SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Troop Shift Turns
Iraq 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Iraq 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................................... 4
Iraq Link ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Japan 1NC..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Iran 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Iran 1NC ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
*** AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS ***.................................................................................................................. 9
Troops Good in Afghanistan ........................................................................................................................ 10
Troops Good in Afghanistan ........................................................................................................................ 11
Troops Good in Guam ................................................................................................................................. 12
Troops Good in Guam ................................................................................................................................. 13
Troops Good in Guam ................................................................................................................................. 14
No Link – Guam........................................................................................................................................... 15
No Link – Iran .............................................................................................................................................. 16
No Link – Iran .............................................................................................................................................. 17
Iran Strikes Good ......................................................................................................................................... 18
1
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Iraq 1NC
1. Obama is committed to troop withdrawals now but withdrawal from Iraq can give
him increased leverage to pursue his plans in Afghanistan
Sanger 7/21/2010— (David E, Chief Washington Correspondent of The New York Times, “Obama Faces New Doubts on Pursuing Afghan War”, The
New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/world/asia/22assess.html)
In public,
White House officials continue to argue that Mr. Obama struck the right balance last December, and sent the
right signals, when he called for a short-term troop increase followed by a drawdown. “America has no interest in
fighting an endless war in Afghanistan,” he said then, quoting President Eisenhower about the importance of balancing America’s foreign
commitments with its domestic needs. But when granted anonymity, some senior White House officials who a few months ago said that this would be “the year of
Kandahar” — referring to plans to retake control of the city that was the spiritual center of the Taliban — now acknowledge that the chances of progress there are
growing more remote. From the start of Mr. Obama’s review of the war’s strategy last year, he and his advisers debated the debilitating effects of what one called
“the weariness factor.” Their calculation was that the withdrawal from Iraq, combined with the 18-month limit on the troop increase established by Mr. Obama,
That assessment proved optimistic. Earlier this month, 153 Democrats, including the speaker of
the House, Nancy Pelosi, voted in favor of an amendment that would have required a clear timetable for withdrawal. Only 98
Democrats joined Republicans in defeating it. But over the long term, what may be more damaging is the fact that members
of the foreign policy establishment, even those who vigorously supported ousting the Taliban in 2001 after the 9/11
attacks, are gaining traction with arguments that the White House has simply failed to make the case that the rising
cost is worth it. “After nearly nine years of war,” Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and
a senior official in Mr. Bush’s State Department, wrote over the weekend in Newsweek, “continued or increased U.S.
involvement in Afghanistan isn’t likely to yield lasting improvements that would be commensurate in any way with the
investment of American blood and treasure. It is time to scale down our ambitions there and both reduce and redirect
what we do.” Mr. Haass is not recommending full withdrawal. Instead, he said in an interview, “I’m talking about
reducing combat troops and operations and costs and casualties by more than half,” leaving mostly Special Forces, air power and
would quiet critics in his own party.
trainers for Afghan troops in the region. In Kabul on Tuesday, President Karzai talked about having Afghan soldiers and the police taking responsibility for
security by 2014. “Why should we be confident of that,” Mr. Haass asked, “given the history of Afghanistan?”
2. Obama plans to shift freed-up troops to afghanistan—the recent surge proves
Barnes and Miller 09 (Juliian E, Greg, National Security Correspondent for the LA times, “U.S. Afghan forces to grow”, The LA Times February 18)
The upcoming deployment will total 17,000 troops, the senior administration official said. A force of 8,000 Marines, consisting of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary
Brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., will reach southern Afghanistan this spring. The Marine unit contains infantrymen, helicopters, fighter planes and other
support elements. In the summer, 4,000 soldiers from the 5th Stryker Brigade, part of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division at Ft. Lewis, Wash., will follow, along with
5,000 support troops. Commanders
in Afghanistan have sought additional combat brigades, aviation units and other
support, representing an increase of more than 20,000 troops. The official said that all the troops would be in place
before the presidential election Aug. 20, the first in five years. In Senate testimony last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C.
Blair said that insurgents probably would make a concerted effort to disrupt the balloting. The Army brigade will be the first in Afghanistan equipped with Strykers,
an armored wheeled vehicle. Strykers were judged to be capable in urban settings in Iraq, though Pentagon planners have debated whether they would be
effective in the more difficult terrain of Afghanistan. A senior Army official said Tuesday that the Stryker brigade would be able to
help retake roads from Taliban and other militants who have been growing increasingly brazen in setting up
roadblocks and bombs on Afghanistan's highways. The senior Army official spoke on condition of anonymity when
discussing troop plans. Obama said his plans to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq would give him the "flexibility" to build up
the force in Afghanistan. There are about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Obama has not detailed plans for reducing the force in
Iraq, but has said he wants combat units out of the country by the end of next year. Military officials have said that
troop increases in Afghanistan depend on reductions in Iraq. "All we are doing is moving demand from Iraq to
Afghanistan," the official said. "This sustains and, to some degree, increases the demands on soldiers." The troop escalation
comes with some risks, including the possibility of a further increase in civilian casualties. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly
demanded that the U.S. and its allies take more care to avoid killing or wounding civilians, and U.S. officials
acknowledge that accidentally causing civilian casualties hurts the war effort. A United Nations report issued Tuesday
said the number of civilians killed had risen almost 40% last year, growing to 2,118 from 1,523 in 2007. More than half of
the deaths, 1,160, were blamed on militants, but 828 were attributed to Afghan and international forces. The cause of the other 130 deaths could not be
determined. Airstrikes accounted for 552 of the deaths, the U.N. said. The upcoming deployment will total 17,000 troops, the senior administration official said. A
force of 8,000 Marines, consisting of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., will reach southern Afghanistan this spring. The Marine
unit contains infantrymen, helicopters, fighter planes and other support elements.
2
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Iraq 1NC
3. Continued Afghan intervention kills Pakistan instability
Bacevich 08 – professor of international relations and history at Boston University, ( December 30, Andrew J,
“Winning In Afghanistan”
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/12/30/winning-in-afghanistan.html
Meanwhile, the
chief effect of allied military operations there so far has been not to defeat the radical Islamists but to
push them across the Pakistani border. As a result, efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are contributing to the
destabilization of Pakistan, with potentially devastating implications. September's bombing of the Marriott hotel in
Islamabad suggests that the extremists are growing emboldened. Today and for the foreseeable future, no country
poses a greater potential threat to U.S. national security than does Pakistan. To risk the stability of that nucleararmed state in the vain hope of salvaging Afghan-istan would be a terrible mistake. All this means that the proper U.S. priority
for Afghanistan should be not to try harder but to change course. The war in Afghanistan (like the Iraq War) won't be
won militarily. It can be settled—however imperfectly—only through politics. The new U.S. president needs to realize that America's
real political objective in Afghanistan is actually quite modest: to ensure that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda can't use it as a safe haven for launching attacks
against the West. Accomplishing that won't require creating a modern, cohesive nation-state. U.S. officials tend to assume that power in Afghanistan ought to be
exercised from Kabul. Yet the real influence in Afghanistan has traditionally rested with tribal leaders and warlords. Rather
than challenge that tradition, Washington should work with it. Offered the right incentives, warlords can accomplish
U.S. objectives more effectively and more cheaply than Western combat battalions. The basis of U.S. strategy in
Afghanistan should therefore become decentralization and outsourcing, offering cash and other emoluments to local leaders who will
collaborate with the United States in excluding terrorists from their territory. This doesn't mean Washington should blindly trust that warlords will become
America's loyal partners. U.S. intelligence agencies should continue to watch Afghanistan closely, and the Pentagon should crush any jihadist activities that local
powers fail to stop themselves. As with the Israelis in Gaza, periodic airstrikes may well be required to pre-empt brewing plots before they mature. Were U.S.
resources unlimited and U.S. interests in Afghanistan more important, upping the ante with additional combat forces might make sense. But U.S. power—
Rather than committing more troops, therefore, the
new president should withdraw them while devising a more realistic—and more affordable—strategy for Afghanistan.
especially military power—is quite limited these days, and U.S. priorities lie elsewhere.
4. Indo-Pak War
Morgan 07 (Stephen John is a former member of the British Labour Party Exectutive Committee. He is a political psychologist, researcher into
Chaos/Complexity Theory 2007 http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639)
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
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. Atomic Al Qaeda 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. What is at stake in “the half-forgotten war” in Afghanistan is far greater than that in Iraq. But
America’s capacities for controlling the situation are extremely restricted. Might it be, in the end, they are also forced to accept President
Musharraf's unspoken slogan of «Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan! »ripe and
the Taliban is filling the vacuum.
Mediterranean coast.
3
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Uniqueness
Obama is committed to his withdrawal timetable, but Generals believe they have
more influence in the decision
Alter 10, [Jonathan Alter, writer for MSNBC, is the author of The Promise: President Obama, Year One and The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and
the Triumph of Hope “T Minus Two Years” July 3, 2010]
. Obama
has said that we won’t “turn out the lights” in Afghanistan in July 2011; and, indeed, some residual forces
will be there for decades. But my reporting during the last several months suggests that a significant withdrawal will
begin within, at the most, 18 months to two years. There are at least three reasons—military, financial, and -political—to
take the president at his word that the current commitment of 100,000 troops will be of short duration. Sens. John McCain
and Lindsey Graham keep pushing Petraeus on whether he truly supports Obama’s policy. They use Joe Biden’s quote to me (“In July of 2011 you’re
going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it.”) and Obama’s question to Petraeus on Nov. 29 inside the Oval Office (“If you can’t
do the things you say you can in 18 months, then no one is going to suggest we stay, right?” Petraeus responded: “Yes, sir, in agreement.”) to make it
seem as if Obama is ramming the policy down the Pentagon’s throat. And in truth, that’s exactly what’s happening: the commander in
chief is calling the shots. On the way to the Oval Office before the Petraeus meeting, Biden asked Obama if beginning a significant withdrawal was a
presidential order that could not be countermanded by the military. The president said it was.
War in Afghanistan is unpopular- public wants troops home
Cary 10, [Mary Kate Cary, former White House speechwriter for President George HW Bush, writer for US News & World Report, “Republicans Are Turning
Against the Afghanistan War”, http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/07/21/republicans-are-turning-against-the-afghanistan-war.html, July 21, 2010]
Fast forward a year. June was the deadliest month on record for both U.S. troops and NATO forces in Afghanistan. June also
saw the war become the longest in American history, surpassing Vietnam and the two World Wars, despite the fact that there has never been an official
declaration of war by Congress. McChrystal lost his job after a controversial interview published in June in Rolling Stone magazine, in which he and his staff
insulted everyone from Obama and Vice President Biden to National Security Adviser Jim Jones and a slew of ambassadors. Buried amid all the mud was a
particularly prescient comment from one of McChrystal's senior advisers, who said that if Americans "started paying attention to
this war, it would become even less popular. "Well, this summer they've started paying attention, and it's getting less
popular. As the president's approval rating declines, especially among independents, it seems that the idea of
continuing the seemingly endless war is becoming less popular as well. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, a whopping 48
percent of those surveyed said ending the war in Afghanistan is a more important goal than winning it. And while 41
percent believe it's still possible to win the war, another 59 percent either disagree and feel it's not winnable, or
cannot decide.
Troop shift to Afghanistan possible.
Stein 10, [Sam Stein, Staff writer for the Huffington Post, “Feinstein: If Petraeus Wants Afghanistan Troop Drawdown Scrapped, 'Give It To Him,
Absolutely'”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/27/feinstein-petraeus-afghanistan-troops_n_626983.html June 27, 2010]
A senior Senate Democrat on foreign policy issues said on Sunday that the president's pledged July
2011 timeline for a troop drawdown in
Afghanistan was malleable to the requests of military command. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali.), whose hawkish grounding has angered
progressive in the past, likely facilitated that anger again, when she told "Fox News Sunday" that if General David Petraeus asked for more
troops next summer, he should be granted them. "I would say give it to him, absolutely," said the California Democrat. "Now, let's talk about
the deadline. This is a transition point toward the beginning of a withdrawal or a drawdown as Petraeus said in his transcript
before the Armed Services [Committee]. And I think he has flexibility realistically. Ten years is a long time to fight a war, particularly with what happened before
the 10 years. And so we need to understand that [we have] to get the military trained, get the government online, secure and
stabilize, and I think do away with the drugs to a great extent, because the drugs are now fueling the Taliban." Feinstein,
who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, has long sounded warnings about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. But her comments on Sunday appear
to be the most explicit endorsement of scrapping the July 2011 timeframe for a troop drawdown -- should circumstances demand it. It's a
position that will
only fuel suspicion that Congress lacks the political will to actually stick to the timeline for withdrawal
(by, say, using the power of the purse to affect it). Indeed, Feinstein seemed to fully cede legislative influence over the course of the war when
she granted during the Fox News interview that the United States should "put all of our eggs in the Petraeus basket at this stage."
4
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Iraq Link
Even small withdrawals from Iraq have lead to big shifts of troops and equipment to
Afghanistan— The aff’s complete withdrawal would trigger a major impact for
Afghanistan operations.
Branigan 2010 ( William, Washington Post Staff Writer, “U.S. shift from Iraq to Afghanistan presents massive logistical operation for Army”, Washington
Post April 2, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040202087.html)
As the United States draws down troops in Iraq and reinforces them in Afghanistan, the Army is pushing to complete
the largest movement of military materiel since World War II, a massive logistical operation involving nearly 3 million
pieces of equipment. The operation, dubbed Nickel II after the code name for Gen. George S. Patton's celebrated repositioning of an entire Army
corps during the 1944 Battle of the Bulge, began last June and is now about 35 percent complete, said Lt. Gen. William G.
Webster Jr., commander of the Third Army, Patton's former unit. In a briefing for Pentagon reporters from his headquarters in
Kuwait, where equipment from Iraq is sorted, Webster said some of the gear is being refurbished for use in
Afghanistan and some returned to the United States for use in training. "This is the largest operation, that we've been able to
determine, since the buildup for World War II," Webster said. It involves the removal of 2.8 million pieces of equipment
from Iraq, including 88,000 containers and 41,000 vehicles of all types. Webster did not specify the cost of the operation but acknowledged that it would run
into the tens of billions of dollars. He said the Third Army spent roughly $20 billion on repairing equipment and supplying troops during the 2007 surge of U.S.
forces into Iraq to contain escalating sectarian violence.
Those costs for Army operations in Iraq dropped to $16 billion last year and
are projected to dip to $9 billion this year, Webster said. He said some of those savings "will be pushed over to
Afghanistan" and used to fund a buildup of forces there to combat an intensifying insurgency by the radical Islamist
Taliban movement. The Taliban was driven from power in Kabul by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in November 2001 but has gained ground in recent years.
In a separate briefing Friday, Ashton B. Carter, undersecretary of defense for logistics, said the military as a whole has already moved 2.2
million pieces of equipment out of more than 350 forward operating bases in Iraq. But he said 1.2 million additional items need to
be removed by August. As the military prepares for an offensive against the Taliban in the coming months, the Pentagon is
pouring a vast array of gear to Afghanistan, including new unmanned dirigibles equipped with sophisticated aerial surveillance equipment, Carter
said. The airships are designed to maintain surveillance longer and at less cost than more expensive unmanned aircraft, he told a conference hosted by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies. President
Obama last year ordered the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq
by the end of August 2010, leaving a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 to serve mainly in training and advisory roles. Under an agreement signed by
the Bush administration with the Iraqi government in 2008, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011. While reducing troop strength
in Iraq, Obama is deploying an additional 30,000 service members to Afghanistan to augment American and NATO
forces already there as part of a plan to secure population centers and reverse the Taliban's momentum. Among the
equipment being moved to Afghanistan, Webster said, is a variation of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) armored vehicle designed to counter the
widespread use of "improvised explosive devices," or roadside bombs, in Iraq. Because of Afghanistan's much rougher terrain, the heavy MRAPs used in Iraq
were breaking down, so the military developed a lighter, more agile version with independent suspension called the M-ATV, for MRAP All Terrain Vehicle. "We're
now flying those in at a rate of about 400 a month, and we plan to move that up to about 1,000 a month" as the buildup intensifies in Afghanistan this spring,
Webster said. He noted that Obama
"wanted us to move in there as quickly as possible, and initial estimates were that it was
going to take as much as 18 months." That timetable has been dramatically accelerated, he said, and "we now will be able to move the 5,000-plus
vehicles that are needed for the buildup by the end of the summer."
5
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Japan 1NC
1. Withdrawal of troops from Japan leads to more troops in Guam
Gacho ‘10 (freelance writer, journalist and copy editor Francesca January 4, U.S. troop build-up on Guam faces opposition from locals
http://minoritydreams.com/2010/01/04/us-troop-build-up-on-guam-faces-opposition-from-natives/)
It has been ten months since Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton re-signed an agreement with Japan officials to relocate Marine
Corps Futenma air base. This agreement includes the relocation of 8,000 Marines from the U.S. military base in
Japan to the small island of Guam, a U.S. territory. The agreement was initially signed in 2006 to reduce U.S. military
presence in Japan and lighten the load in the airbase which currently holds more than half of the 47,000 troops in Japan, according to news
reports. In a few months, the Marines will be greeted “Hafa Adai” or “Welcome”, as they set foot on Guam. Recently, the Public Broadcasting System
(PBS) reported on the military build-up and the infrastructural stress such a high influx of people would put on the island’s already-stretched resources. An
estimated 18,000 troops and families are set to arrive by 2014, but with a population already exceeding 150,000 residents, Guam’s 212
square miles of land seems barely enough.
2. Troops in Guam provoke protests, violence, and environmental destruction.
Schepers ’10 (veteran civil and immigrant rights activist. Emile June 28, 2010 Guam: Proposed U.S. base expansion seen as threat
http://www.peoplesworld.org/guam-proposed-u-s-base-expansion-seen-as-threat/)
President Obama was supposed to drop by the U.S. island colony of Guam in his trip to the Asia-Pacific region a couple of weeks
ago. The trip was postponed and there is no announcement yet of when it will be rescheduled. But whenever he arrives, residents of Guam are
going to give him an earful about a planned massive expansion of the already large U.S. military presence. Guam, called
Guahan by many of its 178,000 inhabitants, is the largest of the Northern Marianas islands, in the South Pacific. It was settled by speakers of Malayo-Polynesian
languages about 2,000 B.C. In the 1500's, Guam/Guahan was “discovered” by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan. Subsequently, the Spanish took
possession of the island, subjugating the native Polynesian Chamorro (or Chamoru) people to its rule. In 1898, the United States seized Guam from Spain as
part of the booty of the Spanish-American War. The U.S. Navy ran Guam as a supply station until, in 1941, the Japanese invaded, imposing a brutally violent
military regime. The people of Guam supported the expulsion of the Japanese military by the United States. But after the war, the United States
greatly intensified its presence as part of a Cold War strategy of setting up U.S. bases in areas considered strategic
for projecting force against the Soviet Union, China and other adversaries. Recently, the whole Marianas group, including Guam, has
begun to be seen as a good place to set up cheap labor sweatshops, although this has been somewhat slowed down by the Abramoff scandal. As a result of the
intensification of the U.S. military presence, major demographic, cultural and ecological changes have hit Guam .
Today, only 37 percent of the
population is indigenous Chamorro; the rest are of Filipino, United States and others. The Chamorro language is
declining. The local government has very limited powers, and the people of Guam, though U.S. citizens, neither have
voting representation in Congress, nor the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections. Because the U.S. military has
occupied 30 percent of the land, and because of the domination of the island economy by the United States, Guam,
which until World War II grew enough food to feed its own people plus the U.S. military, now imports 90 percent of its
food. So it was no huge surprise when the United States government suddenly announced, without any consultation with the locals, that its military presence in
Guam was going to be massively increased. But this time, the people of Guam are fighting back. The trouble started in Japan, where, since the end of World War
II, the United States has maintained military bases. The U.S. bases on the island of Okinawa have been the focus of an increasingly powerful protest
movement, sparked by sometimes violent behavior by U.S. soldiers, who are immune from prosecution by local authorities. In reaction to that movement, the
government of former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, elected in August 2009, had
promised to get the United States to redeploy troops
from the area of greatest friction. However, he was unsuccessful and resigned this spring because of the problem.
Nevertheless, the U.S. military has announced that it will be transferring 8,500 U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam.
The move will involve a massive increase in support services and infrastructure. Its impact will include: *Bringing in as
many as 80,000 more people from outside, troops and civilians, thus making the Chamorros even more of a minority in the lands they have inhabited for 4,000
years (they would drop from 37 percent to 26 percent). *Alienating even more farm and other land for military purposes. *Severe
damage to neighboring coral reefs and other natural resources for the purpose of expanding Navy facilities, including
a berth for an aircraft carrier at a spot which is a principle birthing are for hammerhead sharks. The Navy did a bogus
“environmental impact study”. However, a review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has had something very different to say.
Among other things noted by the EPA is that the sudden increase in population will create a huge crisis of drinking
water, “unprecedented” impacts on coral reefs, vastly increased noise pollution, among other things. Though the
people of Guam have not massively opposed the U.S. military presence up to now, the new plans, and the arrogant
way they are being imposed, have sparked an increasingly strong protest movement. Meetings around the island
have denounced the plans and raised demands for increasing autonomy. The demand for a face to face meeting with Obama when
he finally arrives has come out of this process.
6
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Iran 1NC
1. Tensions between the US and Iran are heating up
Tennant 7-10-10 (“Adding Refueling to the Fire of U.S.-Iran Tensions” Written by Michael Tennant
Wednesday, 07 July 2010 09:10 The New American.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-33/3964-adding-refueling-to-the-fire-of-us-iran-tensions)
The sanctions, says the Telegraph, “aim to choke off Iran’s access to imports of refined petroleum products like gasoline and jet fuel and curb its access to
the international banking system” in an attempt to force Iran to halt its alleged nuclear-weapons program. Specifically, they “prohibit the sale or
provision to Iran of refined petroleum products worth more than $5 [million] over a year,” writes the Telegraph. It wouldn’t
take many jet refuelings to exceed that limit, the penalty for which could be “a ban on doing business in the US,”
according to the BBC. Possibly this fact alone explains BP’s compliance, though political calculations (i.e., hoping for favorable treatment from Washington in
regard to the Gulf oil spill) or longstanding hostility to the Iranian government (BP played a central role in the CIA’s installment of the Shah in 1953) may play into
it as well. As usual, sanctions hurt ordinary people far more than they hurt governments: Witness the continued U.S. sanctions
against Cuba, which have done nothing to remove the Castro regime from power but have assisted the regime in impoverishing the Cuban people and making
them resent the Americans. In the case of the sanctions on Iran, the inability to refuel Iranian passenger planes in foreign countries, at the very least, is doubling
the cost of flights out of Iran, an Iranian aviation official told the BBC. At worst, it could “ultimately amount to a blanket ban on all air travel
out of the country, at least in so far as the plane doesn’t have enough fuel for a round trip,” suggests Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com.
This surely harms
ordinary Iranians wishing to travel abroad far more than it hurts Iranian government officials, who have the resources and the power to evade the sanctions.
Undoubtedly, too, Iranians
will blame the United States, and not their own government, for their inability to travel abroad. Some
may even become so angry with our government that they will undertake terrorist attacks against Americans; the CIA
calls such unintended consequences “blowback.” “Sanctions are literally an act of war,” said Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), explaining on the floor of the
House of Representatives his reasons for voting against the sanctions on Iran. “So often well-intentioned foreign policy procedures backfire, they have
unintended consequences, and there’s too often blowback,” he later added. Furthermore, he said, “sanctions
commit to sanctions, you’re really committing to the next step,” which is war.
lead to hostilities. And if you
As if to validate Paul’s point, “Iranian lawmaker
Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh said Iran would retaliate,” reports the BBC. “‘Iran will do the same to ships and planes of those countries that cause problems for
How long will it be until a genuine shooting war between the United States and
Iran breaks out? Both governments are seemingly itching for one.
us,’ Iran’s Isna news agency quoted him as saying.”
2. Withdrawal of Troops from Iraq result in redeployment to Iran
Frank ’08 (journalist and noted progressive author[2] living in the United States and covers current political and environmental topics. His articles and essays
appear in CounterPunch, Z Magazine, Truthout, and Alternet, among other publications. He holds a graduate degree in environmental conservation from New
York University ,Joshua Wednesday, February 06, 2008 Barack Obama: The War in Iraq and the Jewish Vote http://vfpdissident.blogspot.com/2008/02/barackobama-war-in-iraq-and-jewish.html)
After Obama won his senatorial race in 2004 he quickly abandoned the antiwar rhetoric he had touted along the campaign trail. While remaining critical
of the White House and the lies that pushed us toward war, Obama still maintained that U.S. military should remain in
Iraq until the job was completed."Given the enormous stakes in Iraq, I believe that those of us who are involved in shaping our national security
policies should do what we believe is right, not merely what is politically expedient," Obama proclaimed in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations
in late November 2005.Later in that same speech, he said, "In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those steps that will: one,
stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinguish the
insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."Obama continues to favor a "phased redeployment" of our troops as well
as "benchmarks" for the Iraqi government, but promises to not "fully withdraw" – hence why the Illinois senator has supported the
majority of Bush administration's pork-engorged appropriation bills that are draining the U.S. Treasury. Obama wants to keep cadres of troops throughout Iraq
with others all other the region to strike if necessary. So
where would President Obama send the troops he's redeployed? A good
guess might be Iran.As Obama told the Chicago Tribune on Sept. 26, 2004, "[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran
is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be
imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point … if any, are we going to take military action?"He added that
"launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in" given the ongoing war in Iraq. "On
the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse." Obama went on to argue that
military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if "violent Islamic extremists" were to "take over."Iran is a "genuine threat" to the United States and Israel,
Obama later expressed at a forum sponsored by AIPAC on March 12, 2007, in Washington, D.C. At the event Obama reiterated that he would not rule out the
use of force in disarming Iran, a position he shares with rival Clinton. Earlier that same month, on March 2, 2007, Obama spoke at an AIPAC Policy Forum in
Chicago, where he succinctly laid out his position on how he would deal with the Middle East, promising not to alter America's lopsided relationship with Israel.
"[W]e must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military
assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs," he said. "This would help Israel maintain its
military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza." ...
7
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Iran 1NC
3. Intervention in Iran causes nuclear war and harms Iran’s democratic movement.
Simanowitz & Corbyn ’10 (Stefan Simanowitz is a journalist and political analyst and Chair of the Westminster Committee on Iran. Jeremy Corbyn
is the MP for Islington North and Vice Chair of the Parliamentary Human Rights Group July 24,. ‘Intervention will harm Iran’s democratic movement’
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=109530)
The head of the BBC’s Persia Service, Sadeq Saba, told an audience in the British Parliament on Monday that “any
foreign intervention in any
shape or form will harm Iran’s democratic movement”. Speaking as part of an expert panel at a meeting entitled Iran: Which Way Forward?,
he argued that the future of Iran will be determined by “the Iranian people, the struggle for democracy and also the
economy”. With unprecedented levels of disunity within the regime, Saba believes that the tipping point will come “if poor sections of the society
come to the street and demonstrate and I think Iran is heading towards this situation”. The meeting, convened by the Westminster
Committee on Iran, explored the current crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme, bringing together parliamentarians, security analysts and Middle East
experts to explore ways of resolving the stand-off and assess both the dangers of military intervention and the risks
associated with not taking action. In his analysis, British American Security Information Council executive director Paul Ingram said that there were a
number of uncertainties but that even under “ideal conditions” Iran was several years away from having the capability to field any nuclear weapons, should it
choose to do so, and had yet to overcome some significant technical hurdles. “At current rates it would take Iran around four years to
produce enough 20 per cent U235 uranium that would then require further enrichment for a nuclear weapon” he
explained. Mr Saba suggested that “both sides are exaggerating Iran’s nuclear capacity for their own motives” and pointed out that
since the election there has been a significant shift in the ordinary Iranian’s attitude to the nuclear programme. “For a lot of Iranians, the main priority has become
the democratic issue rather than the nuclear issue.” Warning of the impact of military intervention, security analyst Ben Zala
referred to a new report published by the Oxford Research Group last week. “Military action would not involve
surgical strikes but would be the start of an ongoing war,” he said. The repercussions of such a war would be far-reaching, with Iran
withdrawing from the Non Proliferation Treaty, redoubling its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and engaging in long-term acts of retaliation, said Zala. “The
idea of military intervention against Iran makes my blood run cold,” said Lord Phillips, who has been visiting Iran
since 1961. “It would strengthen all the wrong elements in Iranian society,” he said, arguing that the way to resolve the
issue is for the Western nations to “back off and treat Iran the same way we treat other countries.” On the subject of air
strikes, the executive Chair of the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society Alan Mendoza agreed that: “it would be foolish to rush to that stage because the
repercussions would be immense”. However, he argued that Iran’s expanding sphere of influence cannot go unchallenged. Highlighting its support of Hizbollah
and Hamas, he said that Iran has “malicious intent and we can only imagine how that intent would be amplified, were Iran to have nuclear weapons”. He added
that it was a “well-known secret” that “various security services have been conducting sabotage against Iran’s nuclear programme for some years”. According to
Mendoza, a significant tightening of the Western approach through even more stringent sanctions would “squeeze the regime”, forcing it to shift position in order
to stay in power. “One thing we know about this regime is that it does value its survival,” he said. With rhetoric on both sides ratcheting up, there are concerns
that conflict may be increasingly difficult to avoid. In the past months there has been a fourth round of UN sanctions, unilateral US and EU sanctions and reports
of military build-up in the Gulf. Last week the Iranian parliament passed a Bill that forces President Ahmadinejad to continue uranium enrichment up to the more
sensitive level of 20 per cent. “Both sides are throwing away their steering wheels in this game of chicken” said Paul Ingram. Although sanctions are seen by
some as an alternative to military action, they can also be seen as its natural precursor. The enforcement of sanctions will require the inspection of Iranian
vessels by Western navies and with Tehran making it clear that it will not allow such inspections, it is easy to see how the current stand-off
could rapidly escalate. Whilst many are convinced that Barack Obama would not lead the US into a war that even
George Bush shied away from, it is perhaps the very fact that Obama is not Bush that he is able to contemplate
military action against Iran. In getting Russian and Chinese support for Resolution 1929 last month, Obama achieved a level of consensus on Iran
among the UN Security Council permanent members that George Bush could have only dreamed of. The fact that Germany and France are fully involved in the
current military escalation in the Gulf contrasts sharply with the flimsy “coalition of the willing” pulled together by Bush in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.“The
demonisation of Iran is such that it appears we are on a one-track punitive response, even though few believe it will work but lack the imagination or belief in
other options,” said Paul Ingram. This meeting, the first in a series, was intended to offer that imaginative space and represents the type of open dialogue that
should be going on at all levels if we are to bridge the trust gap that exits between Iran and the West and avert a further
disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.
8
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS ***
9
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Troops Good in Afghanistan
Troop shift can bring stability to Afghanistan, and avoid conflict with Pakistan
PTI 10 [DNA India News, http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_catastrophic-consequences-of-walking-away-from-afghanistan_1410016, July 15, 2010]
Washington, DC: Any hasty withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan could have catastrophic consequences and active
cooperation of Pakistan is a must for comprehensively defeating al Qaeda and Taliban, America's point man for the region Richard Holbrooke has said. You may
also want to see "This is my personal view, if we walk away from Afghanistan, again, as we did 21 years ago, the consequences
will be similarly catastrophic because of the unique strategic position of Afghanistan and the reaction that it would
have in Pakistan, China, India and the countries to Afghanistan's west," the Obama Administration's special envoy told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. He said to achieve success in the war torn country, it would involve continued American
economic and development assistance. "This will not be cheap, but it will be a fraction of the money that is now being
authorised and appropriated for the military campaign. When we will be able to transition to that is impossible for me or anyone to say, but it
won't be on a single day. It will be a gradual process, and that is what the review in December and the President's decision making will focus on,"
Holbrooke said in response to questions from Senators. On Pakistan's role, he said, " We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan's
participation." Holbrooke told Senators that the very fact that he was appointed as the Special Representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, in itself was a
reflection of the fact. "The US government reorganised to reflect the fact that you cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan's involvement." Indicating that
Washington was putting pressure on Islamabad for a larger crackdown in the Waziristan tribal belt Holbrooke said, "We do not have enough action yet on the
Pakistani side of the border. Here is a perfect example of why the two countries cannot be disaggregated for purposes of policy. We got what we wanted on one
side of the border, but we haven't gotten it on the other yet. And Americans are being killed and wounded because of this." The American envoy also conceded
that western part of Pakistan is a safe haven for terrorists. "The western part of Pakistan, the lawless areas, are the epicentre of the issues that threaten our
country. They directly link to the Taliban but they're in Pakistan," he said responding to concerns from Senator Jim Webb. "We have made real progress in
Pakistan in the last year and a half, but the focus is so overwhelmingly on Afghanistan -- for valid reasons; that's where our troops are -- that we have lost -- we
haven't even recognised the movement in Pakistan across the board: economically, politically, strategically," Holbrooke said. To achieve the goal to
disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and prevent its ability to threaten the United States, Holbrooke said the US has to
degrade the Taliban because they are part of the enemy structure, a different part but an integral part that America
faces. "Now, the Afghan government doesn't yet have the capacity to deal with this on its own. How could they after
30 years of war? And so the civilian part of it, police, government capacity, rule of law, sub-national government,
training provincial official, women's empowerment and a whole series of other major issues -- are part of our civilian
programs," he said. The civilian strategy of the Obama Administration, he said, is designed from keeping al Qaeda at bay and it's
designed to help Afghan institutions establish conditions for stable governance.
10
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Troops Good in Afghanistan
Increase of troops in Afghanistan improves stability and solves for state collapse
Thiessen 10 [Marc A. Thiessen, visiting fellow for AEI, writer for the Washington Post “President Obama's Detrimental Deadlines”
http://www.aei.org/article/102244, June 29,2010]
The deadline is more than a tactical error; it is a strategic miscalculation that undermines almost every element of our efforts in Afghanistan. A withdrawal
date undermines the very premise of a counterinsurgency strategy -- that by protecting the population, you can earn
their trust and get them to help you root out the terrorists and insurgents. As columnist Charles Krauthammer has explained,
Afghans will not risk joining us in the fight if they think America will soon be leaving them to the mercy of the Taliban.
The damage goes even deeper than that. The stated purpose of the deadline is to put pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to eliminate corruption and
increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Afghan government. Instead, it has had the opposite effect--creating a perverse incentive for Karzai to make
overtures to the Taliban, and cut deals to stay in power, so that he can cover his bets when the Americans leave. The deadline is also weakening our coalition. It
is hard enough to get NATO countries to cough up troops, but when
our NATO allies believe that America is packing its bags, they
start packing as well. Canada has announced its mission will end in 2011. In February, the Dutch announced they will withdraw by this December. And
last week, Poland declared that all its troops will be leave by 2012 because, as the head of Poland's National Security Bureau put it, Afghanistan is heading
toward a "strategic catastrophe" and Poland needed to "seek a way out of this situation."
Obama can hardly push back on NATO allies to
stay if America is not committed to staying itself. The deadline also sends the wrong message to Pakistan. Elements of
Pakistani intelligence have long maintained quiet ties with the Taliban and other jihadist groups, using these militants to destabilize Afghanistan and India.
Obama is pressing Pakistan to cut these ties and help us dismantle these networks--an effort that is critical to the
success of both our mission in Afghanistan and our campaign against al-Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal regions. But if the
Pakistanis perceive America is leaving, why would they accede to such pressure? The withdrawal date also emboldens the Taliban. As
Arizona Sen. John McCain puts it, "We cannot tell the enemy when you are leaving in warfare and expect your strategy to be able to prevail." Obama's
defenders point to the fact that Petraeus set a timeline for withdrawal in Iraq. But that timeline was set nine months after the surge began, when Iraq had clearly
turned a corner. We have not yet turned a corner in Afghanistan. Moreover, at the height of the surge, President George W. Bush vetoed a bill
that would have created a deadline for withdrawal--sending a clear signal of America's determination to prevail. Today, Obama appears to be hedging for defeat.
At the G-20 summit, Obama complained that there has been "a lot of obsession" with the withdrawal date. He tried to
put some nuance on the deadline, declaring that beginning to withdraw troops in a years' time doesn't mean we will
"close the door and shut off the lights." This nuance is lost in the voyage across the Hindu Kush. Obama cannot afford to repeat in Afghanistan
what he did in Guantanamo--let the deadline linger for months after the administration knew it could not be met. The "obsession" will not end until he repudiates
the withdrawal date, clearly and unequivocally. But lifting the deadline alone is not enough; the president
needs to start projecting resolve.
When his health care bill was in trouble, Obama barnstormed the country like his presidency depended on it-explaining the stakes, the consequences of failure, and why he would not accept defeat. He needs to start doing that for
Afghanistan--explaining the stakes, the consequences of failure, and why he will not accept defeat. If Afghanistan truly is a "war of necessity,"
then the security of our country depends on it. His presidency depends on it as well.
11
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Troops Good in Guam
U.S. Troops in Guam key to deter china and protect Taiwan
Kan and Niksch 10-- (Shirley A, Specialist in Asian Security Affairs, Larry A. Specialist in Asian affairs, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments”,
Congressional Research Service January 7, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22570.pdf)
ChinaChina’s
civilian and military commentators commonly suspect that the U.S. defense build-up on Guam partly has
been aimed at China, which has threatened to use the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) against Taiwan. U.S. policy on
helping Taiwan’s self-defense is governed not by a defense treaty but by the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), P.L. 96-8. Some
concerns about the PLA’s accelerated modernization since the Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1995-1996 also have expanded beyond a focus on Taiwan to include PLA preparations for
possible conflicts with the United States and Japan. In Southeast
Asia, despite reduced tensions since the mid-1990s, China claims
much of the South China Sea as well as the disputed Spratly and Paracel Islands in that sea as its “sovereign
territory.” The PLA has increased its attention to Guam and has been building up its submarine force (both nuclear-powered
and diesel-electric). In November 2004, the PLA Navy sent a Han-class nuclear attack submarine to waters off Guam before
intruding into Japan’s territorial water.18 In April 2007, PACOM Commander Admiral Timothy Keating visited Guam and
acknowledged that its defense buildup was partly due to concerns about any tensions over Taiwan and a need to
deter North Korea. At the same time, he stressed U.S. transparency, saying “we’re not doing this [buildup] under the cover of darkness.”19 Still, a policy challenge
has been to deter any aggression by China as well as to assure it that a U.S. goal is cooperation with this rising
power as a “responsible stakeholder.” The Commander of Pacific Air Forces said in May 2005 that the PLA’s
modernization gave him “pause for interest” but did not make a difference in significant force redeployment.20 Also, in
2006, Guam became a focal point for improving military-to-military relations with China. To blunt charges that Guam’s build-up targets
China, PACOM’s Commander, Admiral Fallon, invited PLA observers to the U.S. “Valiant Shield” exercise that brought
three aircraft carriers to waters off Guam in June 2006. The PLA Navy sent a Deputy Chief of Staff and specialist in
submarine operations to lead the observers, who also boarded an aircraft carrier and visited Guam’s air and naval
bases. Two C-17 aircraft flew supplies from Guam to China for earthquake relief in May 2008.
Conflict over Taiwan will trigger a US-China nuclear war
Johnson 01 –
(President of Japan Policy Research Institute, Chalmers, The Nation, May 14, LN)
China is another matter. No
sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that
China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed
against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains
the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any
side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United
States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous
country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a
nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally,
forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
Japan combat troops are the only troops being relocated—we don’t trigger the link
UPI 7/3/10 (“U.S. reconfiguring Okinawa move”, United Press International, http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/03/US-reconfiguring-Okinawamove/UPI-68051278181969/)
The U.S. Defense Department is taking a second look at plans to move forces from the Japanese island of Okinawa
to Guam, government sources say. Yomiuri Shimbun, citing sources close to both the Japanese and U.S. governments,
reported the new proposal would not involve a change in the number of U.S. troops to be relocated. But some of the
8,000 members of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force now on Okinawa would remain there, while combat troops would be
relocated instead. The reason for the change is rising tension between North and South Korea and concerns about China's role in the region, the newspaper
said. The Japan-U.S. Roadmap for Realighment Implementation, signed in 2006, aims to reduce the size of the U.S.
footprint on Okinawa, which has a heavy concentration of U.S. military bases. Removing the entire MEF would have
left Okinawa with no officers of admiral's rank. Relocating U.S. operations from Okinawa has become a major issue
in Japan with plans to move some forces elsewhere in the country meeting stiff resistance.
12
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Troops Good in Guam
Guam Troops are key to preventing a Chinese-Japan war
Kan and Niksch 10-- (Shirley A, Specialist in Asian Security Affairs, Larry A. Specialist in Asian affairs, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments”,
Congressional Research Service January 7, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22570.pdf)
The Guam Integrated Military Development Plan, parts of which were reported in October 2006, indicated that U.S. Army units withdrawn from
South Korea are not likely to be stationed on Guam.15 The Pentagon’s restructuring plan reportedly intended to maintain U.S. air power in South Korea,
particularly the three squadrons of F-16 fighters based at Osan Air Base. An emphasis on U.S. offshore forces in South Korean security could affect decisions
regarding the mix of U.S. forces based on Guam and rotated into Guam from other bases. This might especially be true of heavy bombers, which the Air Force
rotates into Guam from bases in the United States. Concerns
about maintaining deterrence after U.S. reductions of ground forces
might lead PACOM to increase exercises of heavy bombers and/or aircraft carrier strike groups near Korea.16 Under
the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, U.S. concerns involve possible conflict between China and Japan over their
competing claims to the Senkaku islands (called Diaoyu islands by China) in the East China Sea. The United States
administered the islands after World War II and turned them over to Japanese administration in 1972. Clinton and
Bush Administration officials have stated that the Senkakus fall under the scope of the U.S.-Japan alliance.17 In
September 2005, the PLA Navy deployed five naval ships to the disputed area in the East China Sea with competing
territorial and oil claims. For training, Guam has provided valuable and less constrained airspace and bombing
ranges for the air forces of Japan, Thailand, Singapore, South Korea, and Australia.
The U.S. Won’t shift troops to Guam—Obama isn’t getting enough funding and
Japan’s Recent controversy about removing troops could further cloud the chances
of moving troops to guam
WSJ 7/21/10 (No author specified, “Plan to Move U.S. Troops From Okinawa Hits Snags - in D.C.”, Wall Street Journal’s Capital Bureau,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/21/plan-to-move-us-troops-from-okinawa-hits-snags-in-dc/)
Our colleague Julian
E. Barnes, writing on WSJ’s Japan Real Time, reports that the White House and Pentagon are now having
trouble getting funding on a Capitol Hill for a key component of the plan, which involves shifting thousands of Marines
from Japan’s southern island to Guam. There are political delays in Japan, too. The move isn’t cheap: At the beginning of
the year, the Obama administration requested $452 million in the current budget to pay for the relocation by building
new facilities in Guam. But the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriation committee voted to
cut $320 million from that request. This week, the House Appropriations Committee voted to cut a smaller amount,
$273 million, from the funding for the Guam move. In making its cuts, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted the
recent controversy in Japan over the relocation of U.S. Marines on Okinawa and concluded the recent Japanese
election “could further cloud the future of the realignment process.”
13
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Troops Good in Guam
U.S. Forces in Guam Provide stability to the region—They help building alliances with
west asian nations and aren’t seen as aggression
Webb 7--
(Master Sargant Art, “TSP/CBP key to security, deterrence in Pacific”, 13th Air Force, July 16,
http://www.13af.pacaf.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123061650)
The current deployment of aircraft at Guam is one of the largest footprints in the history of the buildup of air forces
here, maintaining U.S. deterrence and warfighting capabilities against possible threats in Asia. As part of continuing force
posture adjustments, the United States routinely deploys forces to the Western Pacific to maintain a credible deterrent
posture and presence for the region and demonstrate a continued U.S. commitment to fulfilling security
responsibilities throughout the Western Pacific. The United States has a number of important relationships in the
Pacific region, and the PACOM has taken significant steps to strengthen its operational presence and interoperability
with various partners. These deployments send a clear message to any potential adversary that the United States is
serious about security and stability in the region. A result of these rotations is the enhancement of U.S. influence and
expansion of U.S. operational access to train forward-deployed and forward-based combat forces, and increased
interoperability with coalition partners to support potential efforts across the spectrum of military operations. According to
officials at Pacific Air Forces, Guam is an ideal location for projecting air power in support of this transformation . It is strategically
located, has impressive fuel and munitions storage capabilities, quality Airmen and civilians, and strong community support. These forward-basing
assets give PACOM the capability to respond to any contingency, anywhere in the theater in minimal time. The future
of Guam also holds additions in aircraft and infrastructure as the base is a strategically located forward operating
base and a linchpin in the Pacific, in terms of its flexibility to conduct operations for the Pacific Command, according to Brig. Gen. Douglas Owens,
commander, 36th Wing, the host wing for deployed operations here at Andersen. PACOM is committed to providing an environment of
security and stability to support and foster freedom and prosperity throughout the region. These moves are prudent
force adjustment measures and are not intended to be viewed as aggressive in nature. Every TSP and CBP activity
PACOM undertakes will enhance the joint/combined capabilities and communicates the intent to assure friends, or
dissuade, deter, or defeat potential enemies. It will also strengthen the military-to-military cooperation and prepare
PACOM forces and their prospective regional partners for the next challenge.
14
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
No Link – Guam
No troop shift to Guam— Protests from the Guam government, development of
infrastructure and lack of budget
Ogawa
7/24/10 (Satoshi, Correspondent for the Daily Yomiuri, “U.S. marines' Guam move seen delayed / Futenma plan also could be jeopardized”, Daily
Yomiuri, http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T100723005957.htm)
WASHINGTON--The U.S. government has effectively given up on completing the transfer of about 8,000 U.S. marines
stationed in Okinawa Prefecture to Guam in 2014, sources have said, a decision that also could scuttle the planned
relocation of a U.S. base in the prefecture. The U.S. Pacific island territory's infrastructure cannot handle such a hasty
construction schedule, according to the Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO) of the U.S. Navy. The United States told
the Guam government Thursday of its unofficial decision, according to the sources. It had already informed the
Japanese government of the possibility, they said. Moving about 8,000 III Marine Expeditionary Force personnel and their approximately 9,000
dependents from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam is one pillar of the U.S.-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation, agreed upon between the two countries
in May 2006. Another focus is the relocation of Futenma Air Station in the prefecture. Relocating Futenma and transferring the marines have been considered as
a set, according to the U.S. Defense Department. With the marines' transfer expected to be delayed, some observers believe it highly likely that Futenma Air
Station will not be relocated from its current location of Ginowan. The possible delay in completing the marines' relocation to Guam
was revealed in a preliminary meeting held Thursday on the environmental impact assessment by the JGPO.
Although the bilateral agreement governing the transfer of the U.S. Marine Corps personnel from Okinawa Prefecture
to Guam calls for a target completion date of 2014, the JGPO's statement says it "recognized that Guam's
infrastructure may not be able to handle such a rapid construction pace." "In response, the DEIS [draft environmental impact
statement] will identify a mitigation measure called 'adaptive program management,' in which the pace and sequencing
of construction will be adjusted to stay within the limitations of Guam's utilities, port, roadways and other systems .
This will result in a more stretched-out, manageable construction timeline," the statement says. The statement took into
consideration the Guam government's assertions that the territory's civil infrastructure, including utilities, must be improved to
cope with the rapid population growth that will result from the marines' relocation. As the U.S. government is prioritizing the improvement of
civil infrastructure over construction of the marines' base, it became inevitable that construction would take longer
and cost more than originally planned. This position will be officially announced in the final environmental impact
statement to be compiled within the month, the sources said. Meanwhile, a Japanese government source said this
country's officials had been already briefed by the United States on the matter. "It will take several years to improve
the infrastructure," the source said, indicating that, objectively speaking, it would be impossible to complete the base's
construction by the end of 2014. Some observers have said the postponement of the marines' relocation to Guam is
partly the result of the lack of progress in Japan on the relocation of Futenma. "This may suggest that interest within
the U.S. government toward promoting the overall realignment of U.S. forces has been diminishing," a Foreign Ministry
source said. The Japanese and U.S. governments have agreed that Japan will shoulder 6.09 billion dollars, or 59 percent,
of the total budget of 10.27 billion dollars for moving the marines from Okinawa Prefecture to Guam. The Japanese portion
includes fiscal spending of 2.8 billion dollars. Guam's strong resistance The de facto postponement of completing the U.S. marines'
relocation to Guam was prompted by strong resistance from the Guam government. Guam Gov. Felix Camacho
argued strongly for improvements in civil infrastructure when the Defense Department announced the draft
environmental impact statement in November. As such improvements will require a certain amount of time and a
larger budget, many within the U.S. government and Congress are now increasingly uncertain about when the
relocation will be finished. As a result, the budget for fiscal 2011 saw major cuts in funding for the construction of
military facilities connected with the relocation to Guam.
15
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
No Link – Iran
A war between the U.S. and Iran is Unlikely—Iran doesn’t want military conflict
Press TV 10 ('US attack on Iran highly unlikely', May 15, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126519&sectionid=351020101)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the potential of a military confrontation between the Islamic
Republic and the US as highly unlikely. In an exclusive interview conducted by the Al Jazeera network on Friday,
Ahmadinejad stated that no country has the power to confront Iran, and added that Tehran advocates diplomacy as
the ideal way to deal with international issues, the Fars news agency reported. Ahmadinejad said Iran does not even take
Israel into account and noted that Tel Aviv is not able to wage a war against the Islamic Republic. He went on to say
that Western countries occupied Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to protect the "Zionist regime" and asked how a
regime that itself needs protection could wage a war on Iran. On the deteriorating relations between Tehran and the West, Ahmadinejad
said Western countries don't have problems only with Iran but actually have problems with every country. The Iranian
president also asked if any government or people is at peace with them. Not only are the Islamic and Middle Eastern
countries dissatisfied with Western governments but even the people of Europe are dissatisfied with them, he added.
The Iranian president noted that the same is true in the US and the main reason is the West's greed. Governments
and peoples around the globe no longer tolerate discrimination and hegemonistic policies, he stated. "Relations must
be based on mutual respect. This is not just the word of Iran but the word of all nations," he stated.
U.S. won’t deploy troops to Iran—They are trying to improve middle east relations
and start a sanctions regime.
Mozgovaya and Rueters 10 (Natasha,Chief U.S.Correspondent for Haaretz, “Biden: Israel won't attack Iran before sanctions allowed to work”,
Haaretz, 22/4, http://www.haaretz.com/news/biden-israel-won-t-attack-iran-before-sanctions-allowed-to-work-1.284688)
U.S. Vice President tells ABC's 'The View' that 'everyone agrees the next step against Iran should be the sanctions
route.' U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said on Thursday he expects new United Nations sanctions on Iran by late April
or early May and dismissed the notion that Israel might attack the Islamic Republic before first allowing sanctions to
take their course. Biden issued the latest U.S. warning to Iran, which is locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear program, in an appearance on
ABC television's "The View" talk show. "Everyone from the Israeli prime minister straight through to the British prime minister to
the president of Russia, everyone agrees the next step we should take is the UN sanction route," Biden said. "I
believe you will see a sanction regime coming out by the end of this month, beginning of next month," he said. Asked
whether Washington was concerned that Israel might attack its arch-foe Iran without U.S. consultation, Biden said,
"They're not going to do that."He said Israel had agreed to await the outcome of tightened sanctions against Iran, an
effort being led by U.S. President Barack Obama. "They've agreed the next step is the step we - the president of the United States - have
initiated in conjunction with European powers, the NATO powers," he said. Israel, the only assumed nuclear weapons power in the Middle East, has made clear
it is keeping open the military option against Iran even as Washington proceeds on the dual diplomatic and sanctions track. Biden reiterated the
administration's view that China, one of five veto-holding members of the UN Security Council, would support new
sanctions on Iran. Beijing has softened its resistance to new measures but has been reluctant to accept punitive
steps as severe as Washington wants. "We're going to continue to keep the pressure on Iran," Biden said.The West
accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran says it only wants peaceful civilian nuclear power.
U.S.: Israel-Palestinian peace failures strengthening Iran On Wednesday, the Obama administration said that progress toward
Middle East peace would help thwart Iran's ambitions by preventing it from "cynically" using the conflict to divert
attention from its nuclear program. Drawing an explicit link between Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts and Washington's drive to isolate Iran,
Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones, urged bold steps to revive long-stalled Middle East negotiations. U.S.
officials hope that shared Arab-Israeli concerns about Iran can be exploited to spur old foes to help advance IsraeliPalestinian peace and restrain Tehran's nuclear activities and rising influence in the region. Jones coupled an appeal to Israel
and its Arab neighbors to take risks for peace with a warning to Iran that it would face "real consequences" for its nuclear defiance. Obama is leading a push to
tighten UN sanctions on Tehran.
"One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing
Arab-Israeli conflict," Jones told the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Advancing this peace would ... help prevent Iran from
cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations," he said. The Israeli government, locked in a dispute with the
United States over Jewish settlement policy, has made clear it sees confronting Iran as more of a security priority for Washington, and Middle East peace should
Jones - while voicing disappointment over the failure to jumpstart U.S.-sponsored indirect peace talks - insisted
progress toward peace is a U.S. interest as well. That seemed to echo Obama's assertion last week that a two-state solution to the decadesbe handled on a separate track.
old conflict was "a vital national security interest", adding to speculation that he was considering his own broad peace proposal.
16
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
No Link – Iran
U.S. Won’t attack Iran or send troops there—Russian Pressure and Nuclear
Detterence
Press TV 10 (“Russia warns US against attacking Iran” , February 17, http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=118849&sectionid=351020104)
The chief of Russia's General Staff, Nikolai Makarov, has warned the US against striking Iran over the country's nuclear
program. "The consequences, I believe, would be dreadful for Iran, as well as Russia, the entire Asia-Pacific
community," Makarov said on Wednesday. The Russian military chief further suggested that the United States might turn its
military attention on the Islamic Republic once its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been completed. Amid a
US campaign to drum up support for new anti-Iran sanctions, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned on Tuesday
that world powers would "regret" any moves against the country. "If anybody seeks to create problems for Iran, our
response will not be like before," Ahmadinejad said at a press conference in Tehran. "Something will be done in response that
will make them (the world powers) regret [their action]," the Iranian chief executive added. "However, we prefer they steer
towards cooperation [with Iran]." President Ahmadinejad made the remarks as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was wrapping up her visit to the Middle East,
where she stopped in Qatar and Saudi Arabia to seek the backing of the Arab world's heavyweights against Tehran's nuclear drive. Tehran
says its
nuclear program is directed at the civilian applications of the technology and has called for the removal of all
weapons of mass destruction around the globe. The West, however, accuses the country of seeking military ends in
its pursuit. The United States has spearheaded efforts to slap new UN Security Council sanctions against Iran, after
the country announced the production of the first batch of 20 percent-enriched uranium to make fuel for a medical
research reactor in Tehran.
US won’t attack Iran, making war impossible
Lataan 10 [Damian Lataan, Aeronautical Engineer, Historian, http://lataan.blogspot.com/2010/06/coming-iran-war.html, June 24, 2010]
Invasion of Iran by the US is out of the question, (though the insertion of some special forces is highly likely in order to co-ordinate air strikes).
Iran is a vast country that is some three times larger than Iraq. The US, considering its current ground troop commitments in Iraq and
Afghanistan would not be able to effectively invade Iran. It would have to rely on an overwhelming aerial bombing
campaign in order to prevail. The instant any attack is launched against Iran, or Hezbollah or Hamas, there will likely
be instant retaliation against Israel by at least Hezbollah and possibly Hamas. Both entities would, by this stage, realise that this
fight will be to the finish. The fighting therefore will be intense and fearsome and there will be many casualties – mostly, of course, civilians. In a worst case
scenario, depending on the intensity of the bombardment of Israel by Hezbollah, Israel may threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Lebanon unless
Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks against Israel. Likewise, if Iran retaliates with a rocket attack against Israel, both the US and
Israel may threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. In the very worst case scenario, if Iran or Hezbollah
used chemical or biological weapons, Israel and /or the US would actually use nuclear weapons with little or no
warning in retaliation.
17
SCFI 2010
Troop Shift
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Iran Strikes Good
Strikes of Iran solve the nuclear program and Iran’s weak military won’t be able to
strike back
Leven 10(Sam, Writer for the Caviler Daily, “Rebalancing the Middle East”, http://archive.cavalierdaily.com/news/2004/nov/23/rebalancing-the-middleeast/print/)
If this doesn't work, however (and history has shown that sanctions often don't work), then other options must be examined. The
American military is
now overextended and overcommitted, so American military action in Iran would not be wise. However, what may be the wise
course would be for the United States to step out of the way and allow Israel to make a preemptive airstrike to take out Iranian nuclear facilities. This kind of
an attack would not unprecedented. In 1981, intelligence reports showed Iraq developing a nuclear facility in the western part of the country. Israel
decided the threat of a nuclear Iraq was too great to ignore, and launched a preemptive strike on the site. The strike on Iraq was nearly universally condemned at
the time. However, 10 years later, following the end of the First Gulf War, inspections discovered that Iraq was as few
as six months away from having nuclear weapons, and American government officials began to say that had Israel
not conducted the strike in 1981, Iraq would almost definitely have had nuclear weapons when it invaded Kuwait,
creating results that would have been disastrous. While Iran's nuclear facilities are more spread out than Iraq's were in 1981, an Israeli
strike would still be able to hit almost all, if not all, of the sites. The result would set Iran's nuclear development back
to a point that it will no longer pose a significant nuclear threat to the rest of the Middle East. While there would likely be
terrorist response to such action, the devastation of a terrorist response will be nothing compared to the devastation of these
same terrorists getting hold of Iranian nuclear weapons. Iran itself will not militarily respond as its own military is
simply too weak to compete with an Israeli military that has consistently shown itself to be the most powerful in the
Middle East, and the Iranian government is pragmatic enough to understand the futility of such a response. While there
would be a lot of shouting, and this action is certainly undesirable, an Israeli strike on Iran may very well prove to be the only way to
save the Middle East from a true disaster involving nuclear weapons. That is, if the United States is willing to let it
happen.
Iran officials are pushing for a pre-emptive strike on Isreal, means we control the
uniqueness—the question is whether we attack or they do
Haaretz 08 (Barak Ravid and Haaretz Correspondent, “Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel”, 22/10,
http://www.haaretz.com/news/top-iran-officials-recommend-preemptive-strike-against-israel-1.255799#)
Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's
nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London. The official, Dr.
Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian
policy. Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated
with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues. Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who
was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian
government. An Israeli political official said senior Jerusalem officials were shown Safavi's remarks, which are
considered highly sensitive. The source said the briefing in London dealt with a number of issues, primarily a
potential Israeli attack on an Iranian reactor. Safavi said a small, experienced group of officials is lobbying for a
preemptive strike against Israel. "The recent Israeli declarations and harsh rhetoric on a strike against Iran put
ammunition in these individuals' hands," he said. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would
be forced to strike the Iranian nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its uranium enrichment program. Safavi said
Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuclear facilities. While the previous policy called for attacks against
He added that many Revolutionary Guard
leaders want to respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by striking Israel, as they believe Israel would be partner to
any U.S. action. Safavi said that Iran's nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes only, and that Khamenei recently released a fatwa against the
use of weapons of mass destruction, though the contents of that religious ruling have not yet been publicized. Regarding dialogue with the United
States and the West, Safavi said Iran's decision would be influenced by the results of the U.S. presidential elections
next month, as well as by the Iranian presidential elections in June and the economic situation in the Islamic Republic
Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.
18