against it. We
      of warheads aimed at the Russians protected us, psychologically, from their thousands of warheads aimed at us. Since the
      end of the Cold War, threats have gotten smaller and more invisible. Where is that suitcase of nuclear material? Where is
      that vial of anthrax? But as they have gotten less easily detected, they have also gotten more local. 9/11 is what we always think of
      when we think of a breach of national security, but in fact, the destruction was not national, or even city-wide, or even district wide -- although the World Trade Center was less
      than a mile from the New York Stock Exchange, the NYSE was only closed for six days after 9/11. The phrase "national security" cannot mean anything in a nation of almost 10
      million square miles. The Bush administration and the corporatocracy knows this perfectly well. Witness how our chemical plants have not been secured from the possibility of
      terrorist attack -- there are too many of them, and the likelihood of any one getting attacked is too small to make it worthwhile for either the nation or the chemical industry to
      fortify them. The Dubai Ports deal of a couple of years ago demonstrated the same understanding on the part of the administration, that "national security" is merely rallying cry
      for fear. The Bush administration has spent some trillions of dollars (I shrink from naming a figure, since, as big as it is, it is surely a lie) to attack a nation of a mere 437,000
      square miles. In doing so, they have chosen to ignore such items of U.S. national security as public health and infrastructure maintenance. The population of the U.S. is
      demonstrably poorer, hungrier, less healthy, more homeless, more likely to be injured in an infrastructure failure, and more likely to suffer from a weather related loss than it
      was before the Bush administration came into office. A huge debt means that the economy is more likely to fail. The prospects of our children for a peaceful and prosperous
      future are worse. Nothing that the Bush administration or the Republicans or the Military Industrial Complex has done in the last seven years of foolish incompetence and
      braggadoccio has benefited the nation as a whole, though it has benefited a small class of investors and government cronies. As a result of the Iraq War and the Bush attack on
      the Constitution, I can be afraid of the obliteration of the entire idea of the U.S. -- I am afraid of that, thanks to the tyrannies of the Bush administration and the professions of
      the current crop of Republican candidates -- but not of the obliteration of the U.S. itself. Indeed, the war in Iraq shows more than one thing about the idea of national security,
      because even though the Iraqis have been attacked by the largest military in the world, they have been damaged but not subdued. The same would be true of the U.S., no matter
                                       and Democrats recognize, at least intuitively, that "national security" is a code word for
      who attacked us. Liberals, progressives,
      tribalism, while "human rights" is a code word for the rule of law. Governor Richardson was straightforward in acknowledging this fact, and
      deserves praise rather than blame, especially from a writer for Salon.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                        Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                                               4
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                    GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                            Juniors
                                                                        1AC – Rape
Contention 2 Rape

PMCs implicated in rape now
Schulz and Yeung, Director of policy at BAPSC and Strategic Analyst for Canadian National Defense, 2006
(Private Military and Security Companies and Gender, Both have PHDs in international politics)

      There have been instances of private security personnel, both male and female, being implicated in GBV including the sexual
      abuse of women, men, boys and girls. At the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, a juvenile male detainee alleged that he was raped by a
      civilian interpreter working for the contract company Titan. At the same facility, allegations of sexually demeaning
      interrogation techniques have been made against a civilian employee of CACI Corporation . Neither cases have been prosecuted.22
      (Also see Box 8). Reporting of such incidents remains poor, however. Instances of GBV and sexual abuse can discredit both an individual
      company and, potentially, an entire operation. _ There is a historical link between prostitution/sex work, the trafficking of
      women and children for the purposes of prostitution and the presence of regular armed forces.23 Because of the tendency by
      PMSCs to draw employees from regular armed forces, it is likely that these linkages and practices also apply to private contractors .24
      The involvement of DynCorp personnel in illegal prostitution and trafficking in Bosnia (see Box 2) and the wrongful dismissal by DynCorp of one female
      employee and one male employee for implicating colleagues in forced prostitution served to tarnish the industry as a whole.25 In Afghanistan, there
      have been reports that security contractors have fuelled the emergence of numerous brothels and are involved in trafficking
      of arms and women. They are also widely perceived to have been the cause of the deterioration of relations between the
      international (Western) community and local Afghan communities.26 These examples starkly highlight the importance of
      addressing misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse by PMSC personne l, as well as the need for companies to have
      effective internal complaint procedures. _ If security operators are involved in sexual assault, abuse, or the exploition of local women, not only are they
      committing human rights violations, but they also cause increased security risks for their clients and for themselves. This poses a significant threat to
      operational success.

Rape is central to patriarchy- ending it key
Martin, Professor of Social Sciences, 1990
(Brian, University of Wollongong, Australia, Uprooting War)

      Direct challenges to patriarchy also can have an indirect impact on the support provided by patriarchy to the war system.
      This occurs through the weakening of patriarchal domination at key points, such as the role of rape , violence and restrictions on
      abortion in keeping women dependent on men as protectors or providers. This reduces the value of patriarchy as a prop for other
      structures such as bureaucracy and the military. For example, challenging the treatment of women as sex objects reduces the potential
      for mobilisation of masculinity in military training. Another important challenge is to overcome the division of labour
      between home and workplace. The separation between 'productive' labour for corporations or state bureaucracies and
      'reproductive' labour in the home and family is central to patriarchy. Challenging this separation is also a challenge to dominant structures
      within the sphere of 'production,' which is based on subordination and exploitation of women's labour within the family.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                               Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                     5
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                               GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                Juniors
Patriarchy is extinction – war, violence, and environmental destruction are inevitable absent the plan
Warren and Cady, 96
(Karen Warren and Duane Cady, Professors at Macalester and Hamline, Bringing peace home: feminism, violence, and nature, 1996, p.12-13)

      Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise to, (c) the
      unmanageability, (d) which results. For example, in the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or four women will
      be raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-massochistic pornography are
      examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy. In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining,
      factory farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and sanctioned within
      patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to ―rape the earth,‖ that it is ―man‘s God-given right‖ to have
      dominion (that is domination) over the earth, that nature has only instrumental value that environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for
      ―progress.‖ And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or
      nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to international unmanageability. Much
      of the current ―unmanageability‖ of contemporary life in patriarchal societies, (d) is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal
      preoccupation with activities, events, and experiences that reflect historically male-gender-identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions.
      Included among these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war, and environmental destruction,
      and violence towards women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth of patriarchal thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these
      dysfunctional behaviors—the symptoms of dysfunctionality—that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate
      them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this ―unmanageability‖ can be seen for what it is—as a predictable and thus logical
      consequence of patriarchy. The theme that global environmental crises, war, and violence generally are predictable and logical
      consequences of sexism and patriarchal culture is pervasive in ecofeminist literature. Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for instance, argues that
      ―a militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they reflect and instill patriarchal values
      and fulfill needs of such a system. Acknowledging the context of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism is a
      first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth.‖ Stated in terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy as a
      dysfunctional social system, the claims by Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer meaning: Patriarchal conceptual frameworks legitimate
      impaired thinking (about women, national and regional conflict, the environment) which is manifested in behaviors which, if continued, will make
      life on earth difficult, if not impossible It is a stark message, but it is plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the conceptual roots of
      various woman-nature-peace connections in regional, national, and global contexts.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                 6
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                        Juniors
                                                                      1AC – COIN

Contention 3 Counter Insurgency

Afghanistan insurgency is at the tipping point. Acting now is key
Smith, 2010
[Mark S., Associated Press – Correspondent, June 26, ―Obama, Brit Leader: Afghanistan in critical period,‖
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD9GJ5FH80]


      TORONTO — President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron say it is critical to get the Afghanistan war right this
      year. Speaking to reporters Saturday after their first meeting since Cameron took power, the two leaders said their nations have the right strategy in
      Afghanistan. Obama said at a meeting of industrial and developing nations in Toronto that " this period that we are in is going to be critical."
      Cameron said "we're giving it everything we can to get it right this year." With a resurgent Taliban and major U.S.-led offensives planned,
      the nine-year-old war is considered at a tipping point.

Public support is critical to success in Afghanistan
Ashdown ‗7 - Paddy Ashdown, July 21, 2007, fmr British MP and High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, ―We are failing in Afghanistan,‖ DAWN [leading
English language newspaper of Pakistan], http://www.southasianmedia.net/index_opinion.cfm?category=Security&country=AFGHANISTAN

      I recently had a rather heated conversation with a government minister who assured me that we were winning in Afghanistan because "we were killing more
      Taliban". But success is not measured in dead Taliban. It's measured in how many more water supplies are being reconnected; how many more
                                                                                                      all, whether we are winning or
      people now have the benefit of the rule of law and good governance; how many have the prospect of a job; and, above
      losing the battle for public opinion, which is central to successful reconstruction . The polls measuring domestic opinion
      show falling support for the international presence. The decline has been relatively small, but once this slide begins it can
      move fast and be difficult to turn around. Modern war is fought among the people, and so is post-conflict reconstruction.
      The battle for public opinion is the crucial battle: if you lose it, you lose full stop. We have to turn this around very rapidly
      if we are not to have another, and more painful, failure on our hands after Iraq .

PMCs are uniquely harmful to local support—they have no stake in the larger counterinsurgency effort
and don‘t try to win over local populations
Singer 07 (Peter Singer, Director, 21st Century Defense Initiative, ―The Dark Truth About Blackwater‖, 10/2/07, Brookings,
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2007/1002militarycontractors.aspx)

      The point here is not that all contractors are "cowboys," "unprofessional" or "killers," as Blackwater and other contractors are often described. Most are
      highly talented ex-soldiers. However, their private mission is different from the overall public operation. Those, for example, doing
      escort duty are going to be judged by their corporate bosses solely on whether they get their client from point A to B, not
      whether they win Iraqi hearts and minds along the way. Ann Exline Starr, a former Coalition Provisional Authority advisor,
      described the difference between when she traveled with a U.S. military escort and with guards from Blackwater and another State
      Department-contracted security firm, DynCorp. While the uniformed soldiers kept her safe, they also did such things as playing
      cards and drinking tea with local Iraqis. The private contractors had a different focus. "What they told me was, 'Our mission is to protect
      the principal at all costs. If that means pissing off the Iraqis, too bad.'" This "protection first and last" mentality has led to many
      common operating practices that clearly enrage locals. In an effort to keep potential threats away, contractors drive convoys up the
      wrong side of the road, ram civilian vehicles, toss smoke bombs, and fire weaponry as warnings, all as standard practices .
      After a month spent embedded with Blackwater contractors in Baghdad, journalist Robert Young Pelton said, "They're famous for being very
      aggressive. They use their machine guns like car horns." As far back as 2005, U.S. officers in Iraq such as Col. Hammes were worried that
      while contractors may have been fulfilling their contract, they were also "making enemies each time they went out." U.S. Army Col. Peter Mansoor,
      one of the leading experts on counterinsurgency, similarly noted in January 2007, that "if they push traffic off the roads or if they
      shoot up a car that looks suspicious, whatever it may be, they may be operating within their contract -- to the detriment of
      the mission, which is to bring the people over to your side . I would much rather see basically all armed entities in a counter-
      insurgency operation fall under a military chain of command."




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                               Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                   7
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                     GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                             Juniors
Subpoint A Leadership

Failure in Afghanistan destroys US hegemony—sends a signal of diminished American power
Weinstein ‘04 (Dr. Michael A., Power and Interest News Report, 11-12, http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=235&language_id=1)
      The persistence of insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has hampered rebuilding efforts in both countries and
      blocked their emergence as credible democracies, diverts U.S. resources and attention from other interests and -- as long as
      progress is slow or nonexistent -- sends the message that Washington remains vulnerable. The recent election of Hamid Karzai to
      Afghanistan's presidency has not changed that country's political situation; power outside Kabul remains in the hands of warlords, the drug trade remains
      the major support of the country's economy, and the Taliban insurgency continues. In Iraq, Washington counts on elections in January 2005 for a
      constitutional assembly to provide legitimacy for the state-building process, but at present that goal seems unlikely to be achieved. Washington for the
      foreseeable future will be tied down managing the consequences of its earlier interventions. If Washington decides to retreat -- more likely from
      Iraq than from Afghanistan -- its loss of power will be confirmed, encouraging other powers to test its resolve elsewhere . Only
      in the unlikely case that Washington manages to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq in the short term will other powers think twice about probing U.S.
      vulnerabilities. In South America, Brazil will attempt to secure a foothold for the Mercosur customs union and beat back Washington's efforts to extend
      the N.A.F.T.A. formula south. In East Asia, China will push for regional hegemony and is likely to put pressure on Taiwan and to try to draw Southeast
      Asian states into its sphere of influence. Beijing can also be expected to drag its feet on North Korean denuclearization and to continue to oppose sanctions
      on Iran over its nuclear program. Russia will attempt to increase its influence over the states on its periphery that were formerly Soviet republics. Moscow
      will try to strengthen ties in Central Asia, the Transcaucasus and Eastern Europe (Belarus and Ukraine), and to fend off Washington's inroads into those
      areas. The European Union, with the Franco-German combine at its heart, will continue its moves to assimilate its Eastern European members and extend
      its sphere of influence to the entire Mediterranean basin through trade agreements. In each of these regions, Washington will face tests leading to the
      possibility of an overload of challenges and a decreased likelihood that any one of them will be handled with sufficient attention and resources. Within the
      general scenario, Islamic revolution remains a disturbing factor. If there is another major attack within the United States, Washington's security policy will
      fall into disarray and the population will suffer a traumatic loss of confidence that will adversely affect the economy and will open the possibility of a
      legitimation crisis or a burst of ultra-nationalism. Even if there is not another event like the September 11 attacks, homeland security and the international
      adjustments that are necessary to serve it will divert attention and resources from other challenges. The geostrategic constraints on Washington are
      exacerbated by the financial limits posed by the budget deficit and the possibilities of a precipitous decline in the dollar and rising raw materials prices.
      How much the United States will be able to spend to protect the interests perceived by its leaders remains an open question. It is widely acknowledged that
      post-war nation building has been underfunded in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that major increases in expenditures are unlikely. Most generally, Washington
      is faced with the choice of rebuilding U.S. power or slowly retreating to an undisputed regional power base in North America. It is not clear that the Bush
      administration will have the resolve or the resources to rebuild its military and intelligence apparatus, and restore its alliance structure. During the first
      term of George W. Bush, Washington was the initiator in world affairs, attempting to carry through a unilateralist program that, if successful, would have
      made the United States a permanent superpower protecting globalized capitalism to its advantage. In Bush's second term, Washington will primarily be a
      responder, because it is mired in the failures of the unilateralist thrust. The image of decisive military superiority has been replaced by a sense of U.S.
      limitations, and massive budget surpluses have given way to the prospect of continued large deficits. Reinforcing Factors from the Election As the Bush
      administration attempts to deal with persisting problems resulting in great part from actions taken during the President's first term, it will face difficulties
      that follow from the need to satisfy the constituencies that made for the Republican victory. The election confirmed that the American public does not
      share a consensus on foreign policy and, indeed, is polarized. It is also polarized on economic and social issues, along similar axes, creating a situation in
      which any new policies proposed by the administration are likely to be met with domestic opposition and at the very least partial support. Besides being a
      drag on foreign policy initiatives, polarization also affects Washington's international posture by the attention and commitment that the administration will
      have to give to the domestic battles that it will fight in congress in order to push a legislative agenda that will satisfy its constituencies. During his
      campaign and in his post-election press conference, Bush committed his administration to ambitious policy initiatives to take steps in the direction of
      privatizing Social Security and to reform the tax code radically. Both of those plans, along with tort reform and extension of tax cuts, will generate fierce
      conflicts in congress and quickly exhaust the President's "political capital" available to win support on other issues. The vision of an "ownership society,"
      in which government regulations and entitlements are dismantled or scaled back, is the domestic equivalent of neo-conservative foreign policy; it is a
      utopian view with little chance of success. If the administration seriously pursues its plans, it will be preoccupied domestically and, consequently, will
      devote less attention to world affairs. Focus on domestic politics will be increased by the need to satisfy social conservative constituencies by appointing
      judges favorable to their positions on "moral values." Here again, there will be strong opposition if appointments are perceived by Democrats and
      moderate Republicans as too ideologically favorable to the religious right. Protracted battles over judgeships -- whether successful or not -- would further
      diminish Bush's political capital for foreign policy initiatives by heating up partisanship. It is possible that the administration will not pursue its agenda
      aggressively and will seek compromises, but that is not likely because of pressures within the Republican Party. The same constituencies that voted in
      Bush elected a Republican congress, and its members face reelection contests and the consequent need to satisfy their bases. Since Bush cannot serve a
      third term, Republican officeholders can no longer depend on his popularity to help carry them to victory. They also do not have a unifying leader with a
      political strategy to coordinate diverse constituencies. The combination of the lame-duck effect and the strategy void will drive Republicans to depend on
      their particular constituencies and press their claims assertively. The administration will be under pressure to push its domestic agenda vigorously at the
      same time that the various Republican factions fight for control of the party and Democrats move to exploit any weaknesses that appear. It is likely that
      Republican loyalty to Bush will be strained, further decreasing the administration's latitude and forcing it to bargain for support. The Republican majority
      is less solid than it might seem on the surface and includes factions that are at odds with administration foreign policy. Conclusion Persistent and emerging
      political conditions all point in the direction of drift and reactivity in U.S. foreign and security policy -- the election has intensified tendencies that were
      already present. There is little chance that a new security doctrine will be created in the short term and that a coherent political strategy will influence
      Republican politics. Lack of public consensus will inhibit foreign policy initiatives, whether unilateralist or multilateralist. Washington's operative foreign
      policy is likely to be damage control. As Washington drifts, the rest of the world will test it, probing for weaknesses. Under steady
      pressure from many sides, the Bush administration will be drawn toward retrenchment, retreat and eventually retraction in
      international affairs. The scenario of American empire has faded into memory and the prospect that the U.S. will eventually become a dominant
      regional power with some global reach becomes more probable.



Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                         8
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                 GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                 Juniors
Decline in U.S. hegemony sparks nuclear wars in every key region---no viable replacement
Kagan 7 – Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund,
August-September 2007, ―End of Dreams, Return of History,‖ Hoover Policy Review, online: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html

      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 would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold 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 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 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 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 other Middle Eastern
      states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the
      United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its 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. 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 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 ―even-handed‖ 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
Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                     9
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                        Juniors
[Continued No Text Deleted]
      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.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                   10
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                   GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                            Juniors
Subpoint B Central Asia

Failure in Afghanistan will spillover to Central Asia
Starr ‗05
(S. Frederick, Chair – Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Foreign Affairs, July/August, Lexis)

      In relations among states, success does not necessarily breed success. In both Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia, the United States is at a crossroads
      and must either move forward or fall back. If it chooses disinterest or passivity the cost will be enormous. Afghanistan will sink
      backward and again become a field of fierce geopolitical competition. Other countries of Central Asia will either be drawn
      into its destructive vortex or seek refuge at whatever cost, most likely in the arms of Russia or China. This will seed fresh
      rounds of instability as nationalists throughout the region fight for their waning sovereignties, as they did for years after
      1917. Development will halt.

That leads to nuclear war
Dr. M. Ehsan Ahrari, Professor of National Security and Strategy of the Joint and Combined Warfighting School at the Armed
Forces Staff College, 8/1/‘1 (www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=112)

      South and CentralAsia constitute a part of the world where a well-designed American strategy might help avoid crises or
      catastrophe. The U.S. military would provide only one component of such a strategy, and a secondary one at that, but has
      an important role to play through engagement activities and regional confidence-building. Insecurity has led the states of
      the region to seek weapons of mass destruction, missiles, and conventional arms. It has also led them toward policies
      which undercut the security of their neighbors. If such activities continue, the result could be increased terrorism,
      humanitarian disasters, continued low-level conflict and potentially even major regional war or a thermonuclear exchange .
      A shift away from this pattern could allow the states of the region to become solid economic and political partners for the United States, thus
      representing a gain for all concerned.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                               Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                      11
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                  GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                             Juniors
Subpoint C Terrorism

And, failure causes nation state takeover.
Voice of America 12/2/09
(Voice of America, Trusted Source of News Since 1942, ―Gates: Failure in Afghanistan Would Mean a 'Taliban Takeover' of Country‖
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Gates--Failure-in-Afghanistan-Would-Mean-a-Taliban-Takeover-of-Country-78359467.html)

      U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates defended President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan strategy at a congressional hearing on Wednesday, saying that
      failure in Afghanistan would mean a "Taliban takeover" of the country. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Chairman of the Joint
      Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen also took questions from members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, with several lawmakers pressing
      them about the president's pledge to begin troop withdrawals from Afghanistan by July of 2011. On the day after a major speech by President Obama
      announcing his plan to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, senior cabinet members and Pentagon officials went to Capitol Hill to take
      questions from Senate lawmakers. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the stakes for U.S. national security could not be higher.
      "Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country and likely a renewed civil
      war," said Robert Gates. Gates said Taliban-ruled areas could quickly become sanctuaries for al-Qaida again and a staging area
      for attacks into Pakistan. He said this would have severe consequences for the United States and the world, and that President
      Obama made the right decision to boost U.S. forces in Afghanistan.


Afghani nation state takeover leads to collapse of Pakistan and a fundamentalist takeover escalating to a
global nuclear conflict.
Stephen J. Morgan researcher or chaos/complexity theory, 6/3/07
(―"Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?"‖ http://electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639, political psychologist, researcher into
Chaos/Complexity Theory. Journalist/columist for theCheers.org, writing a book on the Bush Administration, political psychologist, researcher into Chaos/Complexity
Theory‖)

      However, the   Taliban is unlikely to win much support outside of the powerful Pashtun tribes. Although they make up a majority
      of the nation, they are concentrated in the south and east. Among the other key minorities, such as Tajiks and Uzbeks, who control
      the north they have no chance of making new inroads. They will fight the Taliban and fight hard, but their loyalty to the
      NATO and US forces is tenuous to say the least. The Northern Alliance originally liberated Kabul from the Taliban without Allied ground support.
      The Northern Alliance are fierce fighters, veterans of the war of liberation against the Soviets and the Afghanistan civil
      war. Mobilized they count for a much stronger adversary than the NATO and US forces. It is possible that, while they won‘t
      fight for the current government or coalition forces, they will certainly resist any new Taliban rule. They may decide to
      withdraw to their areas in the north and west of the country. This would leave the Allied forces with few social reserves ,
      excepting a frightened and unstable urban population in Kabul, much like what happened to the Soviets. Squeezed by facing fierce fighting in
      Helmund and other provinces, and, at the same time, harried by a complementary tactic of Al Qaeda-style urban terrorism
      in Kabul, sooner or later, a ―Saigon-style‖ evacuation of US and Allied forces could be on the cards. The net result could be the break-up
      and partition of Afghanistan into a northern and western area and a southern and eastern area, which would include the two key cities of Kandahar and, the
      capital Kabul. The Taliban themselves, however may decide not to take on the Northern Alliance and fighting may concentrate on creating a border
      between the two areas, about which the two sides may reach an agreement regardless of US and Allied plans or preferences. The Taliban may claim the
      name Afghanistan or might opt for ―Pashtunistan‖ – a long-standing, though intermittent demand of the Pashtuns, within Afghanistan and especially along
      the ungovernable border regions inside Pakistan. It could not be ruled out that the Taliban could be aiming to lead a break away of the
      Pakistani Pashtuns to form a 30 million strong greater Pashtun state, encompassing some 18 million Pakistani Pashtuns and
      12 Afghan Pashtuns. Although the Pashtuns are more closely linked to tribal and clan loyalty, there exists a strong latent embryo of a Pashtun
      national consciousness and the idea of an independent Pashtunistan state has been raised regularly in the past with regard to the
      disputed territories common to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The area was cut in two by the ―Durand Line‖ , a totally artificial
      border between created by British Imperialism in the 19th century. It has been a question bedevilling relations between the Afghanistan
      and Pakistan throughout their history, and with India before Partition. It has been an untreated, festering wound which has
      lead to sporadic wars and border clashes between the two countries and occasional upsurges in movements for Pashtun
      independence. In fact, is this what lies behind the current policy of appeasement President Musharraf of Pakistan towards the Pashtun tribes in along
      the Frontiers and his armistice with North Waziristan last year? Is he attempting to avoid further alienating Pashtun tribes there and head–off a
      potential separatist movement in Pakistan, which could develop from the Taliban‘s offensive across the border in
      Afghanistan? Trying to subdue the frontier lands has proven costly and unpopular for Musharraf. In effect, he faces exactly the same problems as the
      US and Allies in Afghanistan or Iraq. Indeed, fighting Pashtun tribes has cost him double the number of troops as the US has lost in Iraq. Evidently, he
      could not win and has settled instead for an attempted political




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                               Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                    12
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                        Juniors
[Continued No Text Deleted]
       solution. When he agreed the policy of appeasement and virtual self-rule for North Waziristan last year, President Musharraf stated clearly that
      he is acting first and foremost to protect the interests of Pakistan. While there was outrageous in Kabul, his deal with the
      Pashtuns is essentially an effort to firewall his country against civil war and disintegration. In his own words, what he fears most is,
      the « Talibanistation » of the whole Pashtun people, which he warns could inflame the already fierce fundamentalist and other
      separatist movement across his entire country. He does not want to open the door for any backdraft from the Afghan war to
      engulf Pakistan. Musharraf faces the nationalist struggle in Kashmir, an insurgency in Balochistan, unrest in the Sindh, and
      growing terrorist bombings in the main cities. There is also a large Shiite population and clashes between Sunnis and Shias are regular.
      Moreover, fundamentalist support in his own Armed Forces and Intelligence Services is extremely strong. So much so that analyst consider it likely that
      the Army and Secret Service is protecting, not only top Taliban leaders, but Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda central leadership thought to be entrenched in the
      same Pakistani borderlands. For the same reasons, he has not captured or killed Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership. Returning from the frontier
      provinces with Bin Laden‘s severed head would be a trophy that would cost him his own head in Pakistan. At best he takes the occasional risk of giving a
      nod and a wink to a US incursion, but even then at the peril of the chagrin of the people and his own military and secret service. Musharraf probably
      hopes that by giving de facto autonomy to the Taliban and Pashtun leaders now with a virtual free hand for cross border
      operations into Afghanistan, he will undercut any future upsurge in support for a break-away independent Pashtunistan
      state or a ―Peoples‘ War‖ of the Pashtun populace as a whole, as he himself described it . However events may prove him sorely
      wrong. Indeed, his policy could completely backfire upon him. As the war intensifies, he has no guarantees that the current autonomy may yet burgeon
      into a separatist movement. Appetite comes with eating, as they say. Moreover, should the Taliban fail to re-conquer al of Afghanistan,
      as looks likely, but captures at least half of the country, then a Taliban Pashtun caliphate could be established which would
      act as a magnet to separatist Pashtuns in Pakistan. Then, the likely break up of Afghanistan along ethnic lines, could,
      indeed, lead the way to the break up of Pakistan, as well. Strong centrifugal forces have always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan,
      and, in the context of the new world situation, the country could be faced with civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a
      military-fundamentalist coup d‘état. Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name
      given to male children born that year was ―Osama‖ (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the
      traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d‘état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army
      and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers
      would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside
      of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and
      sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic
      proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to
      south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast.
      Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border
      clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and possibly nuclear war, between
      Pakistan and India could no be ruled out. Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong
      Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a ―Pandora's box‖ for the region and the
      world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear
      arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other
      deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again
      become a real strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It could usher in a new
      Cold War with China and Russia pitted against the US.
       possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not
      only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons
      secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real
      strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It could usher in a new Cold War
      with China and Russia pitted against the US.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                   13
                                                                 ***Topicality***
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                     GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                              Juniors
                                                                 Noncombat Troops

1. We meet- Iraq isn‘t a war – it‘s not an international combat situation.
Ridlon 8
Captain Daniel P. Ridlon (B.A., Seattle University (2003); J.D., Harvard Law School (2006)) is the Chief of Military Justice, 30th Space Wing, Vandenberg Air Force
Base, California. He is a member of the Washington Bar. CONTRACTORS OR ILLEGAL COMBATANTS? THE STATUS OF ARMED CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ
62 A.F. L. Rev. 199

       [*206] Applying the definition in Article 2 of the Geneva Convention to the current conflict in Iraq, it is apparent, despite DOD GC's assessment to
      the contrary, that the conflict is not an international armed conflict. As stated previously, the war in Iraq began as an international armed conflict
      between two or more "High Contracting Parties." However, it is difficult to construe the conflict as it exists currently in the same light. On 28 June 2004,
      the United States handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi government. n33 Immediately following the handover of sovereignty, the President made numerous
      statements that the United States and its allies would leave Iraq if the Iraqi government made the request. n34 By returning sovereignty to Iraq,
      the United States has indicated that Iraq is no longer an occupied territory, but is instead an independent nation that can
      request United States withdrawal of forces like any other ally in whose country we have military assets. Within this context, it is difficult
      to claim that the United States continues to be engaged in an armed conflict with a "high contracting party ," such that the
      Geneva Convention applies. The current situation in Iraq is conflict between the Iraqi government and its allies, including the United States, and dissident
      elements within Iraq. These dissident elements are non-governmental entities, and they are not parties to the Geneva Convention. While some part of the
      insurgency may be comprised of elements of the former Iraqi regime, according to the United States' own assertions, these elements no longer represent
      the government of Iraq. Thus, although there is still armed conflict occurring in Iraq that meets the first element of the test for when the Geneva
      Conventions apply, the conflict is not "international" because it does not involve fighting between two states that are parties to
      the convention. Instead the conflict in Iraq is an internal armed conflict which is not governed by the full body of international humanitarian law.
      Oddly, after claiming that Iraq is currently an international armed conflict, the DOD GC's memorandum goes on to undercut that assertion. The memo
      explains that international armed conflicts have several phases. The first is the major combat operation phase during which uniformed forces of the nations
      fight. n35 In Iraq, the memo claims that this phase ended around 1 May 2003, when, "the United States and its Coalition partners defeated the Ba'athist
      regime of Saddam [*207] Hussein." n36 The next phase is the "occupation" phase, which ended in Iraq when the "governance authority was handed over
      to the Interim Iraqi Government on June 28, 2004." n37 In addressing the current state of affairs, the memo states that, "[c]urrently, operations both in Iraq
      and Afghanistan are in the transition, or stability operations phase of an international armed conflict. (In Iraq, operations may also be characterized as pcst-
      occupation.)" n38 This description appears to contradict the memo's previous statement that the conflict in Iraq is currently an international armed conflict.
      The term "post-occupation," itself suggests the conflict between the United States and Iraq has ended. Furthermore, how could the conflict continue to be
      "international" when the occupation has ended and the United States is engaged in stabilizing a government who is a party to
      the Geneva Conventions rather then fighting it? Indeed, following its characterization of the current conflict in Iraq as "post-occupation," the
      memorandum states, "[a]pplication of the law of war in the fact situations presented by current operations should not be viewed the same as during a
      period of major combat operations of an international armed conflict." n39 Thus while the DOD GC's memorandum states that the conflict
      in Iraq is an international armed conflict, their own analysis undercuts that assertion.

2. Counter Interpretation- Military presence means boots on the ground: contextually distinct from
relationship or military aid
Hartung 9/21/7
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/09/21/what_about_africa/
William D. Hartung is Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation. The project serves as a resource for journalists, policymakers, and
citizen's organizations on the issues of weapons proliferation, the economics of military spending, and alternative approaches to national security strategy. Before
coming to New America, Mr. Hartung worked for 15 years as Director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute at the New School in New York
City. He was also a policy analyst and speech writer for New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams, and a project director at the New York-based Council on
Economic Priorities. An expert on weapons proliferation, the politics and economics of military spending, regional security, and national security strategy, Mr. Hartung
is the author of numerous books, reports, and chapters in collected works on the issues of nuclear weapons, conventional arms sales, and the economics of military
spending. He has served as a featured expert on the major network and cable news outlets, and has written for national and international newspapers and magazines on a
variety of national security issues.

      But military it is -- a recent study by the the Center for Defense Information has documented that Djibouti -- which hosts a miiltary base housing 1,800
      U.S. troops -- has received 40 times as much U.S. military aid since September 11th as it did in the five years prior. Kenya received eight times as much
      over the same period, and Algeria received ten times its pre-9/11 totals. This is part of the Pentagon's strategy to establish close military-to-military
      relationships with a key network of African states that it can then use as "lily pads" to jump from one part of the continent to another as it sees fit. Not all
      African nations are taking kindly to the Pentagon's growing presence in their neighborhood . The South African Defense Minister
      recently refused to meet with the incoming U.S. head of AFRICOM, arguing that " Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on its
      soil." A number of other states, most notably Liberia, have been urging Washington to base the new command it their countries -- this may be fine for the
      governments involved, but it is unlikely to win favor with the citizens of these nations, most of whom see the U.S. as a global bully in the wake of the Iraq
      war. So what is to be done? There is clearly a need for some miitary interaction between the United States and key African
      nations, primarily in a supporting role in the development and deploymentn of regional and international peacekeeping forces that can deal with deadly
      conflicts in the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere. But these kinds of efforts don't require a U.S. military
      presence on the continent of Africa.

Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                         14
PMC Affirmative                                                                          GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                             Juniors

3. We meet the counter-interpretation- PMCs are a physical presence on the ground in Afghanistan.
4. Prefer our definition- troops are the accepted and most commonly used form of military presence.
5. We‘re reasonably topical- don‘t vote on potential abuse.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                        Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                      15
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                        Juniors
                                                                 Boots on Ground

1. We meet- PMCs are physically on the ground in Afghanistan
2. Counter interpretation- The military defines presence as visible
Jorgenson 2
JASON T. JORGENSEN, LCDR, USN B.S., US Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 1991 THE UNITED STATES NAVY‘S ABILITY TO COUNTER THE
DIESEL AND NUCLEAR SUBMARINE THREAT WITH LONG-RANGE ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE AIRCRAFT A thesis presented to the Faculty of the
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE General
Studies http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA406874.

      The 1997 National Military Strategy addressed four strategic concepts. One of these concepts was overseas presence. The National
      Military Strategy describes overseas presence as ―the visible posture of US forces and infrastructure strategically positioned
      forward, in and near key regions‖ (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 1997, 6). This concept illustrates the US‘ requirement to have military forces forward
      deployed throughout the world to protect its interests, which include geographic transit points (see Table 1). The deployment of sailors and soldiers
      throughout the world demonstrates the US‘s resolve to protect her interests and allows the US the capability to defend those interests. Given ―the
      global nature of our interests and obligations, the US must maintain its overseas presence forces and the ability to rapidly project
      power world-wide to achieve full spectrum dominance‖ (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 2000b, 6)

3. We meet counter-interpretation. PMCs are a visible presence.
4. Prefer our counterdefinition. Their definition excludes things such as nuclear weapons, which are used
to influence other nations, while our definition allows the core of the topic cases- the presence that is used
to influence other countries.
5. Don‘t vote us down as long as we are reasonably topical. Potential abuse isn‘t a voter.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                  16
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                     GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                              Juniors
                                                                 Don‘t Fly the Flag

1. We meet- US officially classifies PMCs as support component of forces under the 2006 Quadrennial
Defense Review
Thurnher 8
Judge Advocate, U.S. Army. Presently assigned as Brigade Judge Advocate, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo. LL.M., 2007, The
Judge Advocate General's Legal Ctr. & Sch., U.S. Army, Charlottesville, Va.; J.D., 2004, The College of William and Mary; B.S., 1996, University of Virginia.
―Drowning in Blackwater: How Weak Accountability over Private Security Contractors Significantly Undermines Counterinsurgency Efforts‖ 2008 Army Law. 64

      First, the United States has relied more upon contractors in Iraq than in previous operations. n22 The United States is estimated to have
      had over 180,000 contractors supporting its operations in Iraq in 2007 . n23 Thus, contractors are one of the largest contributors
      of manpower in the deployed area. n24 These contractors have been considered part of the Department of Defense ( DOD) "Total
      Force" since the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. n25

2. Counter interpretation- Military presence means boots on the ground: contextually distinct from
relationship or military aid
Hartung 9/21/07
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/09/21/what_about_africa/ William D. Hartung is Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America
Foundation. The project serves as a resource for journalists, policymakers, and citizen's organizations on the issues of weapons proliferation, the economics of
military spending, and alternative approaches to national security strategy. Before coming to New America, Mr. Hartung worked for 15 years as Director of the
Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute at the New School in New York City. He was also a policy analyst and speech writer for New York
State Attorney General Robert Abrams, and a project director at the New York-based Council on Economic Priorities. An expert on weapons proliferation, the
politics and economics of military spending, regional security, and national security strategy, Mr. Hartung is the author of numerous books, reports, and chapters
in collected works on the issues of nuclear weapons, conventional arms sales, and the economics of military spending. He has served as a featured expert on the
major network and cable news outlets, and has written for national and international newspapers and magazines on a variety of national security issues.

      But military it is -- a recent study by the the Center for Defense Information has documented that Djibouti -- which hosts a miiltary base housing 1,800
      U.S. troops -- has received 40 times as much U.S. military aid since September 11th as it did in the five years prior. Kenya received eight times as much
      over the same period, and Algeria received ten times its pre-9/11 totals. This is part of the Pentagon's strategy to establish close military-to-military
      relationships with a key network of African states that it can then use as "lily pads" to jump from one part of the continent to another as it sees fit. Not all
      African nations are taking kindly to the Pentagon's growing presence in their neighborhood . The South African Defense Minister
      recently refused to meet with the incoming U.S. head of AFRICOM, arguing that "Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on its
      soil." A number of other states, most notably Liberia, have been urging Washington to base the new command it their countries -- this may be fine for the
      governments involved, but it is unlikely to win favor with the citizens of these nations, most of whom see the U.S. as a global bully in the wake of the Iraq
      war. So what is to be done? There is clearly a need for some miitary interaction between the United States and key African
      nations, primarily in a supporting role in the development and deploymentn of regional and international peacekeeping forces that can deal with deadly
      conflicts in the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere. But these kinds of efforts don't require a U.S. military
      presence on the continent of Africa.

3. We meet the counter-interpretation- PMCs are a physical presence on the ground in Afghanistan.
4. Prefer our definition- troops are the accepted and most commonly used form of military presence.
5. They should have been ready. PMCs is a huge aff on this topic.
6. We‘re reasonably topical- don‘t vote on potential abuse.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                         17
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                          GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                                  Juniors
                                                                   PMC Definitions
PMCs defined
Beyani and Lilly, Lecturer at London school of Economics and Programme manager of security and peacebuilding programme, 2001 (Chaloki and
Damian, Regulating Private Military Companies),

      Private military companies are registered corporate bodies with legal personalities that often provide military and security
      services of a different nature and for a different purpose to the activities of mercenaries . Private military companies often employ
      mercenaries , but they d i f fer in that they are often hired by gove r n m e n t s , o s t e n s i b ly to provide public security w h e re as, non-state armed gro
      u p s , aiming to undermine the constitutional order of states, g e n e r a l ly hire merc e n a r i e s .




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                  Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                             18
                                                            ***Human Rights***
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                     GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                             Juniors
                                        Human Rights – Prevents Extinction
Human rights responsibility key to prevent extinction
Copelan 99
(Rhonda Copelan, law professor, NYU, NEW YORK CITY LAW REVIEW, 1999, p. 71-2)

      Inattention to the international framework of human rights as a measure of domestic policy is also bolstered by the myth that the U.S. Constitution,
      particularly the Bill of Rights, is the best and most effective guarantor of human rights in the world. This bias is further ensured by the lack of human
      rights education as part of educational curricula at all levels. Neither international law nor human rights are required courses in most law schools, let alone
      in other contexts. Accordingly, today there is little popular sense of entitlement to the full range of human rights or knowledge of
      the principle of governmental responsibility. The United States has also used the myth of constitutional superiority to hold
      itself above international scrutiny and continues to do so today in its refusal to ratify the ICESCR and the Women's and Child Rights Conventions
      and in the limits it imposes when it does ratify human rights treaties. In the international arena, the United States has consistently deprecated
      social and economic rights--the second-generation rights--as simply aspirations: they are not real rights to which states could be held
      accountable, and they involve too much intrusion into domestic policy. While the issues of definition and standard [*71] setting are indeed challenging,
      this deference to sovereignty or self-determination in regard to economic and social rights ironically evaporates when U.S. foreign aid or the assistance of
      the World Bank or International Monetary Fund are at issue. There, for example, extensive economic restructuring is demanded in return for debt relief
      and continuing international assistance. n35 U.S. hostility to social and economic rights as mandated entitlements together with the
      myth of constitutional superiority has hindered popular knowledge as well as advocacy in the United States of the UDHR's
      indivisible framework. On the domestic level, neither the welfare rights movement of the 1960s nor its legal advocates made the UDHR or the ICESCR a
      theme or used them as a normative frame of reference. Major U.S.-based international human rights groups traditionally have excluded economic and
      social rights from their purview, although this is under review today. And significantly, grass roots movements have begun explicitly campaigning for
      human rights, including economic rights. n36 Until recently, it may have seemed that the New Deal social welfare programs of the 1930s and the civil rights
      legislation of the mid-1960s were a permanent part of the legal landscape, albeit not by constitutional compulsion. Thus, just over a decade ago, a leading
      U.S. human rights scholar argued that the United States had become a welfare state and that "the welfare system and other rights granted by legislation (for
      example, laws against racial discrimination) are so deeply imbedded as to have near constitutional sturdiness." n37 Given the recent stripping away of social
      welfare entitlements, the need for attention to the international framework as a normative basis for social and economic rights in the Constitution is
      pressing. The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the
      international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority [*72] of the U.S. version of rights, to rebuild
      popular expectations, and to help develop a culture and jurisprudence of indivisible human rights . Indeed, in the face of
      systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and
      military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being
      broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly
      of women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and
      betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that
      call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries . The emerging rights include human-centered
      sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, and security. n38 Given the poverty and inequality in the United
      States as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic
      and foreign policy.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                        19
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                       GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                               Juniors
                                         Human Rights – Outweighs Security
Human rights impacts always outweigh impacts of ―National Security‖.
Smiley, Pulitzer Prize winner (essayist and writer), 07
(Jane, The Huffington Post, November 19, ―Why Human Rights are More Important than National Security‖, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/why-human-
rights-are-more_b_73286.html)

      On Friday, the morning after the Democratic debate, I was stunned to read in the War Room column over in Salon that Governor Bill Richardson had said
      the wrong thing about national security versus human rights. Tim Grieve wrote, "We're not sure which office Richardson is seeking these days, but he
      came pretty close to disqualifying himself from either of them last night when he insisted that human rights are more important than America's national
      security." I'm not sure what planet Tim Grieve is living on, but on our planet, it is human rights that are precious and rare and always to be preserved and
      "national security" that is ever and anon a cant boondoggle. I was not alone in my dismay. I read War Room almost everyday and have liked Grieve's posts
      in the past. When I first read what he was saying, I thought he was joking; so did other readers. The entry got 57 responses. Almost all of them were
      outraged, and several called on Tim to explain himself. He never did. Human rights are defined, most notably in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
      They are defined because the Founding Fathers realized that if they were not defined, they would be more likely to be
      abrogated or lost entirely. The Founding Fathers understood the temptation on the part of governments to give and remove
      human rights arbitrarily, because they had experienced such things before the Revolutionary War -- in the Stamp Act, in the quartering
      of British soldiers on American households, and in illegal searches and seizures, in no taxation without representation. They recognized that although
      British Law customarily acknowledged various human rights, it was essential to name, codify, and write them down to make it less likely that they could
      be taken away. humans rights theory, if someone is human, he or she has the same rights as every other human. The rights of American citizens as
      described in the Bill of Rights have been expanded and extrapolated around the world so that they apply not only to us but to everyone. While in the U.S.
      this idea is a bit controversial, in other countries it is standard, accepted, and cherished. The codification of human rights, and the widespread
      acknowledgment of this, is one of the things that makes the modern world modern. To roll back human rights, even for some individuals, is
      to return to a more primitive, hierarchical, and un-American theory of human relations. One example, of course, concerns women.
      Can women routinely be imprisoned, sold, mutilated, or killed by their relatives? U.S. law says they cannot; in practice, many are, but no one openly
      promotes what many secretly do. If a candidate, even a Republican, ran on a platform of reducing the legal rights of women, he
      wouldn't get far (ask me again in 10 years, though). Or consider lynching. The U.S. has a long tradition of lynching. It was
      only after the Second World War that the Federal Government and state governments began enforcing their own anti-
      lynching laws. This was a victory for human rights. Do you want to go back? The Republicans would like you to, in the
      name of: "national security." Guess what? There is no such thing as "national security"; it's a concept that not only hasn't
      been defined, it can't be defined. It is a psychological state. The very phrase describes an impossibility. All boundaries in the U.S. and in
      every other country are porous. Planes come and go, as do ships, trains, trucks, autos, information superhighways, human relationships, and human
      emotions. In addition, the smaller any threat becomes, the less safe we are against it. We no longer live in the world of Mutually Assured
      Destruction, where our thousands of warheads aimed at the Russians protected us, psychologically, from their thousands of
      warheads aimed at us. Since the end of the Cold War, threats have gotten smaller and more invisible. Where is that suitcase
      of nuclear material? Where is that vial of anthrax? But as they have gotten less easily detected, they have also gotten more
      local. 9/11 is what we always think of when we think of a breach of national security, but in fact, the destruction was not national, or even city-wide, or
      even district wide -- although the World Trade Center was less than a mile from the New York Stock Exchange, the NYSE was only closed for six days
      after 9/11. The phrase "national security" cannot mean anything in a nation of almost 10 million square miles. The Bush administration and the
      corporatocracy knows this perfectly well. Witness how our chemical plants have not been secured from the possibility of terrorist attack -- there are too
      many of them, and the likelihood of any one getting attacked is too small to make it worthwhile for either the nation or the chemical industry to fortify
      them. The Dubai Ports deal of a couple of years ago demonstrated the same understanding on the part of the administration, that "national security" is
      merely rallying cry for fear. The Bush administration has spent some trillions of dollars (I shrink from naming a figure, since, as big as it is, it is surely a
      lie) to attack a nation of a mere 437,000 square miles. In doing so, they have chosen to ignore such items of U.S. national security as public health and
      infrastructure maintenance. The population of the U.S. is demonstrably poorer, hungrier, less healthy, more homeless, more likely to be injured in an
      infrastructure failure, and more likely to suffer from a weather related loss than it was before the Bush administration came into office. A huge debt means
      that the economy is more likely to fail. The prospects of our children for a peaceful and prosperous future are worse. Nothing that the Bush administration
      or the Republicans or the Military Industrial Complex has done in the last seven years of foolish incompetence and braggadoccio has benefited the nation
      as a whole, though it has benefited a small class of investors and government cronies. As a result of the Iraq War and the Bush attack on the Constitution, I
      can be afraid of the obliteration of the entire idea of the U.S. -- I am afraid of that, thanks to the tyrannies of the Bush administration and the professions of
      the current crop of Republican candidates -- but not of the obliteration of the U.S. itself. Indeed, the war in Iraq shows more than one thing about the idea
      of national security, because even though the Iraqis have been attacked by the largest military in the world, they have been damaged but not subdued. The
      same would be true of the U.S., no matter who attacked us. Liberals, progressives, and Democrats recognize, at least intuitively, that
      "national security" is a code word for tribalism, while "human rights" is a code word for the rule of law. Governor Richardson
      was straightforward in acknowledging this fact, and deserves praise rather than blame, especially from a writer for Salon.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                 Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                           20
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                 GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                         Juniors
                                               Human Rights – Key to Policy
Human rights impact assessment key to strong policy
Hunt, Professor at University of Essex, 2006
(Impact Assessments, Poverty and Human Rights: A Case Study Using The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health)

      The aim of human rights impact assessment in this study is to aid governments in complying with their international and
      national human rights obligations. In general, impact assessment is a process used to predict the future consequences of
      proposed policies, programs and projects and thereby to provide governments with opportunities to improve them before
      they are adopted or implemented. In the context of human rights impact assessment, the process aids governments in choosing
      between alternatives, making modifications, and providing for mitigating measures in order to respect, protect and fulfill
      human rights. Thus, human rights impact assessment helps governments to adopt and implement policies, programs and
      projects that will best meet their obligations to take deliberate and concrete steps toward progressive realization of human
      rights. This study also focuses on the relationship between human rights and poverty with specific reference to the right to the highest attainable standard
      of health. As human rights are particularly concerned with the rights of disadvantaged people, human rights impact
      assessment can play a crucial role in identifying the likely consequences of proposed policies, programs and projects on
      people living in poverty, as well as other marginalized people. Human rights impact assessment provides opportunities for governments
      to improve policy-making by incorporating general human rights principles into the process, and to improve policies so that
      they do not adversely affect, but rather promote, human rights, especially for people living in poverty and other
      marginalized people.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                     21
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                 GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                       Juniors
                                                 PMCs Effect Human Rights
PMCs have a negative effect on human rights now
Beyani and Lilly, Lecturer at London school of Economics and Programme manager of security and peacebuilding programme, 2001
(Chaloki and Damian, Regulating Private Military Companies),

      Section II describes the evolution of the mercenary phenomenon from an historical perspective and the growing need to draft legislation to control the
      activities of private military companies.This includes the shift from the prominence of traditional mercenaries during the 1960s and 1970s independence
      movements in Africa, to the emergence of their modern counterparts, private military companies, during the post-Cold War era. Whilst the
      international community has already developed a response to traditional mercenary activities, the way forward is less clear
      for private military companies.There is, however, growing concern about private military company activities, due to their
      potentially negative impact on peace, stability and the protection of human rights. Central to this concern is the lack of
      accountability and absence of any binding legislation to regulate them.The salient need to improve currently lacking accountability of
      private military companies is a useful foundation upon which the UK government can take appropriate steps towards drafting legislation.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                22
                                                             ***Patriarchy***
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                        Juniors
                                                       Patriarchy Comes First
Patriarchy should be steadfastly rejected
Richards, Professor of Law, New York University, 96
(David A.J., Cardozo Law Review, November, 1996, 18 Cardozo L. Rev. 767, lexis)

      Conclusion If we understand interpretive issues regarding gender and sexual preference against the background of moral slavery, these issues take on both
      a new constitutional salience and a new importance. The evils of sexism and homophobia are forms of the general evil of moral slavery
      condemned by the Thirteenth Amendment and related clauses of the other Reconstruction [*842] Amendments. That evil remains so
      powerful because our constitutional culture has been, consistent with the paradox of intolerance, so perversely complicitous
      with its transmission and reenforcement, ignoring the most powerful strand of background abolitionist thought that
      addressed the issues of the evils of slavery, racism, the subjection of women, and sexism in the most principled terms, "on
      the platform of human rights." We have made interpretive choices poorly, ignoring relevant history and traditions and thus marginalizing the discourse that
      should have been central to a fair and properly conservative interpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments in our circumstances. The ethically radical
      interpretive consequences of this approach are, in my judgment, part of its appeal as an interpretation of the strenuous moral demands of the abolitionist
      vision of the Reconstruction Amendments. If the condemnation of moral slavery is the best normative reading of the Thirteenth Amendment, then all
      forms of such slavery, public and private, are condemned by it, including both sexism and homophobia; 305 and Congressional
      enforcement power and existing statutes passed thereunder should be read accordingly. As I have already suggested, related provisions of the other
      Reconstruction Amendments (for example, equal protection) should be interpreted accordingly in support of this rights-based normative judgment. As I
      have already suggested, such interpretation should also extend to the constitutional right to privacy to encompass both a woman's right
      to choose an abortion and a homosexual's right to intimate sexual life, as forms of the basic right of associational liberty; the right may thus be
      interpreted as protecting one of the aspects of human dignity in matters of sexual autonomy against an unjustly subjugating
      sexist orthodoxy that has historically distorted the proper understanding of privacy values. 306 Indeed, the very roots of sexism in a distorted
      understanding of intimate private life may clarify both the importance and difficulty of establishing this right. We need to reinvigorate our moral and
      constitutional imaginations by confronting the background and legacy of the Reconstruction Amendments more adequately and responsibly. Abolitionist
      [*843] feminism should be central to our interpretive understanding both of that background and legacy "on the platform of human rights." In light of it,
      we may interpret the persistent sexism and homophobia of the American public and private culture as a form of moral slavery,
      the subjugation of a class of persons to a status of servile dependency or cultural death on illegitimate grounds . Both the
      power and appeal of such sexism, to both men and women, rests on a radical injustice that is constitutionally condemned. As the
      abolitionist feminists understood so well and remarkably, we will be morally and constitutionally adequate to challenge such injustice
      when we understand both its depth and scope. It is as deep as our most intimate relationships, as children to our parents, as lovers,
      as spouses in a gendered conception of marriage that cannot legally encompass the conspicuous moral and human reality of homosexual marriage. 307 It
      is as broad as the structures of our collective ethical and religious imaginations still burdened, as they are, by the unjust
      gendering of our principles, ideals, and aspirations.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                    23
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                       GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                             Juniors
Human rights impacts always outweigh impacts of ―National Security‖.
Smiley, Pulitzer Prize winner (essayist and writer), 07
(Jane, The Huffington Post, November 19, ―Why Human Rights are More Important than National Security‖,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/why-human-rights-are-more_b_73286.html)
      On Friday, the morning after the Democratic debate, I was stunned to read in the War Room column over in Salon that Governor Bill Richardson had said
      the wrong thing about national security versus human rights. Tim Grieve wrote, "We're not sure which office Richardson is seeking these days, but he
      came pretty close to disqualifying himself from either of them last night when he insisted that human rights are more important than America's national
      security." I'm not sure what planet Tim Grieve is living on, but on our planet, it is human rights that are precious and rare and always to be preserved and
      "national security" that is ever and anon a cant boondoggle. I was not alone in my dismay. I read War Room almost everyday and have liked Grieve's posts
      in the past. When I first read what he was saying, I thought he was joking; so did other readers. The entry got 57 responses. Almost all of them were
      outraged, and several called on Tim to explain himself. He never did. Human rights are defined, most notably in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
      They are defined because the Founding Fathers realized that if they were not defined, they would be more likely to be
      abrogated or lost entirely. The Founding Fathers understood the temptation on the part of governments to give and remove
      human rights arbitrarily, because they had experienced such things before the Revolutionary War -- in the Stamp Act, in the quartering
      of British soldiers on American households, and in illegal searches and seizures, in no taxation without representation. They recognized that although
      British Law customarily acknowledged various human rights, it was essential to name, codify, and write them down to make it less likely that they could
      be taken away. humans rights theory, if someone is human, he or she has the same rights as every other human. The rights of American citizens as
      described in the Bill of Rights have been expanded and extrapolated around the world so that they apply not only to us but to everyone. While in the U.S.
      this idea is a bit controversial, in other countries it is standard, accepted, and cherished. The codification of human rights, and the widespread
      acknowledgment of this, is one of the things that makes the modern world modern. To roll back human rights, even for some individuals, is
      to return to a more primitive, hierarchical, and un-American theory of human relations. One example, of course, concerns women.
      Can women routinely be imprisoned, sold, mutilated, or killed by their relatives? U.S. law says they cannot; in practice, many are, but no one openly
      promotes what many secretly do. If a candidate, even a Republican, ran on a platform of reducing the legal rights of women, he
      wouldn't get far (ask me again in 10 years, though). Or consider lynching. The U.S. has a long tradition of lynching. It was
      only after the Second World War that the Federal Government and state governments began enforcing their own anti-
      lynching laws. This was a victory for human rights. Do you want to go back? The Republicans would like you to, in the
      name of: "national security." Guess what? There is no such thing as "national security"; it's a concept that not only hasn't
      been defined, it can't be defined. It is a psychological state. The very phrase describes an impossibility. All boundaries in the U.S. and in
      every other country are porous. Planes come and go, as do ships, trains, trucks, autos, information superhighways, human relationships, and human
      emotions. In addition, the smaller any threat becomes, the less safe we are against it. We no longer live in the world of Mutually Assured
      Destruction, where our thousands of warheads aimed at the Russians protected us, psychologically, from their thousands of
      warheads aimed at us. Since the end of the Cold War, threats have gotten smaller and more invisible. Where is that suitcase
      of nuclear material? Where is that vial of anthrax? But as they have gotten less easily detected, they have also gotten more
      local. 9/11 is what we always think of when we think of a breach of national security, but in fact, the destruction was not national, or even city-wide, or
      even district wide -- although the World Trade Center was less than a mile from the New York Stock Exchange, the NYSE was only closed for six days
      after 9/11. The phrase "national security" cannot mean anything in a nation of almost 10 million square miles. The Bush administration and the
      corporatocracy knows this perfectly well. Witness how our chemical plants have not been secured from the possibility of terrorist attack -- there are too
      many of them, and the likelihood of any one getting attacked is too small to make it worthwhile for either the nation or the chemical industry to fortify
      them. The Dubai Ports deal of a couple of years ago demonstrated the same understanding on the part of the administration, that "national security" is
      merely rallying cry for fear. The Bush administration has spent some trillions of dollars (I shrink from naming a figure, since, as big as it is, it is surely a
      lie) to attack a nation of a mere 437,000 square miles. In doing so, they have chosen to ignore such items of U.S. national security as public health and
      infrastructure maintenance. The population of the U.S. is demonstrably poorer, hungrier, less healthy, more homeless, more likely to be injured in an
      infrastructure failure, and more likely to suffer from a weather related loss than it was before the Bush administration came into office. A huge debt means
      that the economy is more likely to fail. The prospects of our children for a peaceful and prosperous future are worse. Nothing that the Bush administration
      or the Republicans or the Military Industrial Complex has done in the last seven years of foolish incompetence and braggadoccio has benefited the nation
      as a whole, though it has benefited a small class of investors and government cronies. As a result of the Iraq War and the Bush attack on the Constitution, I
      can be afraid of the obliteration of the entire idea of the U.S. -- I am afraid of that, thanks to the tyrannies of the Bush administration and the professions of
      the current crop of Republican candidates -- but not of the obliteration of the U.S. itself. Indeed, the war in Iraq shows more than one thing about the idea
      of national security, because even though the Iraqis have been attacked by the largest military in the world, they have been damaged but not subdued. The
      same would be true of the U.S., no matter who attacked us. Liberals, progressives, and Democrats recognize, at least intuitively, that
      "national security" is a code word for tribalism, while "human rights" is a code word for the rule of law. Governor Richardson
      was straightforward in acknowledging this fact, and deserves praise rather than blame, especially from a writer for Salon.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                 Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                           24
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                     GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                             Juniors
                                                         Impact – Nuclear War
Patriarchy and domination make nuclear war inevitable.
LaBalme, activist, 2002
(Fen, Activism.net, ―Activism: Pease: NVCD: Discrimination,‖ 2002, http://www.activism.net/peace/nvcdh/discrimination.shtml,
accessed July 2, 2009).

                      struggle is not only against missiles and bombs, but against the system of power they defend: a system based on
      In this action, our
      domination, on the belief that some people have more value than others, and therefore have the right to control others, to
      exploit them so that they can lead better lives than those they oppress. We say that all people have value. No person, no group, has the right to wield
      power over the decisions and resources of others. The structure of our organizations and the processes we use among ourselves are our best attempt to live
      our belief in self-determination. Besides working against discrimination of all kinds among ourselves, we must try to understand how
      such discrimination supports the system which produces nuclear weapons. For some people who come to this action, the overriding
      issue is the struggle to prevent nuclear destruction. For others, that struggle is not separate from the struggles against racism, sexism,
      classism, and the oppression of groups of people because of their sexual orientation, religion, age, physical (dis)ability, appearance, or life history.
      Understood this way, it is clear that nuclear weapons are already killing people, forcing them to lead lives of difficulty and
      struggle. Nuclear war has already begun, and it claims its victims disproportionately from native peoples, the Third World,
      women, and those who are economically vulnerable because of the history of oppression. All oppressions are interlocking. We
      separate racism, classism, etc. in order to discuss them, not to imply that any form of oppression works in isolation . We know
      that to work against any one of these is not just to try to stop something negative, but to build a positive vision. Many in the movement call this larger goal
      feminism. Calling our process "feminist process" does not mean that women dominate or exclude men; on the contrary, it challenges all systems
      of domination. The term recognizes the historical importance of the feminist movement in insisting that nonviolence begins at home, in the
      ways we treat each other.

Failure to change the current patriarchal discourse and end masculine domination makes nuclear
holocausts inevitable.
Reardon, UN consultant and human rights education author 93 (Betty, a, ―Women and Peace- Feminist Visions of Global Secunty‖, p. 30-31)
      In an article entitled "Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us toward War" (1983), Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural
      factors that deeply influence ways of thinking about security. She argues that patriarchy encourages militarist tendencies. Since a
      major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions , why are discussions in our national
      forums addressing the madness of the nuclear arms race limited to matters of hardware and statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is badly needed. . .
      A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal
      ideal of dominance, not parity, which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to "strut their stuff' as we watch
      with increasing horror. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate
      for the nuclear age. To prove dominance and control, to distance one's character from that of women, to survive the toughest violent initiation, to shed
      the sacred blood of the hero, to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bay--all of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached
      resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a
      crucial, large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles 12 because of some diplomatic agreement? The
      military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all living things, all the air, all the
      soil, all the water. If we believe that war is a "necessary evil," that patriarchal assumptions are simply "human nature," then
      we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. The
      causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. Neither are they solely economic. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of
      thinking, which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used . (Spretnak 1983)




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                        25
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                      GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                              Juniors
                                                                    Impact – War
Modern war is connotatively inseparable from the dehumanizing representations of woman
Workman, Assistant Professor of Political Science University of New Brunswick, ‗96
(Thom, Univ. New Brunswic Publications, ―Pandora's Sons: The Nominal Paradox of Patriarchy and War ― Jan.
96, Accessed 7-1-9)

                                             may be hell indeed; but it is driven by an ideology of hatred. Misogyny is the theory;
      These motifs shade into outright loathing. War
      war is the practice. Myths surrounding woman as the enemy of man (and the things men do) lay at the heart of war-thought.
      Modern war is connotatively inseparable from the dehumanizing representations of woman. The drive "to war" is recessed
      within the myth of woman as man's worst enemy. Modern warfare is a relentlessly Pandoran affair. Its abundant coital imagery is
      organically inspired by its mysogynistic cradle. Common parlance routinely asserts that an enemy that has been consigned to ignominious defeat is an
      enemy that has been "thoroughly fucked" (which resonates culturally as being reduced to a woman). It has been observed that the construction
      of a soldier requires the killing of the woman within.17 The training of the soldier is replete with a litany of disciplining
      epithets regarding the feminine. The transformation from boy-recruit into man-soldier requires the extirpation of any
      feminine traits and identities; it demands the vanquishing of any lurking womanliness. War is femicidal. This foreshadows,
      moreover, the vigilance with respect to the subversive feminine being looming within the warring fabric. Soldier and policymakers guard against the
      association of their actions or ideas with feminine traits. Regardless of its particular manifestation or definition of a practice, ritual, or goal linked to
      militaries and to battle, the ideology of war requires a strict, unrelenting overcoming of anything understood as womanly. Its discourse of identity
      and achievement, in other words, repudiates and disavows the feminine as much as it is embraces the masculine.


Sex and war are manifestations of the gendered notions of power-over, submission, and inequality and
destruction.
Workman, Assistant Professor of Political Science University of New Brunswick, ‗96 (Thom, Univ. New Brunswic Publications,
―Pandora's Sons: The Nominal Paradox of Patriarchy and War ― Jan. 96, Accessed 7-1-9)

      The practices of war emerge within gendered understandings that inflect all spheres of social life. As we created "man" and
      "woman" we simultaneously created war. Contemporary warfare, in complementary terms, emerges within the inner-most sanctums of gendered
      life. Gender constructs are constitutive of war; they drive it and imbue it with meaning and sense. War should not be understood as simply derivative of the
      masculine ethos, although it numerous facets accord with the narratives and lore of masculinity. The faculty of war is our understanding of man and women, of
      manliness and womanliness, and particularly of the subordination of the feminine to the masculine. It is the twinning of the masculine and the
      feminine that nourishes the war ethic. This can be illustrated by examining the infusion of the language of war with
      heterosexual imagery typically of patriarchy, that is, with ideas of the prowess-laden male sexual subject conquering the
      servile female sexual object. Both sex and war are constituted through understandings of male domination and female subordination. The language is
      bound to be mutually reinforcing and easily interchangeable. War is a metaphor for sex and sex is a metaphor for war . A recent study of
      nicknames for the penis revealed that men were much more inclined to metaphorize the penis with reference to mythic or legendary characters (such as the
      Hulk, Cyclops, Genghis Khan, The Lone Ranger, and Mac the Knife), to authority figures and symbols (such as Carnal King, hammer of the gods, your
      Majesty, Rod of Lordship, and the persuader), to aggressive tools (such as screwdriver, drill, jackhammer, chisel, hedgetrimmer, and fuzzbuster), to ravening
      beasts (such as beast of burden, King Kong, The Dragon, python, cobra, and anaconda), and to weaponry (such as love pistol, passion rifle, pink torpedo, meat
      spear, stealth bomber, destroyer, and purple helmeted love warrior).11 The intuitive collocation of sexuality with domination, conquering, destruction, and
      especially instruments of war is confirmed by this study. Both sex and war, however, are manifestations of the gendered notions of
      power-over, submission, inequality, injury, contamination, and destruction. Both practices are integral expressions of
      patriarchal culture and proximate to its reproduction. It is hardly surprising that the language of sexuality and war is
      seamless.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                      26
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                 GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                           Juniors
                                                        Impact – Environment
Gender oppression is the root cause of environmental destruction
Cuomo, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies 2 (Chris, @ University of Cincinnati, ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, p.3)
      I take that phrase "power and promise," an unusually optimistic measure for anything in the contemporary discipline of philosophy, from the title of Karen
      Warren's widely-read and often reprinted 1991 essay, "The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism." That essay includes an argument that is basic to
      Warren's Ecofeminist Philosophy, and that is commonly characterized as the fundamental insight of ecofeminism. The view argued for is that a "logic
      of domination" that divides the world into bifurcated hierarchies is basic to all forms of oppression and domination. This
      logic (which Warren also calls a "conceptual framework") is a way of thinking that encourages separating from and mistreating nature
      and members of subordinated groups, for no good reason. In addition, the conceptual frameworks that are used to justify
      racism, sexism, and the mistreatment of nature (efe.), are interwoven and mutually reinforcing. Some ecofeminists find that the very
      aspects of identity and otherness (gender, race, class, species, efe.) are created through conceptual frameworks that encourage domination rather than
      connection, but Warren remains agnostic about such ontological issues. Her emphasis instead is on a more basic point - that the morally loaded
      concepts through which we understand ourselves and reality (and through which "we" humans have historically constructed
      knowledge) are at the core of the terrible ecological and social messes we currently face.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                              Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                   27
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                     GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                             Juniors
                                                              Impact – Extinction
Gender polarization risks destruction of the planet.
Bem, 93 (Sandra Lipsitz, Professor of Psychology at Cornell, The Lenses of Gender 1993, p. 193)
      In addition to the humanist and feminist arguments against gender polarization, there is an overarching moral argument that fuses the antihumanist and
      antifeminist aspects of gender polarization. The essence of this moral argument is that by polarizing human values and human experiences
      into the masculine and feminine, gender polarization not only helps to keep culture in the grip of males themselves; it also
      keeps the culture in the grip of highly polarized masculine values to emphasize making war over keeping the peace, taking
      risks over giving care, and even mastering nature over harmonizing with nature that when allowed to dominate societal and
      even global decision making, they create the danger that humans will destroy not just each other in massive numbers but
      the planet.

Patriarchy kills us all
Spretnak MA in English from Berkely ‗89 (, Author, Source: Charlene, Exposing the Nuclear Phallacies, Editor, Diana EH Russell, Page: 53-54, Title:
Charlene, Exposing the Nuclear Phallacies)

      Women and men can live together and can relate to other societies in any number of cultural configurations, but ignorance of the configurations
      themselves locks a populace into blind adherence to the status quo. In the nuclear age, such unexamined acceptance may be fatal as certain cultural
      assumptions in our own society are pushing us closer and closer to war. Since a major war could now easily bring on massive annihilation
      of almost unthinkable proportions, why are discussions in our national forums addressing this madness of the nuclear arms
      race limited to matters of hardware and statistics ? A more comprehensive analysis is needed-unless, as the doomsayers claim, we
      collectively harbor a death wish and no not really want to look closely at dynamics propelling us steadily toward the brink of extinction. The cause of
      nuclear arms proliferation is militarism . What is the cause of militarism? The traditional militarist explanation is that the ―masters of war‖ in
      the military-industrial complex profit enormously from defense contracts and other war preparations. A capitalist economy periodically requires the
      economic boon that large-scale government spending, capitol investment, and worker sacrifice produce during a crisis of war. In addition, American
      armed forces, whether nuclear or conventional, are stationed worldwide to protect the status quo, which requires vast and interlocking American corporate
      interests. Such an economic analysis alone in inadequate, as the recent responses to the nuclear arms race that ignore the cultural orientation of the nations
      involved: They are patriarchies. Militarism and warfare are continual features of patriarchal society because they reflect and
      instill patriarchal values and fulfill essential needs of such a system . Acknowledging the context of patriarchal
      conceptualizations that feed militarism is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth.



Only by breaking down patriarchy can we protect human survival
   Steans Lecturer on International Relations 98 [Jill, , International Relations Theory, University of Birmingham, Gender and
      International Relations: An Introduction, p. 102-103]

                                                                  violence and women‘s oppression all grow from the same root.
      In this view, not only is war part of women‘s daily existence, but war,
      Military institutions and states are inseparable from patriarchy. War is not then, as realists and neo-realists would hold, rooted in the
      nature of ‗man‘ or the anarchy of the international realm. However, the hegemony of a dominance-orientated masculinity sets the dynamics of the social
      relations in which all are forced to participate. Some feminists argue that patriarchal societies have an inherent proclivity towards war because of the
      supreme value placed on control and the natural male tendency towards displays of physical force. Though primarily concerned with the discourse of war,
      politics and citizenship, Harstock argues that the association of power with masculinity and virility has very real consequences. She argues that ‗it gives
      rise to a view of community both in theory and in fact obsessed with the revenge and structured by conquest and domination‘. Furthermore, according to
      Harstock, the opposition of man to woman and perhaps even man to man is not simply a transitory opposition of arbitrary
      interests, but an opposition resting on a deep-going threat to existence. She argues that we re-encounter in the context of gender, as in
      class, the fact that the experience of the ruling group, or gender, cannot simply be dismissed as false. This raises the question of how we conceptualize
      and understand not only the ‗patriarchal state‘, but also the relationship between the patriarchal nation-state requiring in the context of competitive struggle
      with other states militarism and internal hierarchy. [IT CONTINUES…] Human survival may depend upon breaking the linkage between
      masculinity, military capacity and death. It is for feminists and others committed to peace to provide new thinking about the nature of politics,
      to redefine ‗political community‘ and our ideas of ‗citizenship‘ and, in so doing, confront the ‗barracks community‘ directly with its ‗fear of the feminine‘.
      Feminist challenges to dominant conceptions of citizenship, political community and security and feminist ‗revisions‘ are the subject of chapter 5.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                         28
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                     GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                             Juniors
                                                                        Root Cause
Gender oppression is the root cause of violence.
Peterson, Associate Professor of Political Science 00 (V. Spike, @ the University of Arizona, SAIS REVIEW, "Rereading Public and Private:
The Dichotomy that is Not One." Vol. 20, Iss. 2; pg. 11)

        Gender-sensitive accounts go beyond this by bringing everyday practices, reproductive processes, and the politics of subjectivity into relation with states,
        security, and political economy questions. For example, conventional neglect of the family impoverishes our understanding not only of how reproductive
        labor keeps our worlds "working," but also of how individual and collective identities, cultural practices, divisions of labor, group ideologies, and socio-
        cultural [End Page 18] meaning systems are (re)produced and resisted. In various ways, some more direct than others, these are crucial factors in
        sustaining (and contesting) the state and its legitimacy. Consider that the family/household is the primary site of reproductive labor
        that makes all societal reproduction possible, of subject formation and cultural learning that naturalizes ideologies and
        encourages group identifications (religious, racial/ethnic, national), and of gender-socialization that encourages boys to be
        independent, competitive, in control, and "hard," and girls to be relationship-oriented, non-aggressive, nurturing, and "soft."
        19 Moreover, neglect of the private (as familial and personal) has prevented IR theorists from taking desire and emotional investments seriously.
        Modernist dichotomies fuel this bias by casting reason as antithetical to--rather than inseparable from--emotion. Our fear of
        "contaminating" objective reason and research by acknowledging the role of emotion and commitment has impoverished our study of and knowledge
        about major social dynamics. As a consequence, in regard to security studies, we are tragically ill-informed in the face of often
        violent social forces such as nationalism, neo-fascism, and fundamentalism, in part because scholars avoid dealing with the
        power of emotional engagement and its effects on political identification and allegiance. Regarding political economy, we deny the
        effects of subjective identities in structuring labor markets, job performance, and national productivity. And we are only beginning to grasp the interaction
        of desires and identities with consumption patterns and hence the global political economy. Even less familiar, but increasingly salient: we are ill-prepared
        to analyze the dependence of financial markets on psychological phenomena (risk-assessment, "trust" in the stock market), and what we must
        acknowledge are "non-rational" features of the international financial system. Regarding security issues--a focal point of IR inquiry--feminists argue that
        gendered identities are key to manifestations of violence. Empirical evidence indicates that, worldwide, most acts of direct
        violence are committed by men. Yet not all men are violent, and societies vary dramatically in exhibiting violence, which
        suggests that biologistic explanations are, at best, naïve. Whatever else is entailed in accounting for systematic violence, it
        is absolutely remarkable--one might even suggest irrational--that so little attention has been devoted to assessing the role of
        masculinity in this male-dominated arena. Feminists insist that our investigations of violence--from war atrocities to
        schoolyard killings and domestic battering--take seriously how masculinity is constructed, internalized, enacted, reinforced,
        and glorified. In IR, such recognition requires that we seriously consider the question: Is militarism without masculinism possible?




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                 Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                        29
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                   GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                              Juniors
Patriarchy fuels militarism that is the root cause of otherization and violence.
Peterson and Runyan, professor of political science 99 (V. Spike and Anne @ the University of Arizona and professor of women‘s studies @
Wright State University, ―Global Gender Issues‖, 2nd edition, p. 56-57)


      A willingness to engage in violence is built into our constructions of masculinity and is exacerbated by militarization --the
      extension of military practices into civilian life. And to the extent that we define national security as the defense and protection of sovereignty,
      militarization becomes hard to avoid. Believing that peace requires preparation for war, we become locked into arms races and
      other self-perpetuating cycles. These involve sacrificing social welfare objectives in favor of defense spending and training young people-men
      and women-to risk lives and practice violence in the name of putatively higher objectives. There are no simple formulas for determining appropriate trade-
      offs between "butter" and "guns," and we are not suggesting that security concerns are illusory or easily resolved. But in a climate of militarization, we
      must be careful to assess the ostensible gains from encouraging violence because the actual costs are very great. Moreover, the construction of
      security in military terms--understood as direct violence--often masks the systemic insecurity of indirect or structural
      violence.31 The latter arises from social, economic, and political structures that increase the vulnerability of particular groups to forms of harm (e.g.,
      greater infant mortality among poor women who have re- duced access to health-care services). Structural violence especially affects the lives of women
      and other subordinated groups. When we ignore this fact, we ignore the security of the majority of the planet's occupants . Finally,
      because violence is gendered, militarization has a reciprocal relationship to masculinist ideologies: The macho effects of
      military activities, the objectifying effects of military technologies, and the violent effects of military spending interact,
      escalating not only arms races but also direct and indirect sexual violence. What the gendered division of violence
      constructs is a world shaped by hostile forces and the naturalization of war against "the feminine." In a self-repeating cycle,
      threats (real or fictive) increase preparations for defense and/or retaliation that are inextricable from conditions of structural violence. An oppositional
      lens magnifies and legitimates self-other, us- them, friend-enemy, aggressive-passive, soldier-victim, and protector-
      protected dichotomies. The latter dichotomy is institutionalized in protection rackets: creating a threat and then charging for
      protection against it. Some theorists argue that nation-states engage in such rackets by creating a system of mutually
      threatening centralized governments and charging citizens taxes and military service to support effective defense of state boundaries.32 Feminists
      have similarly identified marriage as a protection racket. Under conditions of systemic male violence, women are forced to seek protection by entering into
      disadvantageous marriages to individual men. People often fail to see the repetition of the same pattern in different situations, to
      recognize the self-perpetuating and costly nature of this violence, and to seek a way to break these self-destructive cycles.33




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                               Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                     30
                                                               ***Terrorism***
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                                      GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                                                Juniors
                                Civilian Casualties Doom Afghanistan Efforts
Civilian casualties doom afghan efforts ext.
Ahmad, member of The Muslim Sunrise's masthead, the oldest American Islamic periodical, 05/05/07
(published pieces on topics ranging from pseudo-censorship to foreign policy in the New York Times, Denver Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun Times,
Boston Globe, Syracuse Post Standard, Albany Times Union, London Independent, Copenhagen Post, Malaysian Kini, Malaysia Sun,
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTg4NzU0OTA0NQ==)

      Mounting civilian casualties in military operations against the Taliban are turning already wary Afghans against foreign troops
      based here and eroding the fragile support for President Hamid Karzai, analysts say. After days of protests against allegedly innocent victims
      being killed by international troops, Karzai summoned top generals and diplomats to his palace Wednesday to reiterate years of complaints over blameless
      deaths. "Afghans are human beings too," he told reporters afterwards. "What we are seeking is value to Afghan lives." Soon after the
      meeting, Afghan and UN teams announced their investigations found that around 50 civilians were killed in days of ground fighting and
      bombing in a remote valley in the western province of Herat. Also Wednesday, about 500 university students torched a flag in the eastern
      province of Nangarhar alleging six civilians were killed by US-led coalition troops on Sunday. "With every civilian life lost, the
      Afghan people get more angry," said Sarah Holewinski, executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, which is based in
      Washington. "The US military has a stake in avoiding that kind of resentment. They must now investigate incidents of civilian
      death following combat operations -- and they should ensure the Afghan people see them do it," she said in a statement. There is a
      danger the mounting casualties will play into the hands of the Taliban movement's efforts against the government and foreign
      troops, said Nader Nadery, from the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. The extremists were toppled from power in 2001 by the
      coalition and are waging a campaign of violence and propaganda that tries to portray the international forces as "infidel"
      invaders and the government as a stooge of the West. "Incidents causing civilian casualties will no doubt distance people from the
      international troops and their own government. It's dangerous," Nadery told AFP. "It will also provide an easy tool for the
      Taliban to use against the progress achieved over the past five years," warned the rights activist. And civilian casualties threaten to ruin
      public confidence in the grinding fight against the Taliban and its Al-Qaeda allies. "Firstly it undermines the struggle against terrorists," said
      parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai. "Secondly such killings turn people against these troops," she said. "Obviously the sense of support
      and cooperation will be replaced by hatred and desire for revenge. It makes it easy for the enemy to use this against us."
      There is already simmering resentment among Afghans towards the 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan to help the fledgling government forces stabilise
      the fractured country. Aggressive soldiers in bullet-proofed convoys regularly force traffic off the roads. They also burst into homes in the middle of the
      night to conduct searches despite repeated calls from Karzai to work with local authorities and respect Afghan sensibilities. Anger towards the soldiers
      erupted into riots in Kabul in May last year after a coalition vehicle lost control and ploughed into civilians cars, killing a handful of passengers. More
      recently there has been a steady rise in the number of civilians, including children, shot dead at checkpoints manned by foreign forces who opened fire
      after their warnings to vehicles to halt are ignored. Last month a unit of US Marines was withdrawn from Afghanistan after being accused of opening fire
      indiscriminately on civilians after an ambush in Nangarhar province. About a dozen people were killed, including two children. Karzai's government,
      widely accused of corruption and incompetence, is already "far short of gaining the real support of the ordinary people," said senior Afghan journalist and
      commentator Ikhpolwak Safi. "When civilians die -- obviously not for a good reason -- and it is linked to his government, it will turn people against him,"
      he said. "Dropping bombs on villages because one individual has attacked them is not a wise thing to do. This is what the foreign troops have been doing,"
      he said.

Civilian deaths destroy counterinsurgency effectiveness
Power 07
(Samantha Power, special advisor to Barack Obama, Director of Multilateral Affairs for the National Security Council, ―Our War on
Terror‖, July 29, 2007, New Yor,k Times, http://www.leadingtowar.com/PDFsources_rhetoric_spin/WarOnTerror_1_NYT.pdf)

                                             key to successful counterinsurgency is protecting civilians. The manual notes: ―An operation
      The fundamental premise of the manual is that the
      that kills five insurgents is counterproductive if collateral damage leads to the recruitment of 50 more insurgents .‖ It suggests
      that force size be calculated in relation not to the enemy, but to inhabitants (a minimum of 20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents). It emphasizes the necessity of coordination
      with beefed-up civilian agencies, which are needed to take on reconstruction and development tasks. The most counterintuitive, as well as the most politically difficult, premise
      of the manual is that the American military must assume greater risk in order to gather much-needed intelligence and, in the end, achieve greater safety. The emphasis of the
      1990s on force protection is overturned by the assertion of several breathtaking paradoxes: ―Sometimes, the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.‖
      ―Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is.‖ ―Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction.‖   Sarah Sewall, a former Pentagon official who
                                                                                                                                           should be required reading
      teaches at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (and a close colleague of mine), has contributed an introduction that
      for anybody who wants to understand the huge demands effective counterinsurgency will place on the military and the voting public. ―Those who fail to
      see the manual as radical probably don‘t understand it,‖ she writes, ―or at least what it‘s up against.‖ Sewall can say what the generals who devised the manual cannot. She
      addresses the concern that the manual is nothing more than a ―marketing campaign for an inherently inhumane concept of war,‖ arguing that if politicians continue to put young
      American men and women in harm‘s way, military leaders have an obligation to enhance effectiveness, which in a globalized era cannot be disentangled from taking better care
      of civilians. Military   actions that cause civilian deaths, she argues, are not simply morally questionable; they are self-defeating.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                                       Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                                            31
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                               GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                      Juniors
                                                         Local Support is Key
Locals Key to Counterinsurgency
Jones 8
(Seth Jones, RAND Corporation political scientist, ―Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan‖, 2008,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG595.pdf)

      External actors can play an important role in insurgencies and counterinsurgencies by tipping the balance in favor of either
      insurgents or the indigenous government. However, they usually cannot win it for either side, since locals have to govern and
      establish order over the long run. The indigenous force should be the default force of choice. Even if tactically successful, a unilateral operation by
      external forces may ultimately lead to failure by undermining and delegitimizing the very indigenous capability the external actor is trying to build.38
      Consequently, when the United States is involved in counterinsurgency warfare, the primary focus of its efforts should be to improve
      the performance and legitimacy of indigenous actors. This includes improving the quality of the police and other security forces,
      strengthening governance capacity, and undermining external support for insurgents. The rest of this study will further explore this argument.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                             Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                 32
                                                Plan Popular/Unpopular***
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                   GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                            Juniors
                                                                    Plan Popular
Plan popular- disgust at Xe Services proves
Stein, staff writer for Washington post, 6-21
(http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/06/blackwater_deal_puts_officials.html)

      State Department officials struggled to explain Monday why they have awarded a new $120 million contract to a private
      security firm that was kicked out of Iraq four months ago amid charges that its personnel gunned down unarmed civilians .
      Xe Services, formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide, was awarded an 18-month contract to provide security at two new consulates the State
      Department is building in Afghanistan, it was reported Friday night. On Monday members of the federal Commission on Wartime
      Contracting hammered a State Department official about the contract, but failed to elicit information about how the firm's
      conduct in Iraq figured into the decision to give it new work in Afghanistan . Commissioners repeatedly asked Charlene Lamb, assistant
      director of the State Department‘s International Programs, how much weight would be given to federal charges that Blackwater's guards killed unarmed
      civilians in Iraq. Lamb repeatedly tried to avoid answering the question, at first saying, ―It‘s an ongoing court case so I don‘t want to comment, please.‖
      Later, pressed further on the criteria for evaluating contractors, Lamb contradicted herself. She said the three factors the State Department used to evaluate
      a firm‘s bid -- ―their technical plan to move forward, their past performance and price‖ -- were ―weighted equally.‖ But after conferring with an
      unidentified official sitting behind her, Lamb retracted the statement. ―I apologize…They are not weighted equally….‖ she said. Panel member Clark Kent
      Ervin, a former acting inspector general at the Homeland Security Department, then asked Lamb for an informal, ―best answer‖ on ―the relative weight‖ of
      Xe‘s Iraq record. Lamb again conferred with her colleague and demurred. ―Let us get back to you,‖ she finally said. ―We were not prepared to answer that
      today, and this is out of my ballpark.‖ ―So you don‘t have an answer?‖ asked Ervin. ―I don‘t want to guess,‖ Lamb said. Frustrated panel members
      also expressed a mixture of astonishment and disgust with officials of the U.S. Agency for International Development who
      admitted under questioning that they had left the policing of private security subcontractors in Iraq and Afghanistan in the
      hands of the primary contractors. ―You‘d rather wash hands of it?‖ asked Robert J. Henke. ―It ain‘t our job?‖ asked commissioner Grant Green.
      ―That would be correct...‖ the head of USAID‘s Overseas Security Division, David Blackshaw, conceded under pressure. But panel members repeatedly
      returned to the Xe contract, awarded to the Moyock, N.C.-based firm‘s U.S. Training Center unit. Lamb said competitors for the contract, DynCorp and
      Triple Canopy, weren‘t as qualified, prompting the commissioners to refer to the deal as a ―sole-source contract.‖ Panel member Charles Tiefer, in
      particular, expressed his distress at the award. Tiefer read from a 2009 Defense Department report saying that concerns over
      private security contractors ―arose from earlier incidents. Most controversial incidents concerned Blackwater.‖

Plan popular- shooting case proves
Yost, Staff writer Associated Press, 6-17
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVr2asgiGuQ8gvpPrT7AINv_lBhQD9GCLOGG4)


      There was more than enough untainted evidence to justify a trial for five Blackwater Worldwide guards involved in a
      deadly 2007 shooting in Baghdad, the Justice Department told a federal appeals court . In court papers seeking to reinstate criminal
      charges, the department asserted that some of the evidence tainted by immunized statements in the case was harmless and did
      not justify scuttling the manslaughter charges against the guards. In December, a federal judge dismissed the case against the security
      guards, who had opened fire on a crowded Baghdad street. Seventeen people were killed, including women and children, in a shooting that inflamed anti-
      American sentiment in Iraq. In the filing released Wednesday by the appeals court, the government said the judge who dismissed the
      charges lost sight of the key question of whether the defendants' testimony given under a grant of immunity from
      prosecution was actually used against them. U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina "unjustifiably drew the curtain on a meritorious prosecution,"
      Justice Department lawyers wrote. Urbina ruled on Dec. 31 that the Justice Department mishandled evidence and violated the guards' constitutional rights.
      The Moyock, N.C.-based Blackwater, now called Xe Services, has said the guards were innocent, contending they were ambushed by insurgents.
      Prosecutors said the shooting was unprovoked.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                               Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                       33
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                         GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                 Juniors
                                                             Plan Unpopular
Plan unpopular- new contract proves
Associated Press, 6-20
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2z6nc2-9vBlAbogU84n-zDdeyugD9GEFTVO0)

      Part of the company once known as Blackwater Worldwide has been awarded a more than $120 million contract to protect
      new U.S. consulates in the Afghan cities of Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif, the U.S. Embassy said Saturday. The United States Training
      Center, a business unit of the former Blackwater, now called Xe Services, was awarded the contract Friday, embassy spokeswoman Caitlin
      Hayden said. The company won the contract over two other American firms — Triple Canopy and DynCorps International, she said. The
      one-year contract can be extended twice for three months each for a maximum of 18 months . Under the name Blackwater, the
      Moyock, North Carolina-based company provided guards and services to the U.S. government in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere but came under sharp
      criticism for its heavy-handed tactics in those missions.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                           Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                         34
                                                              ***Addons***
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                                    GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                            Juniors
                                                                     Rape Addon
PMCs implicated in rape now- addressing key to relations
Schulz and Yeung, Director of policy at BAPSC and Strategic Analyst for Canadian National Defense, 2006
(Private Military and Security Companies and Gender, Both have PHDs in international politics)

      There have been instances of private security personnel, both male and female, being implicated in GBV including the sexual
      abuse of women, men, boys and girls. At the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, a juvenile male detainee alleged that he was raped by a
      civilian interpreter working for the contract company Titan. At the same facility, allegations of sexually demeaning
      interrogation techniques have been made against a civilian employee of CACI Corporation . Neither cases have been prosecuted.22
      (Also see Box 8). Reporting of such incidents remains poor, however. Instances of GBV and sexual abuse can discredit both an individual
      company and, potentially, an entire operation. _ There is a historical link between prostitution/sex work, the trafficking of
      women and children for the purposes of prostitution and the presence of regular armed forces .23 Because of the tendency by
      PMSCs to draw employees from regular armed forces, it is likely that these linkages and practices also apply to private contractors .24
      The involvement of DynCorp personnel in illegal prostitution and trafficking in Bosnia (see Box 2) and the wrongful dismissal by DynCorp of one female
      employee and one male employee for implicating colleagues in forced prostitution served to tarnish the industry as a whole.25 In Afghanistan, there
      have been reports that security contractors have fuelled the emergence of numerous brothels and are involved in trafficking
      of arms and women. They are also widely perceived to have been the cause of the deterioration of relations between the
      international (Western) community and local Afghan communities .26 These examples starkly highlight the importance of
      addressing misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse by PMSC personne l, as well as the need for companies to have
      effective internal complaint procedures. _ If security operators are involved in sexual assault, abuse, or the exploition of local women, not only are they
      committing human rights violations, but they also cause increased security risks for their clients and for themselves. This poses a significant threat to
      operational success.

Rape must be rejected
      NYT, 83 [December 29, 1983, ―A Feminist Campaign for the Presidency‖]

      She argues, for example, that violence against women is a fundamental political issue. As long as a society casually tolerates the crime of rape,
      she says, it will tolerate all other forms of violence, including nuclear war. ''We don't even know what peace is,'' she says. ''Women are
      being waged war upon. In our most intimate lives, we are at war. Peace has got to begin with peace between the sexes.''




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                               Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                                    35
                                                           ***Miscellaneous***
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                          GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                  Juniors
                                                PMCs K2 Security Vacuum
PMCs key to security vacuum
Beyani and Lilly, Lecturer at London school of Economics and Programme manager of security and peacebuilding programme, 2001
(Chaloki and Damian, Regulating Private Military Companies),

      Due to the nature of these murky conflicts, foreign states are less willing (whether by invitation or through the collective security system of the
      UN) to commit their national forces to assisting foreign governments to protect live s, property, and to restore peace and
      security. Immense pressure on governments in developed countries not to engage in conflicts in the developing world has
      led a number of beleaguered governments to resort to contracting private military companies. At the same time private military
      companies are eager to fill the ‗security vacuum‘ left by this non-interventionist policy. Correspondingly, if governments in
      developed countries have a legitimate interest in assisting others to quell armed conflict, but cannot deploy their own national forces
      for political reasons, they may find it convenient to authorise private military companies to provide technical,logistical, and
      tactical support to the governments concerned, provided these are legitimate and democratic regimes. The US government‘s military package,
      Plan Colombia (used to combat the drug wars in Colombia) provides a recent example of such a use of private military ccompanies.
      FYI PMC Services




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                            Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                            36
PMC Affirmative                                                                                                                           GDS 2010
Anik                                                                                                                                                     Juniors
                                                        List of PMC Services
Laundry list of PMC services
Beyani and Lilly, Lecturer at London school of Economics and Programme manager of security and peacebuilding programme, 2001 (Chaloki and
Damian, Regulating Private Military Companies),

      The services provided by private military companies such as Executive Outcomes, Sandline International, Military Professional Incorporated
      (MPRI) and Defence Systems Ltd. vary from company to company according to the level and degree of specialisation. The range of services provided
      include: n combat and operational support; n military advice and training; n arms procurement; n logistical support; n
      security services; n intelligence gathering; and n crime prevention.




Last printed 12/31/2010 3:25:00 AM
                                                            Georgetown Debate Seminar
                                                                                                                                                            37

				
DOCUMENT INFO