SME 2010
1
T
Chillz Lab
SME T
SME T…………………………………………………………………………….......................................1-6
**Theory** ........................................................................................................................ 7
Competing Interps Good (long shell) ........................................................................................................ 8
Competing Interps Good (short shell) ....................................................................................................... 9
Competing Interps Good (AT race to bottom, arbitrary, bad) ................................................................. 10
Competing Interpretations BAD (long shell) .......................................................................................... 11
Competing Interpretations BAD (short shell) ......................................................................................... 12
Reasonability Bad (long shell) ................................................................................................................ 13
Reasonability Bad (short shell) ............................................................................................................... 14
Reasonability Good (long shell) .............................................................................................................. 15
Reasonability Good (short shell) ............................................................................................................. 16
A/T Reasonability=>Vagueness & Judge Intervention ........................................................................... 17
Reasonability Good for Military Presence .............................................................................................. 18
Reasonability Good for Police Presence ................................................................................................. 19
Potential Abuse IS a Voter (long shell) ................................................................................................... 20
Potential Abuse IS a Voter (short shell) .................................................................................................. 21
AT Pot Abuse NOT a voter ..................................................................................................................... 22
Potential Abuse NOT a Voter (long shell) .............................................................................................. 23
Potential Abuse NOT a voter (short Shell) ............................................................................................. 24
Xtra T Bad ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Xtra T Good ............................................................................................................................................ 26
FX Bad (Long Shell) ............................................................................................................................... 27
FX Bad (short shell) ................................................................................................................................ 28
FX T Good .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Lit Checks ............................................................................................................................................... 30
AT Clash Checks/Lit Checks .................................................................................................................. 31
AT RVI ................................................................................................................................................... 32
A2: Framer’s Intent ................................................................................................................................. 34
AT: Key to Creativity.............................................................................................................................. 35
AT: Only our case is T ............................................................................................................................ 36
**Standards Theory** ............................................................................................................................ 37
Grammar=Most Important ...................................................................................................................... 38
Depth better than bredth .......................................................................................................................... 44
**AT K of T** ................................................................................................................. 48
AT: Kritik of Topicality .......................................................................................................................... 49
AT K of T…extensions—Rules Good .................................................................................................... 50
AT K of T…Extensions—Roleplaying Good ......................................................................................... 51
AT---K of T…Extensions--Roleplaying Good........................................................................................ 53
AT K of T—Roleplaying ........................................................................................................................ 54
A2 K of T--Roleplaying .......................................................................................................................... 56
**SPEC** ........................................................................................................................ 57
ASPEC .................................................................................................................................................... 58
Presence SPEC ........................................................................................................................................ 59
A2: ASPEC ............................................................................................................................................. 60
A2: Presence Spec ................................................................................................................................... 61
**Resolved** ................................................................................................................... 62
1NC – Resolved=Concrete (descriptive) ................................................................................................. 63
1NC – Resolved=Concrete (time crunch) ............................................................................................... 64
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
2NC Resolved: Extensions ...................................................................................................................... 65
Resolved Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 66
**Colon(:)** .................................................................................................................... 67
Colon Definitions (:) ............................................................................................................................... 68
**The** ............................................................................................................................ 69
The Definitions........................................................................................................................................ 70
The Definitions........................................................................................................................................ 71
The Definitions........................................................................................................................................ 72
**USFG** ........................................................................................................................ 73
USFG Definitions.................................................................................................................................... 74
US Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 75
Federal Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 76
Government Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 77
**Should**....................................................................................................................... 78
1NC--Should Means New (past tense shall) (1/2) ................................................................................... 79
1NC--Should Means New (past tense shall) (2/2) ................................................................................... 80
Extensions of NEW (at past tense more grammatical) ............................................................................ 81
Should Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 82
Should Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 83
Should Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 84
Should Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 85
Should Is Not Mandatory ........................................................................................................................ 86
Should = Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 87
Should = Obligation ................................................................................................................................ 88
**Substantially** ............................................................................................................ 89
1NC-Substantially=20% ......................................................................................................................... 90
1NC Substantially=25% .......................................................................................................................... 91
1NC- Substantially=50% ........................................................................................................................ 92
2NC XT – Substantially reduce is 50%................................................................................................... 93
AT: Substantially is arbitrary .................................................................................................................. 94
AT: HR 4421 / Comprehensive Base Closure Act .................................................................................. 95
Substantially Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 96
Substantially Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 97
Substantially Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 98
Substantially Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 99
Substantially = Specific Numbers (1/2) ................................................................................................ 100
Substantially = Specific Numbers (2/2) ................................................................................................ 101
Substantially Definitions- 5% ............................................................................................................... 102
Substantially Definitions- 10% ............................................................................................................. 103
Substantially Definitions- 20% ............................................................................................................. 104
Substantially Definitions- 20% ............................................................................................................. 105
Substantially Definitions- 25% ............................................................................................................. 106
Substantially Definitions- 25% ............................................................................................................. 107
Substantially Definitions- 50% ............................................................................................................. 108
Substantially Definitions- 50% ............................................................................................................. 109
Substantially Definitions- 85% ............................................................................................................. 110
Substantially Definitions- 70% ............................................................................................................. 111
Substantially Definitions- 90% ............................................................................................................. 112
Substantial=Considerable Quantity ....................................................................................................... 113
Substantially=w/o Material Qualification ............................................................................................. 114
2
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Substantially- Japan .............................................................................................................................. 115
Substantially- Iraq ................................................................................................................................. 116
Substantially – Kuwait .......................................................................................................................... 117
Substantially – South Korea .................................................................................................................. 118
Substantially – Afghanistan .................................................................................................................. 119
Substantially – Turkey .......................................................................................................................... 120
Substantial Definitions- TNW ............................................................................................................... 121
Substantial Definitions- PMCs .............................................................................................................. 122
Aff – Substantially Reduce – Big Percentages Bad (1/2) ...................................................................... 123
Aff – Substantially Reduce – Big Percentages Bad (2/2) ...................................................................... 124
Aff – Substantially = Quality, Not Quantity ......................................................................................... 125
Aff – Subtantially = Vague ................................................................................................................... 126
A2: Mat Qualification ........................................................................................................................... 127
**Reduce** .................................................................................................................... 128
1NC-Reduce=/=Eliminate ..................................................................................................................... 129
1NC-Reduce=/=Consolidate ................................................................................................................. 130
1NC– Reduce Excludes Eliminate ........................................................................................................ 131
1NC– Reduce Requires Permanence ..................................................................................................... 132
1NC– Reduce Excludes Preventing Future Increases ........................................................................... 133
1NC - Reduce means to decrease .......................................................................................................... 134
2NC XT – Reduce means decrease numerically ................................................................................... 135
AT: Reduce excludes eliminate ............................................................................................................. 136
AT: Reduce excludes suspend ............................................................................................................... 137
AT: Reduce is restore ............................................................................................................................ 138
2NC Reduce=/=Consolidate-Predictability ........................................................................................... 139
Reduce Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 140
Reduce Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 142
Reduce – Can Eliminate ........................................................................................................................ 143
Reduce – Can Consolidate .................................................................................................................... 144
**Its* .............................................................................................................................. 145
1NC- Its ≠ TNW.................................................................................................................................... 146
1NC–Its Excludes PMC’s ..................................................................................................................... 147
2NC Its ≠ TNW ..................................................................................................................................... 148
AT: You Exclude Turkey ...................................................................................................................... 149
AT: PMC’s=Agents of the USFG ......................................................................................................... 150
AT: PMC’s=Military Presence.............................................................................................................. 151
Its Definitions ........................................................................................................................................ 152
Its-TNW=NATO Definitions ................................................................................................................ 153
Its-TNW=NATO Definitions ................................................................................................................ 154
Its- Afghanistan soldiers = NATO Definitions ..................................................................................... 155
Its=Belonging to the USFG ................................................................................................................... 156
Its= related to ........................................................................................................................................ 157
PMCs are agents of the government ...................................................................................................... 158
AT: Military= belonging to the armed forces........................................................................................ 159
**Military** .................................................................................................................. 160
1NC– Military=Only Ground Forces .................................................................................................... 161
2NC XT– Military=Only Ground Forces .............................................................................................. 162
Military Must Be All ............................................................................................................................. 163
AT: Military is only ground forces........................................................................................................ 164
**Military Presence* .................................................................................................... 165
1NC-Presence=/=Weapons ........................................................................................ 166
3
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
1NC-Presence=/=PMC’s ............................................................................................ 167
1NC-Presence=Bases ................................................................................................. 168
1NC-Presence=Material(No Security Guarantees) .................................................... 169
1NC– Presence=Physical Presence– excludes “virtual” Presence ............................. 170
1NC– Presence must be linked to military objectives ................................................ 171
1NC– Presence=Only Troops ..................................................................................... 172
1NC- Presence=Troops + Bases ................................................................................. 173
1NC- Presence=Troops + Agreements ....................................................................... 174
1NC– “Presence” = Non-Combat Activities .............................................................. 175
1NC– Presence Excludes Active Combat Missions/Crisis Response ........................ 176
1NC– Military Presence =/= Drones .......................................................................... 177
1NC–Military Presence =/= CTS ............................................................................... 178
1NC – Military Presence =/=Animal Soldiers ........................................................... 179
2NC – AT: Counter Interp – Animal Soldiers ........................................................... 180
2NC Presence=/=Weapons—Limits .......................................................................... 182
2NC Presence=/=Weapons—Limits .......................................................................... 184
2NC Presence=/=PMC’s ............................................................................................ 185
2NC Presence=Bases—A2: Underlimits.................................................................... 186
2NC Drones– AT: We Meet ....................................................................................... 187
2NC – AT: Counter Interp – Drones 1/2 .................................................................... 188
2NC – AT: Counter Interp – Drones 2/2 .................................................................... 189
2NC– AT: Counter Interp – CTS ............................................................................... 190
Military Presence Definitions ..................................................................................... 191
Military Presence=Physical ........................................................................................ 192
Military Presence=Physical ........................................................................................ 193
Military Presence=Physical ........................................................................................ 194
Military Presence=Physical ........................................................................................ 195
Military Presence– A2: Must Be Physical ................................................................. 196
Military Presence=Personnel ...................................................................................... 197
Military Presence=Personnel ...................................................................................... 198
Military Presence=Bases ............................................................................................ 199
Military Presence= Non-Combat Activities ............................................................... 200
Military Presence= Non-Combat Activities ............................................................... 201
Military Presence= Non-Combat Activities ............................................................... 202
Military Presence= Non-Combat Activities ............................................................... 203
Military Presence Excludes Nuclear Umbrella Definitions ....................................... 204
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 205
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 206
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 208
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 209
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 210
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 211
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 213
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 214
Military Presence-Laundry List .................................................................................. 215
Military Presence- Kuwait.......................................................................................... 216
Military Presence-Iraq/Afghanistan ........................................................................... 217
4
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Military Presence Includes PMCs .............................................................................. 218
Military Presence Includes PMC’s ............................................................................. 219
Military Presence Excludes PMC’s ............................................................................ 220
Military Presence=Contrasted w Security Guarantees ............................................... 221
Military Presence– Requires Formal Agreement ....................................................... 222
Presence-Broad Definitions ........................................................................................ 223
Presence-Broad Definitions ........................................................................................ 224
Presence-Broad Definitions ........................................................................................ 225
Presence-Broad Definitions ........................................................................................ 226
Presence-Broad Definitions ........................................................................................ 227
Presence-Broad Definitions ........................................................................................ 228
Presence– Broad Definitions Bad............................................................................... 229
Presence Includes Military Material ........................................................................... 230
Presence Includes Equipment ..................................................................................... 231
Presence– Excludes Tech/Weapons ........................................................................... 232
Presence=linked to political objectives ...................................................................... 233
Presence=linked to political objectives ...................................................................... 234
Presence=linked to political objectives ...................................................................... 235
Presence=linked to political objectives ...................................................................... 236
Presence= Troops ....................................................................................................... 237
Presence= Troops ....................................................................................................... 238
Presence= Troops ....................................................................................................... 240
Presence=Stationed Personnel .................................................................................... 241
Presence=Stationed Personnel .................................................................................... 242
Presence=Stationed Personnel .................................................................................... 243
Presence=Stationed Personnel .................................................................................... 244
Presence Excludes Combat Missions ......................................................................... 245
Presence Excludes Combat Missions ......................................................................... 246
Presence Excludes Combat Missions ......................................................................... 247
Presence Excludes Combat Missions ......................................................................... 248
Presence Includes Combat Missions .......................................................................... 249
Presence Includes Combat Missions .......................................................................... 250
Presence Excludes Crisis Response ........................................................................... 251
Presence Includes Temporary Visits .......................................................................... 253
Presence Includes Virtual Presence ............................................................................ 254
Presence Includes Virtual Presence ............................................................................ 255
Presence Includes Training ........................................................................................ 257
Presence only refers to military posture – not a mission ............................................ 258
Presence only refers to a military posture – not a mission ......................................... 259
AT: Presence=just the military means, not a mission ................................................ 260
AT: Pape Definition-Presence=Combat ..................................................................... 261
AT: Presence includes more than troop deployments ................................................ 262
AT: Your definition says “forward” presence ............................................................ 263
AT: Resolution says “reduce military” not “military presence” ................................ 264
AT: Greer Definition of Presence .............................................................................. 265
AT: Presence is only deterrence ................................................................................. 266
AT: Presence is only deterrence ................................................................................. 267
5
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
AT: Definitions of “forward presence” ...................................................................... 268
AT: Reducing presence requires reducing military capability ................................... 269
AT: Presence Requires Visibility ............................................................................... 270
**And/Or** ................................................................................................................... 271
And/Or Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 272
And/Or Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 273
And/Or Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 274
“And” Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 275
“Or” ≠ AND .......................................................................................................................................... 276
“Or” Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 277
“Or” = And ............................................................................................................................................ 278
**Police Presence* ........................................................................................................ 279
1NC-Police Presence=/=Non-Military Agencies .................................................................................. 280
2NC Police Presence=/=Non-Military Agencies-A2: Overlimits ......................................................... 281
2NC Police Presence=/=Non-Military Agencies-They Underlimit ....................................................... 282
2NC Police Presence=/=Non-Military Agencies-They Underlimit ....................................................... 283
Police Presence Definitions ................................................................................................................... 285
Police Presence=Visibile Presence ........................................................................................................ 286
Police Presence=Military Personnel ...................................................................................................... 287
Police Presence=Law Enforcement Agencies ....................................................................................... 288
Police Presence=Means People ............................................................................................................. 289
Police Presence-Military Context Specific ............................................................................................ 290
Police Presence-A2: Proximate, Visible, People ................................................................................... 291
Police Presence=DoD Agencies ............................................................................................................ 292
Police Presence– DoD Overlimits ......................................................................................................... 293
Police presence refers to civilian public police forces .......................................................................... 294
Police presence is the deployment of US police for security purposes ................................................. 295
Police Action – Military Action Without War ...................................................................................... 296
**In** ............................................................................................................................. 297
1NC-In=Throughout ............................................................................................................................. 298
In=throughout........................................................................................................................................ 299
In is within ............................................................................................................................................ 300
In Definitions ........................................................................................................................................ 301
Presence must be within ........................................................................................................................ 302
Country boundaries include a 12 mile territorial sea ............................................................................. 303
**Countries**................................................................................................................ 304
Japan Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 305
Iraq Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 306
Afghanistan Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 307
Kuwait Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 308
Turkey Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 309
South Korea Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 310
6
T
SME 2010
7
T
Chillz Lab
**Theory**
SME 2010
8
T
Chillz Lab
Competing Interps Good (long shell)
1. best for topic specific education: discussing definitions is key to determine
what the topic should look like and key to determining which parts of it are
key. This discussion is a prerequisite to meaningful and substantive debates
about political implications.
2. fairness: checks abuse by establishing which definitions are best for
reciprocal ground
3. key to contextualizing evidence by forcing comparison, which allows more indepth research
4. Vote on potential abuse-if we prove their interpretation is bad for debate,
you vote them down. It's not what they do, it's what they justify.
a) they destroy debate for the rest of the year by encouraging people to
run similar affs
b) potential abuse is functionally in-round abuse: it determines what we
will run and skews our strategy. We're not going to waste time
reading a disad they'll just link out of.
5. Competing interpretations leads to a race to the top to best define the
resolution, making debate better – the affirmative can simply argue that
overlimiting is bad or that another standard outweighs limits, proving that is
not the determinant to T debate.
6. Education – competing interpretations is key to accessing in-depth
grammatical debate over the meaning of the resolution in context based on
standards debates.
7. Most objective – only our paradigm can actually determine the winner of the
topicality debate with complete neutrality by evaluating it based on offense
and defense instead of whether the judge thinks the affirmative
interpretation is accurate.
SME 2010
9
T
Chillz Lab
Competing Interps Good (short shell)
1. only way to prevent judge intervention by hashing out the terminal impacts
of each violation on standards, not just how close they are to not cheating
2. leads to a race to the top to best define the resolution, forcing best in depth
explanation of WHY standards of debate are RIGHT
3. Fairness is arbitrary, consistency is K—we make T a DA, the perm is legit
4. Understanding word choice is a prerequisite to good policy making—k2
substantive implications
5. Limits make clash, the I/L to new ed
6. Potential abuse is always a voter-justify violating fair appropriation of
ground, fiat limits, ONCE devalues activity and begins the regressive cycle—
ed gets kids in, competitive equity keeps them excited
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Competing Interps Good (AT race to bottom, arbitrary, bad)
AT RACE TO THE BOTTOM
1. EXT RACE TO THE TOP-standards prove best interp wins
2. ALL ABOUT STANDARDS-aff can argue other standard o/w limits or limits
bad
3. NO MORE RACE THAN OTHER ARGS-not about limiting most, its whats
the best for debate: perms are legit
4. AFF HAS UPPER HAND-they always have more specific ev about their case,
competing interps key to check infinite prep
AT ARBITRARY
1. ITS ABOUT WHATS GOOD FOR DEBATE-an arbitrary definition (that
excludes the aff) could never win the standards debate
2. All you have to do to defeat arbitrary definitions is win overlimiting is bad
3. CONTEXT-author quals in the field and context check arbitrary defs
AT BAD
1. AFF TEAM CREATED COMPETING INTERP
2. ONLY NON-ARBITRARY ASPECT OF T
3. IF WE PROVE OUR INTERP IS BETTER THAN YOUR COUNTER,
THIS STANDARD GOES AWAY
10
T
SME 2010
11
T
Chillz Lab
Competing Interpretations BAD (long shell)
1. Infinitely regressive—always an author who includes one less aff--under
their interpretation all they need to do is win a risk that they limit more or
they give more ground and the affirmative can never win—even the res itself
doesn’t fit cuz it doesn’t limit enough
2. Skews Education--only looking for the most limiting interp ungrounds
resolution based lit, causes every debate to be comparison of accusations of
cheating, rather than discussing policy implications
3. Arbitrary—The diversion in how judges err proves they insert there own
ideas of what is fair ground, predictable, educational, who gets more
leeway—there is no uniform standard for what makes good debates even in
OFF-DEF
4. under their framework, if we prove there are more EXISTING ways neg
could cheat, we should win—they could read pics, multiple conditional CPs,
consult CPs, floating pics, time frame cps, conditioning cp’s, multiple worlds,
ie a k and a DA--IV
5. Promotes bad debate--rewards any bad definition as long as they prove it
has some benefit to some debate in some way--It privileges technical debate
on a position that is designed to punish people for violating rules
6. Under there FW, if we prove we’re topical, and have offense on standards,
its an IV
7. Glorified Vote on Potential Abuse—the only impacts to standards are
POTENTIAL, that’s not offense, we don’t HURT them or the program,
someone elses integrity might—send them to church, don’t punish us
SME 2010
12
T
Chillz Lab
Competing Interpretations BAD (short shell)
1. Encourages only more limiting defs, not more resolution based—
2. Not unique-not about breaking rules, just who’s more technical
3. Asks judge to vote us down for other people’s corruption—arbitrary
4. The battle of who can scream “wolf!” louder—glorified potential abuse,
not in depth, policy analysis
SME 2010
13
T
Chillz Lab
Reasonability Bad (long shell)
THIS ISN’T NAM THIS IS DEBATE THERE ARE RULES
1. THEY ARE NOT REASONABLE-they have no warrants to why they are
and all the standards prove their interp is NOT
2. REASONABILITY MAKES EVERY CASE TOPICAL BECAUSE
THEY LINK TO GENERICS (nato, malthus, spark)
3. ITS NOT IN YOUR JURISDICTION-you can’t vote on a non-T aff
4. APPLIED TO ANY OTHER ARGUMENT IN DEBATE
REASONABILITY IS SILLY-you wouldn’t say, “well, we don’t quite
outweigh your disad, but we’re reaallllllly close” Vote negative to
encourage good debate because this isn’t just about T but your decision
making framework.
5. NO IMPACT TO SUBSTANCE CROWD OUT-T-debate increases
critical thinking to determine what things the aff justifies, and theyre key
to small schools participation
6. REASONABILITY IS ARBITRARY-there is no brightline—
a. letting aff define it is unfair and lets obscure affs be topical(otherwise justifies Is it reasonable for me to hit you with a stick in
the middle of your speech? I would say it is. “Oh I’m sorry, you
can’t speak any more, oh well it was reasonable, don’t worry”.)
b. what is reasonable can vary between judges which guarantees
inaccurate decision making and judge intervention; competing
interps leaves the debate with the debaters.
the only fair brightline is 100% t-that’s their burden
7.
DISCOURAGES CERTAINTY- Decision-making requires certainty,
reasonability discourages analysis and settles for less than 100%. Policy
certainty is crucial to prevent knee jerk reactions to mainstream
problems. Those knee jerk reactions can have negative consequences on
social service reform turning case.
SME 2010
14
T
Chillz Lab
Reasonability Bad (short shell)
1. they aren’t-they have no warrants to being reasonable and standards prove
theyre not
2. Abitrary – the lack of an objective standard for reasonable mandates judge
intervention, my partner could think that UN is reasonably topical
3. Gut check – they wouldn’t make this arg if they were topical
SME 2010
15
T
Chillz Lab
Reasonability Good (long shell)
If we have a REASONABLE CI or w/m, you don’t vote neg—
1. T is just like any other debate except the aff doesn’t get to TURN THE DA, we
can only garner defense—just like the perm proves that the cp is not mutually
exclusive to the plan, the W/M has to be evaluated to test the mutual exclusivity
of the plan with the standards that the negative provides
2. DON’T PUNISH US FOR THEIR UNFOUNDED PREDICTIONS—if we can
prove that we fit within the resolutional expectations, we shouldn’t be punished
3. K2 CHECK INFINITELY REGRESSIVE CIs—there will always an author
somewhere who thinks one less case fits a word in the resolution—justifies “only
our case is topical” cards—wide spec is key—other interps limit BOTH TEAM’S
GROUND
4. K2 CHECK ABUSIVE VIOLATIONS—the neg interp of the definition is often
taken out of context, allowing the w/m only way to ensure noone is POWER
TAGGING T cards
5. LEAST ARBITRARY—prevents voting on what the judge thinks we would have
done, competing interps bases decision off whether we LOOK like cheaters
6. MOST REAL WORLD—policy makers don’t argue about semantics, they look
for the best policy option
7. CONTEXTUAL LIT CHECKS SOLVES ALL THE REASONS THEY SAY
REASONABILITY IS BAD—it checks absurd, unpredictable affs
8. DON’T VOTE ON POTENTIAL ABUSE—it doesn’t set a precedent, just guts
fairness
a) potential is inevitable, we could always beat them up or read a new aff in
the 2ar, don’t punish us unless we do it
b) no brightline—there are an infinite number of ways to abuse the neg, vote
on one instance of in-round abuse—can’t call us out for having an
opportunity
9. EDUCATION—the T debate does set a precedent for the rest of the round,
reasonability is key to GETTING ON TO THAT ROUND—can’t learn about the
topic if were stuck on T theory
10.Judge intervention is inevitable—even DAs make judge decide if aff answers and
the link are reasonable or realistic
SME 2010
16
T
Chillz Lab
Reasonability Good (short shell)
1. Judge intervention is inev—every arg is left up to whether judge believes it
2. W/M is key to counter neg offense—we cant “WIN” round on T
3. Don’t punish us for their stupid interp—if we fit resolutional expectations,
DON’T PUNISH
4. prevents arbitrary T violations and encourages basing T violations in the
literature.
5. As long as the negative can generate enough ground to debate we shouldn’t lose
on T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
A/T Reasonability=>Vagueness & Judge Intervention
Vagueness—
Our interpretation of reasonability is that affs with a good w/m or CI and contextual
literature and solvency advocates are topical
1. best topic-specific education: encourages in-depth research and allows us to
access the core of the topic
2. most predictable, solving why vagueness is bad. Negs prep based on the available
literature base, which is more predictable than random definitions
Judge Intervention—
1. reasonability is the most objective paradigm because we ask the judge to
isolate one instance of in-round abuse. Competing interpretations forces the
judge to decide what we would have done
2. It's least arbitrary because definitions are grounded in literature; neg
definitions are taken out of context
3. It's inevitable, there is some amount of judge intervention in every round.
Even in competing interpretation debates, the judge has to decide which args
are most reasonable
4. The kind of intervention we allow is good; it forces us to be persuasive and
checks bad arguments like racism good
17
T
SME 2010
18
T
Chillz Lab
Reasonability Good for Military Presence
Default to reasonability—even the military doesn’t have a set definition of
military/police presence
Metz 10(Steven, Chairman of the Regional Strategy and Planning Department and
Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute, E-Mail
Response, posted online at: http://abnormalmeans.com/2010/06/nuclear-deterrence-isnot-military-presence/)
Normally the military distinguishes presence from influence. So any long range
strike capability–nuclear or otherwise–would provide influence, but presence
implies something physical and tangible. I’m not sure what inter­pre­tation by Dr.
Johnson you mean. But what you’ve touched on here is an issue that has divided
the U.S. military services for some time. The Air Force has tended to stress
influence. The Navy stresses influence and what might be called episodic
presence (e.g. port calls, occa-sional combined exer-cises, and short term training
missions). The Army in particular has made the argument that an enduring
presence shows a more signif-icant commitment to a partner than either
episodic
presence
or
influence
SME 2010
19
T
Chillz Lab
Reasonability Good for Police Presence
The line has blurred between police and military presence—prefer reasonability
Parry 7(John, Professor@Lewis and Clark University of Law, “Terrorism and the New
Criminal Process”, accessed from http://ssrn.com/abstract=938179)
The paradigm for combating terrorism now involves the application of all
elements of our national power and influence. Not only do we employ military
power, we use diplomatic, financial, intelligence, and law enforcement
activities to protect the Homeland and extend our defenses, disrupt terrorist operations, and deprive our
enemies of what they need to operate and survive. We have broken old orthodoxies that once confined our counterterrorism
efforts primarily to the criminal justice domain.2A war to create and maintain social order can have no end. It must involve
the continuous, uninterrupted exercise of power and violence. In other words, one cannot win such a war, or, rather, it has to
be won again every day. War has thus become virtually indistinguishable from police activity.
SME 2010
20
T
Chillz Lab
Potential Abuse IS a Voter (long shell)
1. Aff standard if in round discourages research—if we have researched answers to
an aff, we lose the debate
2. There is in round abuse, they___--they concede in round is an IV
3. This is not POTENTIAL abuse, we lost ground to read the tight strat that they
WOULD HAVE SPIKED OUT OF—that’s actual abuse
4. Brightline—best ground savior because you never KNOW if the aff will cheat,
just that they can—rejecting pot abuse is the only brightline for the aff
5. ITS STUPID TO PUNISH US for not spending time reading args the aff can
instantly erase—that DISCOURAGES IN-DEPTH POLICY DEBATES
6. DELEGITIMIZES RESOLUTION—guts reason for aff to be topical if they win
so long as they don’t spike out of args on other flows, skews resolutional focus
and ed(insert topicality key warrants—grammar prereq to policy, only access to real world is word
study, etc)
7. vote now, repeat rejection forces them to change their aff
8. Ballot sets a precedent—debate theory is made up of what judges think is and
isn’t reasonable, your ballot gets us closer to a debate community where abusive
practices AREN’T DONE
9. In round abuse doesn’t paint the picture—single args are hard to prove as
unbalancing a round or not—if the abuse were a rule, its easier to conceptualize
how it would unbalance the program—that solves for fairer theory rules
10.Aff standard justifies new 2NC args and violations because we have to wait until
AFTER IN ROUND ABUSE to win
SME 2010
21
T
Chillz Lab
Potential Abuse IS a Voter (short shell)
1. IT IS IN ROUND ABUSE—we couldn’t read our strat, theyd spike out
2. DELEGITIMIZES RESOLUTION—only voting on in round means affs don’t
have to be topical—no focus
3. BALLOT SETS A PRECEDENT—saying no closes in on making this decision
debate law, judge discretion determines acceptable theory
SME 2010
22
T
Chillz Lab
AT Pot Abuse NOT a voter
Pot abuse is still def a voter—
1. Abuse doesn’t have to be a flagrant offense on a flow – if there is even a single
argument that we have lost as a result of them not meeting our interpretation
then there is abuse in the round which by their argument is enough to vote neg.
2. Their arg justifies 2NC T violations – if proving abuse is the prerequisite to
voting on topicality then we are justified either waiting until the 2NC or reading
a second or morphed T violation in the block in a response to abusive arguments
in the 2AC.
3. proving in round abuse always loses because you can always opt not to do it when
we give our non-viable strategy in the 2NC
4. its not about what you do, its what you justify—always a voter
5. This arg is irrelevant—if we win competing interpretations standard then its not
what actually happens or can happen, but which interp provides most FAIR and
PREDICTABLE literature
POT STILL A VOTER (short shell)-this is just offense, not in above
1. They are abusive, we could not read our core negative strategy against topical
affs, we aren’t strategic because they COULD spike out
2. Only nonarbitrary way to evaluate abuse, if there is potential abuse vote against
the aff. If it was based on abuse, how much abuse would we need to pull the trigger
on the aff?
3. Same thing as real abuse, we were stripped of our best possible 1nc strategy
because the aff’s (_) means we don’t have enough research on (_) and changes our
strategy because all our stuff is based on (_) not (_)
4. Precedent – if a team keeps losing on T they and others won’t run that aff.
FX specific pot abuse STILL A VOTER! (short)
1. They are abusive, we could not read our core negative strategy against topical
affs, we aren’t strategic because they COULD spike out.
2. Only nonarbitrary way to evaluate abuse, if there is potential abuse vote against
the aff. If it was based on abuse, how much abuse would we need to pull the trigger
on the aff?
3. Same thing as real abuse, we were stripped of our best possible 1nc strategy
because the aff’s steps to effects means we don’t have enough research on those
specific steps, and changes our strategy because all our stuff is based on increasing
NOW, not later.
4. The judge doesn’t have jurisdiction to vote on a nontopical aff.
Precedent – if a team keeps losing on T they and others won’t run that aff.
SME 2010
23
T
Chillz Lab
Potential Abuse NOT a Voter (long shell)
1. Determining whether the aff will cheat in some other round doesn’t matter, we
didn’t here, count how many times they say the word “abuse”
2. Not Unique to untopical affs—the resolution as a plan text doesn’t rule out
reading a new aff in the 2ar, and the Negative team could cheat in some other round
too, if it isn’t done, noone should be punished
3. Infinitely regressive – claiming potential abuse allows the negative team to
extrapolate a new story of what the affirmative team could do every round. This
allows them to spin random stories off every single portion of our case making it
unfair for the affirmative to defend
4. You’re only here to judge this round – your responsibility does not extend to
other rounds.
5. Encourages ridiculous theory arguments – if potential abuse is an accepted voter,
neg teams will run F, E, NM, and rep spec, which creates an impossible burden for
the aff to meet and decreases argumentation on substantive arguments
6. It’s most real world – judges in courtrooms don’t throw cases out because they
might unbalance something in the future. Cases are only thrown out if the defense
can show that in that particular case it is flawed
SME 2010
24
T
Chillz Lab
Potential Abuse NOT a voter (short Shell)
1. Your only here to judge this round, determining what might happen in another
round isn’t your responsibility
2. Infinitely regressive—every aff has the potential to cheat in the 2ar, so does the
neg, but if its not in the round, its not evaluated
3. Encourages ridiculous theory—the only precedent that potential abuse sets is to
read more T, such as the 12 variations of spec arguments, which have no
educational benefit
4. Not real world-- judges in courtrooms don’t throw cases out because they might
unbalance something in the future, only if the case itself is flawed
SME 2010
25
T
Chillz Lab
Xtra T Bad
1. proves the resolution is insufficient – if aff needs non-t action the resolution
doesnt warrant a ballot.
2. Unpredictable – justifies infinite nont actions to take out our arguments,
destroys ground and explodes neg advantage burden
3. Promotes lazy debate – WHY settle for clash when you can be extra topical.
4. Kills education – makes depth debate vacuous since affirmative isn’t
germane to the resolution.
5. Reject the entirety of the affirmative, not just planks otherwise it makes the
aff conditional—KILLS ground, skews strat and time which is abuse,
justifies SEVERENCE (insert severence bad)—kills depth, and letting them
sever out rewards them with the plan.
SME 2010
26
T
Chillz Lab
Xtra T Good
1. Increases educational breadth- discussing things that are tangents to the
resolution increases the scope of the education we get
2. Massively Increases Ground- any extra topical part of our aff gives the
neg more CP ground and more links to disads and room to impact turn this offsets their fairness impacts
3. Reasonability- if we are reasonably Topical, then you don’t vote us down
because T is a no risk option for the neg- our aff is still reasonably within
the confines of the resolution
4. Real World- related provisions get added to legislation all of the time, our
aff simulates the real world policymaking process which increases
education
5. If anything, reject the extra topical parts of our aff, not the team. That
solves back any fairness claims
SME 2010
27
T
Chillz Lab
FX Bad (Long Shell)
Violation: The Affirmative plan does not on face reduce military presence. By not
directly reducing military presence, this makes the Affirmative plan only topical
through steps, not directly from the plan action
Unpredictable – anything could potentially be topical effectually. For example,
Plan: give Barack a haircut, which makes him happy so he decides to reduce
military presence. There is no way to research backwards, this destroys debate. It
would kill offense to the Aff plan. This ultimately destroys predictability for the
Negative and is in-round abuse
Topic-specific education: under their interpretation of debate, we never discuss the
resolution but instead a number of unrelated steps.
bidirectionality: they allow for affs that decrease social services in order to increase
services in the future, which is unpredictable
Text in a vacuum key – the aff plan is the only clear determination of aff advocacy
that we can stick them to for offense. They shouldn’t be able to claim advantages
from parts of the plan that we can’t effectively attack, because it destroys the
purpose of topicality as a means to maintain fair ground, so the neg would always
lose.
It mixes burdens – to determine topicality through effects you have to look to
solvency, which is crossing the stock issues and is theoretically illegitimate.
Their CI is Arbitrary – any counter interpretation that limits the number of steps
can be adjusted based on the actual action of the plan; this would allow any
affirmative to be topical.
Kills neg ground: under the affirmative interpretation essentially any counter plan
can be run as an affirmative as long as it eventually reduces military presence. It
also lets them spike out of all of our disad links. This kills negative counterplan and
link ground.
Skews topicality: effects topicality allows the affirmative to be topical to an
undefined degree. This kills competitive equity and eliminates the test of threshold,
which is key to fairness and competitive equity.
VOTER FOR REASONS ABOVE AND Jurisdiction: effectually topical plans aren't
ON FACE topical- even if the end result is, it isn't within judge's jurisdiction to vote
for it.
SME 2010
28
T
Chillz Lab
FX Bad (short shell)
1. predictability—give obama a haircut makes him happy so he reduces military
presence proves abuse, RIDICULOUS THINGS are t under FX
2. EXPLODES RESEARCH to every problem multiplied by every set of infinite
steps to solve it, we’ll never have enough ev for in depth debate!
3. strat skew—preround prep depends on plan text in a vacuum, they garner
ridiculous advantages based off steps that we don’t expect
4. arbitrary limits—CIs that limits the number of steps can be adjusted based on the
actual action of the plan; this would allow any affirmative to be topical.
5. bidirectionality: they allow for affs that increase military presence in order to
reduce presence in the future, which is unpredictable
6. skews topicality-makes it an issue of degree, not a yes or no issue—without that
test of threshold there is no test of competitive equity
SME 2010
29
T
Chillz Lab
FX T Good
1. On this year’s topic, FX T is both essential and inevitable
2. Real World- any policy action takes multiple steps to implement and being
real world is key to our education
3. Increased Ground checks predictability - each additional step the plan takes
actually gives the neg more ground, which offsets any fairness loss you get
from those steps being “unpredictable”
4. Predictability- the steps the aff takes are are a key part of the topic and they
are grounded in the literature- you should be ready to debate them
5. Increase Education- we force you to look at the implementation of the plan
just as much as its outcome which is increases our policymaking education
6. Reasonability- unless you feel that we are being absurd in the plan
implementation, you don’t even consider voting us down
Potential Abuse isn’t a voting issue - judge us only based on what happens in this
round
SME 2010
30
T
Chillz Lab
Lit Checks
1. THE LITERATURE EXISTS – The literature exists. We have found it and it’s up
to the negative to take on their part of the research. They complain because they
don’t like their research burden, but there is a research burden on both sides of the
debate.
2. LITERATURE IS PREDICTABLE – If the literature exists, then there is no
reason as to why we are unpredictable.
3. NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS ARE EQUALLY UNPREDICTABLE – There is
plenty of literature on many negative arguments which are equally “unpredictable.”
If the affirmative can’t write an affirmative because it’s unpredictable, then
negatives should also be limited to arguments that the affirmative can predict.
4. AFF IS AT THE CORE OF THE TOPIC – Our affirmative is at the core of the
topic and there is more than enough literature for the negative to have found. The
literature base for our affirmative is huge and the negative should’ve done their
research.
SME 2010
31
T
Chillz Lab
AT Clash Checks/Lit Checks
Clash doesn’t check abuse—(long)
1. This is the worst debate argument ever made and you know it--We do not need a
non-viable strategy to prove abuse—the existing clash has no value
2. The time that we spent researching their non-topical aff should have been spent
on viable topically educational affs
3. Clash is inevitable—we are never going to read T and sit down--generic topic
links and extra research means we will always have something to say in terms of
off-case positions, advantage cps and advantage-specific negs mean we will
probably have case arguments too; this doesn’t mean we get real strategy on
their case or that theyre topical
4. Clash is arbitrary—no brightline for how much clash makes a good debate—it
happens on the individual argument line by line
5. This arg is irrelevant—if we win competing interpretations standard then its not
what actually happens or can happen, but which interp provides most FAIR and
PREDICTABLE literature
Clash Doesn’t Check (short)
1. Just because we are here and debating doesn’t mean you’re topical.
2. Clash is arbitrary, and there’s no good clash resulting in good educatio
Lit doesn’t check abuse—
1. doesn’t prove they are topical, just that we did research
2. We don’t need non-viable negative strategy to prove abuse-- If someone read the
penguin testicles aff and I had my icy hot disad ready to go, does that make them
topical? NO!!!
3. you can find literature on anything, they expect us to read the entirety of the
internet to find stuff on their case
4. Lit is inevitable--generic topic links and extra research means we will always
have something to say in terms of off-case positions, and advantage counterplans
and advantage-specific negs mean we will probably have case arguments too; this
doesn’t mean we have adequate literature on their case
5. Any risk that there is any literature specific to their affirmative that we can’t
access based on topic research means this arg doesn’t apply.
6. This arg is irrelevant—if we win competing interpretations standard then its not
what actually happens or can happen, but which interp provides most FAIR and
PREDICTABLE literature
Lit Doesn’t Check (short)
1. Don’t blame us for doing extra research, and our research isn’t as good as it can
be to make the round fair for us
2. There is literature on space monkeys, that doesn’t make for good debate.
3. Their authors are biased and are in favor of doing the plan, we are stuck the
objective authors giving them a huge advantage in the literature debate.
SME 2010
32
T
Chillz Lab
AT RVI
1. You can’t win a debate just because your case is topical
2. This is not a real argument
3. This justifies bad debate where teams extend blippy theory arguments and
go for them in the end, killing all topic specific education and forcing us to
debate about debate
4. T is a no risk option for the neg, by default you can’t make us lose off of this
argument
SME 2010
33
T
Chillz Lab
A2: Federal Guideline Bad
Social service is so broad and can mean anything—federal definitions provide
resolutional basis and filter out bad plans
And there is lit for everything under the sun and leads to ridiculous definitions
Happiness can be a social service
Dubos
82
(Rene,
a
Pulitzer
Prize
winning
biologist,
http://www.tfwallace.com/pages_blocks_v3/images/links/CelebrationofLife.pdf , AD:
7/9/9) LS
Happiness is contagious. For this reason its expression is a social service and almost a
duty. The Buddhists have a saying about this commendable virtue: "Only happy people
can make a happy world."
Twitter is a social service?
Rubel 9 (Gina, president and CEO of Furia Rubel Communications Inc., 3/18,
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202429165569&slreturn=1,
7/9/9) LS
AD:
Twitter is a social service for people to communicate and stay connected through
the exchange of 140-character answers to one simple question: What are you
doing?
SME 2010
34
T
Chillz Lab
A2: Framer’s Intent
1. Totally arbitrary, nobody knows what the framers were thinking
2. Intent doesn’t matter, just matters how debaters interpret it, and our grammar
arguments outweigh any sort of arbitrary framer’s intent.
3. Wrong, the framers intended that (insert your interpretation).
SME 2010
35
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Key to Creativity
1. No link – affs can be creative without being nontopical.
2. Fairness outweighs because any chance of creativity in debate would be gone if
nobody did debate.
3. This argument is just breadth over depth in disguise. It’s better to debate a few
issues in depth rather than many issues very briefly because at least it guarantees
some education, and also debating briefly doesn’t give any chance of understanding
enough to make an opinion about an idea and leads to little or wrong education.
4. No reason why aff teams can’t be creative outside of debate, there’s no reason
why debate is key.
SME 2010
36
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Only our case is T
1. Unpredictable – It’s completely arbitrary and nothing in the resolution says only
their aff is topical.
2. All cases are “our case”, this unlimits and allows essentially all affs to be topical.
3. This interpretation does NOT prove why competing interpretations is a bad
framework—we provided a specific caselist that our interpretation allows. All of our
reasons why their case overlimits proves why EVEN if their aff were the only topical
one it would still set a negative precedent for future debates
This is ridiculously arbitrary- every team can say this if they want to and it doesn’t
mean anything.
You justify a world in which we only debate your affirmative- this skews education
If this is true then the topic becomes extremely predictable- destroying in round
critical thinking
Framers intent- if there was only one topical case for this resolution, this resolution
never would have been chosen
SME 2010
37
T
Chillz Lab
**Standards Theory**
SME 2010
38
T
Chillz Lab
Grammar=Most Important
Grammar precedes all because it is CRUCIAL for both sides to understand the meaning
of the resolution—absent an objective interpretation, it is impossible to divide fair,
predictable and limited ground between the aff and neg. Predictability can only exist with
correctly interpreted words—this is also key to research ability which is key to education.
SME 2010
39
T
Chillz Lab
Limits O/W Education
1. Absent a limit on the resolution, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for teams to do
sufficient research to ensure an educational debate. Without the ability for neg’s to
prepare for aff cases, shallow and meaningless debates become inevitable,
destroying
any
potential
for
education.
2. exploding the research burden for the neg eventually leads to a case that the neg
wont have offense onthis is a massive disincentive to go negative, killing “fun” and
guaranteeing decreased participation one sided debates that educate the neg on the
aff topic but gut competitive and argumentative skills as well as resolution specific
education
3. Limits o/w ground – they are the key to ground: there can’t be specific strats
with the thousands of cases they allow because we can’t predict any aff.
4. Limits are a precursor to fairness – limited resolution is key to leveling the
playing field. Without it we are always one step behind.
SME 2010
40
T
Chillz Lab
FAIRNESS O/W ED
1. Fairness is the best internal link to education and is a prerequisite to it:
fairness is key to predictability and Ground, without which there can be no
clash and substantive discussion
2. The education we gain from maintaining the structure of debate o/w topic
specific education because it allows for education generally, not just on this
topic
3. Fairness is the procedural gateway-it is the only way to evaluate the T
debate, whereas education is an issue of content. A framework for evaluating
T has to be established before we evaluate it.
4. Fairness is prerequisite to education – the only way we can learn from
debate, or at least to a degree that matters, is through a fair and equal
division of ground to both sides in order to foster more in-depth
argumentation and thus more in-depth policy analysis.
Fairness outweighs – fairness is the primary element that keeps debate fun and
keeps people in the activity; a world of no fairness means a world of no debate,
which short circuits all of their offense
SME 2010
41
T
Chillz Lab
Limits k/t Ground
Even if they give more ground to the negative, they increase the amount of
UNPREDICTABLE ground, with a strongly limited number of cases, the ground the
negative receives is unpredictable. This makes us loose all education by debating affs that
we are not prepared for.
SME 2010
42
T
Chillz Lab
Ed o/w fairness
1. education is the terminal impact of fairness-this means if we win that our
interpretation creates a more educational debate, this comes first. Fairness
doesn't exist for fairness's sake but rather to promote education.
2. fairness frameworks exclude important discussions of things like racism that
may not necessarily be included in the res
3. unfairness in debate is inevitable-sandbagging and illegit argumentation
happens; education has more of a unique impact
4. after the round, education has a longer-lasting impact, whereas fairness
exists only in the context of particular rounds.
5. Fairness is arbitrary-the aff always want to exclude the neg and the neg
always want to exclude the aff. Education is the only objective standard.
6. Education is key to critical thinking, which is key to innovative debate that
allows smaller schools to compete even when they can't produce as much
evidence. This is the best internal link to fairness because it creates an
inclusive activity.
7. Education is a prerequisite to fairness - the more equal the division of
knowledge and topical education to both sides the more fair the debate will
be because each side will have learned intuitive arguments and research
bases that are necessary for in-depth and fair debate.
8. Education outweighs – debate is an activity whose core purpose is to foster
policymaking education; fairness is an important byproduct of good debate
but should never be held above education as long as the core purpose
remains so
SME 2010
43
T
Chillz Lab
Breadth O/W Depth
1. key to topic-specific education: discussion of many parts of the topic is key to
our understanding as a whole; the vague wording of the resolution is
intended to provide broad understanding of the topic as a whole. (We're not
scientists: we would never have time to understand the chemical complexities
of alternative energy, we can only understand its broader role in
governmental affairs.)
2. prerequisite to specialization: we have to have a general knowledge of
everything in order to choose what is essential to the topic and how we
should focus.
3. most real world: policy makers discuss many different components of any
issues in order to understand how they interact
4. most predictable: allows us to find the most accessible parts of the literature
base and is an equalizer-depth requires research in places to which smaller
schools don't have access
5. breadth is inevitable: the block will always sandbag to put time pressure on
the 1ar.
SME 2010
44
T
Chillz Lab
Depth better than bredth
1. DEPTH EDUCATION – schools already provide breadth education, therefore it
is only in debate that you uniquely get to focus on one academic field and learn all
there is to know about it. There is no reason to focus on breadth education and
debate would be meaningless
2. CLASH – There is better clash when the teams are concentrating on one subject
because they’ll both find all the literature on the subject and the evidence will
directly clash.
3. RESEARCH – Researching in depth is key to learning how to research breadth,
not the other way around.
4. CRITICAL THINKING – In depth education generates more arguments and forces
you to think critically about new arguments to get more offense. More and more clash is
generated in round.
SME 2010
45
T
Chillz Lab
Theory O/W T
1. In-round abuse always o/w potential abuse-don't punish us for what we
could have done when they did something illegitimate
2. Even if they win that we destroy debate for a year, they destroy debate
forever by justifying sketchy strats that will ruin education on every topic
3. Fairness: the resolutional literature basis checks unpredictable affs and
makes research possible whereas there is no check on unpredictable neg
strats.
SME 2010
46
T
Chillz Lab
Ground Outweighs Limits/Education
Ground is the most important standard- Without ground, the negative can run nothing but
extremely generic Ks/CPs. Ground increases education by learning about more policies
and increases clash for both sides.
SME 2010
47
T
Chillz Lab
If the 2AC drops jurisdication
They’re conceding that you as a judge don’t have jurisdiction to vote on non-topical affs.
This means that they’re handing us the competing interpretations debate – jurisdiction
can only be evaluated in the competing interpretations framework which sets clear
brightlines on what is and what isn’t topical. If we can prove they don’t meet the best
interpretation in the round, you can not vote affirmative
SME 2010
48
T
Chillz Lab
**AT K of T**
SME 2010
49
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Kritik of Topicality
1) Exclusion is inevitable—speed, time, access to resources means there’s no unique
link to Topicality.
2) No link—their evidence assumes physically or legally coercing and silencing
people—the role of topicality is not to silence certain views but to ensure the most
educational debate.
3) Turn/A limited debate is key to promote community discussion and activism.
Lack of preparation on either side hinders effective, educational discussion
4) Fairness is a prerequisite to education—absent fair, predictable ground, debates
would be shallow and boring.
5) Turn/Non-topical advocacies exclude the negative by disallowing us from
engaging the aff args. We WOULDN’T box them in to a certain idea of debate if
they gave us the opportunity to prepare—ground precedes discourse
6) Key to communication—being topical is a prerequisite to their discussion
7) No voter—T is NOT a reverse voting issue, we can kick it and agree with their
discussion in the 2NR
SME 2010
50
T
Chillz Lab
AT K of T…extensions—Rules Good
Topicality is a voting issue – Rules are a necessary precondition for discussion
Shively (Prof Politics at Tx A&M) 4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 180)
The ambiguists must say “no” to—they must reject and limit—some ideas and actions.
In what follows, we will also find that they must say “yes” to some things. In
particular, they must say “yes” to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first,
that they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord
that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common
one. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest—that
consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect—if there is
nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases, however, our agreements are
highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not
on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of
limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney
Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to
have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that
argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There
can be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. In
other words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we
cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas
about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree
about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot
have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical
group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one’s target audience simply thinks
everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one
demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words,
contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is
being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must have some shared ideas
about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the
target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a
demonstrator’s audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of
an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about
intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or
harmony.
SME 2010
51
T
Chillz Lab
AT K of T…Extensions—Roleplaying Good
Roleplaying good – we gain unique education about international law and learn to
solve real world problems
Joyner ’99 Christopher C., Professor of International Law in the Government
Department at Georgetown University. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative
Law, Spring, 1999, 5 ILSA J Int'l & Comp L 377, ”TEACHING INTERNATIONAL
LAW: VIEWS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS POLITICAL
SCIENTIST”
One successful collaborative learning experience is to assign a series of topics for
team debates before the classroom. This compels students on each debate side to
conduct legal research on the merits of a particular issue, formulate proposed
rationales for its lawfulness, follow the debate, and take questions from class members
on the legal implications and merits of their respective positions. It combines individual
responsibility with the necessity of collaborative intra-group learning.
Confronting international law in practice is critical to achievement of the course
objectives, and this is effectively done through a series of debates in a course that I
teach on International law and United States Foreign Policy. Students try to WIN the
games by garnering support from the rest of the class based on the merits and suasion of
their legal arguments, although past experience indicates that clear winners are not often
produced. The degree of success this exercise enjoys depends on two key factors:
first, the willingness of students to assume their adopted roles with energy and,
second, the extent to which student participants in the debates can learn and relate
how, where, and why international law is [*385] integrated into the United States
foreign policy decision-making process and can demonstrate the tensions between
national security considerations and international legal constraints in formulating
United States foreign policy. Taken in tandem, these two ingredients can produce a
successful and unique learning experience that fosters a deeper understanding of the
subject matter than would likely be attained through a lecture-format course.
IV. Why Debate International Law and United States Foreign Policy?
Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social
sciences. Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students understand
different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But,
unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in
order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and
experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing
game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical
fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps
each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing
contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to
each
debating
team.
These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of
the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in
question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny mostfavored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam
In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must
consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional law-school-sponsored international law
Hussein."
journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy,
as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science
community
specializing
in
international
relations,
much
less
to
the
average
undergraduate.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making,
students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international
legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for
the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of
international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to
justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the
debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action
learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their subjects,
and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates,
observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case .
The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent
argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they
gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with
other members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of
bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively
reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the debates forces students to become familiarized with
contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law
plays in formulating and executing these policies. n8 The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for
pushing students beyond stale
Continues next…..
52
T
SME 2010
53
T
Chillz Lab
AT---K of T…Extensions--Roleplaying Good
Continued…
arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense .
A debate exercise is particularly suited to an examination of United States foreign policy , which in
political science courses is usually studied from a theoretical, often heavily realpolitik perspective. In such courses, international legal
considerations are usually given short shrift, if discussed at all. As a result, students may come to believe that international law plays
no role in United States foreign policy-making. In fact, serious consideration is usually paid by government officials to international
law in the formulation of United States policy, albeit sometimes ex post facto as a justification for policy, rather than as a bona fide
prior constraint on consideration of policy options. In addition, lawyers are prominent advisers at many levels of the foreign-policymaking process. Students should appreciate the relevance of international law for past and current US actions, such as the invasion of
Grenada or the refusal of the United States to sign the law of the sea treaty and landmines convention, as well as for [*387]
hypothetical (though subject to public discussion) United States policy options such as hunting down and arresting war criminals in
Bosnia,
withdrawing
from
the
United
Nations,
or
assassinating
Saddam
Hussein.
Through collaborative learning students become problem solvers, contributors and analytical discussants. The more undergraduate
students learn through these exercises to form and test their own ideas about international law, the more significant the professor's role
becomes as the class mentor and source of authority in the learning process. Teaching international law offers a unique opportunity to
depart from the traditional approach to classroom learning from lecture and rote regurgitation of dates, events and situations. The
interactive quality of the learning environment allows for students to move from a strategy of peer competition to one of peer
collaboration. Participation in these exercises can be important for the learning process, particularly since students are encouraged to
develop keener judgment on the merits of legal questions, gain insights into the potential of group decision-making, and acquire
greater self-confidence about their contribution to planning and decision-making for the class presentation.
The role of the professor in this collaborative learning process comes principally as a bridge between international law theory and the
real world. Much of the emphasis in contemporary international relations courses aims at emphasizing theoretical concepts to students
in order to make them think more critically about the process and motivations of state behavior in international affairs. Symbolic
thinking is often substituted for historical analysis. The teacher of international law as international relations should strive to introduce
the theory and conceptual thinking behind the law as states have created it. More than this, however, he/she should offer to students
This should permit students
to engage in a collaborative learning process, such that they can improve their critical,
flexible, and creative thinking skills in dealing with real-world problems that are
ambiguous,
ill-defined
and
unfamiliar.
n9
various models and examples for real world engagement with situation-specific exercises.
V.
Conclusion
International law is expressly relevant for the foreign policy process and international relations. While some political scientists note
and highlight theoretical deficiencies of international law, governments do not deem international rules to be irrelevant in formulating
real world foreign policy choices. Indeed, governments attach considerable importance to international rules, and decision- makers
expend much energy and effort contending over issues concerning their interpretation and evolution. Clearly,
policy-making
elites strive to fashion, revise and interpret [*388] international law such that the outcome
best serves their state's purposes and advances their national interests. This is evident from
the functional role assigned to legal advisers in a government's foreign policy apparatus,
and it should be reflected in the teachings of international political scientists.
A debate exercise provides students with deeper insights into and appreciation of the
complexities of integrating international law into the foreign policy making process. The
success of any given debate depends upon the quality of the team members' efforts to
research and present a topic, and on their ability to relate concepts and principles of
international law to the ways in which foreign policy objectives are formulated and
achieved. The exercise is not intended to train international lawyers or to promote
forensics as a skill, but rather to give undergraduate political science students a greater
sense of the real-world process by which foreign policy is made and implemented, and of the
place international legal considerations must be given in that process. In this way, the relevance and reality of international law can be
more effectively demonstrated for students of political science in general and of international relations theory in particular.
SME 2010
54
T
Chillz Lab
AT K of T—Roleplaying
Roleplaying is key to solve extinction
Shaftel ’67 Fannie R., associate professor of education @ Stanford University. Roleplaying for Social Values: Decision-making in the Social Studies.
Role-playing, as presented in this book, has a variety of functions, but two are
major: education for citizenship, and group counseling by the classroom teacher.
Education for citizenship is an important goal of social studies. Group
counseling is increasingly recognized as valuable to all children in their crucial
transitions from one growth level to the next and also as helping disadvantaged
children, emotionally disturbed children, and many other school populations.
At various times in the past, education for citizenship has been called “moral
education” and “character education” and “social learning.” Our focus in this
present work is upon educating for ethical behavior: more specifically, for
individual integrity and group responsibility; and this focus, we believe, covers
much of the areas of behavior suggested by the other terms.
It is our conviction that a vital responsibility of education today is that of helping
the individual child to become “inner-directed” at the same time that he learns to
live well in groups and that he develops intelligent concern for others. This task
has become an imperative in an industrial society in the Nuclear Age. Man
cannot live for himself alone, or even for this culture group alone, and survive.
The crucial question of our time is whether men, the world over, products of
particular cultures, can overcome their ethnocentricity and act in terms of
generalized ideals aimed at preventing wars, realizing human potential
everywhere, and maintaining the integrity of the individual.
Role-playing is key to problem-solving and developing understanding for others’
perspectives
Shaftel ’67 Fannie R., associate professor of education @ Stanford University. Roleplaying for Social Values: Decision-making in the Social Studies.
Our methodology: role-playing, or sociodrama, a group problem-solving method
that enables young people to explore, in spontaneous enactments followed by guided
discussion –utilizing critical evaluation and full discussion in a supportive
atmosphere – of how they tend to solve such problems, of what alternatives are
available to them, and of what the personal and social consequences are of the
proposals they offer.
Role-playing, when properly and skillfully used, is uniquely suited to the
exploration of group behavior and of the dilemmas of the individual child as he
tries to find a place in the many and increasing groups in his life and at the same
time struggles to establish personal identity and integrity. When properly used,
role-playing permits the kind of “discovery” learning which occurs when
individuals in groups face up to the way s they tend to solve their problems of
interpersonal relations, and which occurs when, under skillful guidance, young
people become conscious of their personal value systems. As a result, young
people are helped to develop a sensitivity to the feelings and welfare of others and
to clarify their values in terms of ethical behavior.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Role-playing, as employed in this book, is not aimed at achieving therapy; nor is it
“creative dramatics” or incidental skits to highlight a discussion or lecture. Rather, it
is a group of problem-solving procedures that employs all the techniques of critical
evaluation implied in the terms “listening,” “discussion” and “problem-solving,” and
is kin to the research procedures which behavioral scientists term simulation and
theory of games. Role-playing, as do simulation and gaming, utilizes a symbolic
model (verbal rather than physical or mathematical). Role-playing (as do the others)
proceeds into problem-definition, delineation of alternatives for action,
exploration of the consequences of those alternatives, and decision-making.
55
T
SME 2010
56
T
Chillz Lab
A2 K of T--Roleplaying
Goal oriented debate allows citizens to roleplay as policy makers, this eliminates the
normalizing division between state and citizen that supports statism
Kulynych ’97 Jessica J., Assistant Professor of Political Science at Winthrop University.
“Performing politics: Foucault, Habermas, and postmodern participation.” Polity, Winter
1997 v30 n2 p315.
When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative
perspective, we look precisely at those moments of defiance and disruption that
bring the invisible and unimaginable into view. Although citizens were minimally
successful in influencing or controlling the out come of the policy debate and
experienced a considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical
debate, the goal-oriented debate within the energy commissions could be seen as
a defiant moment of performative politics. The existence of a goal-oriented
debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation
between expert policymakers and consuming citizens. Citizens momentarily
recreated themselves as policymakers in a system that defined citizens out of the
policy process, thereby refusing their construction as passive clients. The
disruptive potential of the energy commissions continues to defy technical
bureaucracy even while their decisions are non-binding.
SME 2010
57
T
Chillz Lab
**SPEC**
SME 2010
58
T
Chillz Lab
ASPEC
A. Interpretation— The USFG is the 3 branches
The
Government
of
New
Zealand
9
(http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/law/pdfs/
RetrievingLegalMaterialsOrganisedbyRegion.pdf)
The United States federal government consists of the legislative branch (the
House of Representatives and the Senate), the judicial branch (a hierarchy of
courts), and the executive branch (the elected President).
B. Violation—The affirmative doesn’t specify which agent enacts the plan.
C. Standards:
1. Predictable Ground—Not specifying allows the aff to spike out of agent
DA’s or eliminate competitiveness on counterplans by choosing an agent in
the 2ac.
2. Education—We lose education that is based off the real-world
implementation of the aff.
D. Voter for fairness and education.
SME 2010
59
T
Chillz Lab
Presence SPEC
A. Interpretation— Presence is all military and police personnel
MSN/Encarta No date (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737158/presence.html)
A group of official personnel, especially police, military forces, or diplomats,
present or stationed in a place to represent their country and maintain its interest.
maintained a heavy military presence in the capital.
B. Violation—The aff doesn’t define what part of military and/or police presence it
reduces.
C. Standards:
1. Ground—The negative can’t read DA’s or PICs to specific types of
presence, because the aff could specify what they did in the 2ac to shift out of
offense.
2. Education—We lose education about the specific types of military
presence, because there is no discussion of the effectiveness of specific types
of presence and whether or not the specific type should be removed.
3. No Solvency—They can’t solve because solvency is contingent on what
type of military presence they reduce.
D. Voter for fairness and education.
SME 2010
60
T
Chillz Lab
A2: ASPEC
1. No Resolutional basis—their interpretation justifies us having to specify every
senator’s vote, forcing the aff to read 8 minutes of plan text.
2. Ground—Specification destroys negative ground because the aff could specify an
unpredictable agency to do the plan.
3. No Ground loss—just because they don’t get agent CPs and DA’s doesn’t mean
they were entitled to them.
4. Cross-x checks abuse—they could have just asked us.
SME 2010
61
T
Chillz Lab
A2: Presence Spec
1. No resolutional basis—justifies us having to specify down to what specific weapon
is removed, forcing an 8 minute plan text.
2. Cross-x checks abuse—they could have asked what we defended after the 1ac.
3. No Ground Loss—They still have ground against military presence, it doesn’t
matter what type we are.
4. Solvency literature checks—our solvency defines what would be required to solve,
proves a stable check.
SME 2010
62
T
Chillz Lab
**Resolved**
SME 2010
63
T
Chillz Lab
1NC – Resolved=Concrete (descriptive)
A. Interp—Resolved means one determined course of action and firm in intent—
American Heritage 0 (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition,
http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html)
INTRANSITIVE VERB:1. To reach a decision or make a determination:
resolve on a course of action. 2. To become separated or reduced to constituents.
3. Music To undergo resolution.
Random House Unabridged 6
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resolved&r=66)
re·solved Audio Help /rɪˈzɒlvd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rizolvd] –adjective firm in purpose or intent; determined.
B. Violation—The aff doesn’t declare their decision, it says and/or in the plan text
C. standards
1. aff conditionality—the aff plan text inherently makes them a moving target, they
can choose whether they increase a variety of programs or grants, meaning that if
we DA one, they can spike out—KILLS ground, skews strat and time allocation—
prevents all in depth education
2. fairness, since they decide what we talk about, they have to be responsible for it
3. Plan text in a vacuum—function doesn’t matter, the plan text determines how we
prep preround, they must defend it
D. this is a voter for the reasons above, jurisdiction, and competing interp
SME 2010
64
T
Chillz Lab
1NC – Resolved=Concrete (time crunch)
A. Interp—Resolved means one determined course of action and firm in intent—
American Heritage 0 (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition,
http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html)
INTRANSITIVE VERB:1. To reach a decision or make a determination:
resolve on a course of action. 2. To become separated or reduced to constituents.
3. Music To undergo resolution.
And
Random House Unabridged 6
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resolved&r=66)
re·solved Audio Help /rɪˈzɒlvd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rizolvd] –adjective firm in purpose or intent; determined.
B. Violation—The aff says and/or in the plan text--no course of action declared
C. standards
1. aff conditionality—theyre a moving target, if we attack one mechanism, they
spike out—KILLS ground, skews strat and time—kills depth
2. Plan text in a vacuum—function doesn’t matter, the plan text determines
preround prep, they brought it in, it’s the locus, they must defend it
D. this is a voter for the reasons above, jurisdiction, competing interp to prevent
judge intervention
SME 2010
65
T
Chillz Lab
2NC Resolved: Extensions
(ground loss---and/or kills all generic AND specific links because funding is through
different agencys and different bills—if they can spike out of the part of the plan that
says even start, they get out of all anger over NCLB, DoE poor management, DoE trade
off DAs etc, and be left with only dept of health and human services)
O/V--Only reason we can have education is because we are prepared and well
researched for the round, and we debate in depth the viability of one mechanism—
without these fair expectations, the game loses meaning
--We will win b/c They drop/fail to meet___, most important b/c__
--They can’t defend Aff conditionality, if they can spike out of parts of the plan, no
speech has value, they can moot 13 minutes of the block or 8 minutes of 1nc, we never
get to the core of the topic b/c of flip-flops, this makes every neg strat uncompetitive
unless generic, killing in-depth clash on the mechanism and res ed, and competitive
equity for the neg, it functionally gives pics to the aff
--We lose links to even start OR head start OR block grant b/c they can drop one—this
means TIX, agent CP, etc, force 4 links or bad generic ones
--No reason their case list gives better ed than ours, or is key to aff ground—we provide
most level playing field—we allow every aff that doesn’t include and/or in the plan text
--topical version of their aff proves abuse, take out and/or and your T—they WANT to
spike out, we don’t overlimit
--they have zero justification for the necessity of and/or, without a defense, there is zero
chance of it being REASONABLE
LBL
1) Extend Our American heritage and Random house unabridged—the plan text
doesn’t take a single firm, course of action, they have 4 possible policy options to choose
from because the text says and/or
2) This will be the biggest abuse in the round because plan text in a vacuum FORCED
STRAT SKEW—they justify gutting all of our ground because if we attack any one of
their possible plans, they will just spike out of it
3) Our limits are best because when the aff gives ONE mechanism of solvency we can
debate in depth, depth is always better than bredth, allows for REAL education at the
core of the topic, time constraints prevent bredth from giving same effect—limits are
the i/l to education, predictability, ground, and fairness, they destroy all game aspects of
debate
4) The AFF as a moving target justifies severance and intrinsicness, preventing all
competitive options the neg could present—they are the starting point of the debate,
they have infinite prep, we have 8 minutes with a plan text
5) Voting them down sets a precedent that affs cant abuse the neg in future rounds—
judge decisions determine what is and isn’t acceptable theory
6) they say the and/or is because some states don’t have all four—text doesn’t force all
states to have all four even if it says fully fund, it doesn’t say mandate states increase it,
this is stupid defense, they can’t defend what about the plan doesn’t inherently allow
them to spike out means you vote them down
7) they claim to increase our pics and mechanism attacks ground but justifying not
having to defend all planks guts this—t version of aff is the only way to access that
ground because it forces them to defend this
SME 2010
66
T
Chillz Lab
8) COMPETING INTERPS is voter for jurisdiction, judge intervention, preservation of
debate, and reasons above(or use short shell)
Resolved Definitions
Resolved means fixed in purpose
Collins English Dictionary 98
(General Consultant: JM Sinclair, HarperCollins, pg 1568) [Tanay]
Resolved: fixed in purpose or intention; determined
Resolved means fixed in purpose
The Chambers Dictionary, 2006
Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. Page 1300
Resolved –adj. fixed in purpose
Resolved means to make a decision
Cambridge Dictionary, 2000
Cambridge University Press p.728
Resolve – v. to make a determined decision; n. strong determination
SME 2010
67
T
Chillz Lab
**Colon(:)**
SME 2010
68
T
Chillz Lab
Colon Definitions (:)
Colon (:) Introduces a quotation or example
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2009
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by
Houghton Mifflin Company.
A punctuation mark ( : ) used after a word introducing a quotation, an explanation, an
example, or a series and often after the salutation of a business letter
Colons set off a series after a main clause
Nordquist, Ph.D. in English, 09 Richard Nordquist, Ph.D. in English and rhetoric, is a professor of
English, About.com, 2009,
http://grammar.about.com/od/punctuationandmechanics/a/semicolondash.htm?p=1
Use a colon to set off a summary or a series after a complete main clause:
It is time for the baby's birthday party: a white cake, strawberry-marshmellow ice cream,
and a bottle of champagne saved from another party.
(Joan Didion)
Notice that a main clause does not have to follow the colon; however, a complete main
clause generally should precede it.
SME 2010
69
T
Chillz Lab
**The**
SME 2010
70
T
Chillz Lab
The Definitions
Random House Dictionary, 2009 (Random House, Inc. “the”,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the, Date of Access: July 2, 2009)
1.
used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to
the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an
The is a word of limitation
Blacks Law Dictionary 1990,
An Article which particularizes the subject spoken of. In construing statute, definite
article “the” particularize the subject which precedes and is word of limitation as opposed
to indefinite or generalizing force “a” or “an” brooks v zabka
Collins English Dictionary 98
(General Consultant: JM Sinclair, HarperCollins, pg 1568) [Tanay]
The: 1)used preceding a noun that has been previously specified: the pain should
disappear soon; the man then opened the door. 2)used with a qualifying word or phrase
to indicate a particular person, object, etc., as distinct from others: ask the man standing
outside; give me the blue one. 3)used preceding certain nouns associated with one’s
culture, society, or community; to go to the doctor; listen to the news; watch the
television 4)used preceding present participles and adjectives when they function as
nouns: the singing is awful; the dead salute you. 5)used preceding titles and certain
uniquely specific or proper nouns, such as places names: the United States; the
Honoruable Edward Brown; the Chairman; the moon 6)used preceding a qualifying
adjective or noun in certain names or titles: William the Conqueror; Edward the First.
7)used preceding a noun to make it refer to its class generically: the white seal is hunted
for its fur; this is good for the throat; to play the piano 8)used instead of my, your, her,
etc., with parts of the body: take me by the hand 9)(usually stressed) the best, only, or
most remarkable: Harry’s is the club in this town. 10) used with proper nouns when
qualified: written by the young Hardy.
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96
The: 1)use, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as
opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an 2)used to
mark a noun as indicating something well-known or unique 3)used with or as part of a
title 4)used to mark a noun as indicating the best-known, most approved, most important
5) used to mark a noun as being used generically 6)used in place of a possessive pronoun,
to note a part of the body or a personal belonging
Cambridge Dictionary, 2000
Cambridge University Press p.901
The – definite article used before a noun to refer to something that a listener or reader
will understand as a particular thing because it is clear which one is intended; “the” is
used before some nouns to refer to a type of activity or thing intended; “The” can mean
each or every; when used before some adjectives, “the” changes the adjective into a noun
to refer to all the things or people represented by that name; you can use “the” to refer to
a singular noun to refer to all the things represented by that noun.
SME 2010
71
T
Chillz Lab
The Definitions
The Chambers Dictionary, 2006
Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. Page 1568
The – demonstrative adj. called the definite article, used to refer to a particular person or
thing, or a group of things, already mention, implied or known; used to refer to a unique
person or thing; used before a singular a singular noun to refer to all the members of the
group or class; used before an adjective or noun describing the identified person
“The” denotes a specific, unique object
American Heritage 0 Dictionary of the English Language (dictionary.com)
the
Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular,
specified persons or things: the baby; the dress I wore. Used before a noun, and
generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or
prominent: considered Lake Shore Drive to be the neighborhood to live in these
days. Used to indicate uniqueness: the Prince of Wales; the moon. Used before
nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the compass: the weather; a
wind from the south. Used as the equivalent of a possessive adjective before names
of some parts of the body: grab him by the neck; an infection of the hand. Used
before a noun specifying a field of endeavor: the law; the film industry; the stage.
Used before a proper name, as of a monument or ship: the Alamo; the Titanic. Used
before the plural form of a numeral denoting a specific decade of a century or of a
life span: rural life in the Thirties.
‘The’ means unique, as in there is one USFG
Merriam-Websters 8 Online Collegiate Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a
unique or a particular member of its class <the President> <the Lord>
The word “the” implies there is only one – as in the USFG
Cambridge Dictionaries Online 7
used to refer to things or people when only one exists at any one time:
‘The’ means all parts.
Merriam-Websters 8 Online Collegiate Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
4 -- used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate
reference to a group as a whole <the elite>
SME 2010
72
T
Chillz Lab
The Definitions
‘The’ serves a function to indicate a generic following noun or phrase
Merriam Webster Online 8 http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgibin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=the
Main Entry: 1 the Pronunciation: \before consonants usually thə, before vowels usually thē, sometime before vowels also thə; for emphasis before titles and names or
to suggest uniqueness often ˈthē\ Function: definite article Etymology: Middle English, from Old English thē, masculine demonstrative pron. & definite article,
alteration (influenced by oblique cases — as thæs, genitive — & neuter, thæt) of sē; akin to Greek ho, masculine demonstrative pron. & definite article — more at that
—used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or
noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by
circumstance <put the cat out> b—used as a function word to indicate that a
following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its
class <the President><the Lord> c—used as a function word before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the compass <the night is cold> d—
used as a function word before a noun denoting time to indicate reference to what is present or immediate or is under consideration <in the future> e—used as
a function word before names of some parts of the body or of the clothing as
an equivalent of a possessive adjective <how's the arm today> f—used as a function word before the name of a branch of
Date: before 12th century 1 a
human endeavor or proficiency <the law> g—used as a function word in prepositional phrases to indicate that the noun in the phrase serves as a basis for computation
used as a function word before a proper name
<sold by the dozen> h—
(as of a ship or a well-known building)
<the Mayflower> i—used as a function word before a proper name to indicate the distinctive characteristics of a person or thing <the John Doe that we know wouldn't
lie> j—used as a function word before the plural form of a surname to indicate all the members of a family <the Johnsons> k—used as a functon word before the plural
form of a numeral that is a multiple of ten to denote a particular decade of a century or of a person's life <life in the twenties> l—used as a function word before the
name of a commodity or any familiar appurtenance of daily life to indicate reference to the individual thing, part, or supply thought of as at hand <talked on the
telephone> meters—used as a function word to designate one of a class as the best, most typical, best known, or most worth singling out <this is the life><the pill> ;
used as a function word with a
noun modified by an adjective or by an attributive noun to limit the
application of the modified noun to that specified by the adjective or by the
attributive noun <the right answer><Peter the Great> (2)—used as a function
word before an absolute adjective or an ordinal number <nothing but the best><due
on the first> b (1)—used as a function word before a noun to limit its
application to that specified by a succeeding element in the sentence <the poet
sometimes used before a personal name to denote the most prominent bearer of that name 2 a (1)—
Wordsworth><the days of our youth><didn't have the time to write> (2)—used as a function word after a person's name to indicate a characteristic trait or notorious
used as a function word before a singular noun
to indicate that the noun is to be understood generically <the dog is a domestic animal> b—used as a
activity specified by the succeeding noun <Jack the Ripper> 3 a—
function word before a singular substantivized adjective to indicate an abstract idea <an essay on the sublime> 4—used as a function word before a noun or a
substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole <the elite>
SME 2010
73
T
Chillz Lab
**USFG**
SME 2010
74
T
Chillz Lab
USFG Definitions
The USFG is the 3 branches
The
Government
of
New
Zealand
9
(http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/subjects/law/pdfs/
RetrievingLegalMaterialsOrganisedbyRegion.pdf)
The United States federal government consists of the legislative branch (the
House of Representatives and the Senate), the judicial branch (a hierarchy of
courts), and the executive branch (the elected President).
More ev…
UC San Diego 7 (http://vcsa.ucsd.edu/spja/sls/SLSHandbook-Constitutional_Law.pdf)
The United States federal government is composed of three branches: the
legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. Each branch
serves a separate function. The powers of each branch are described in the first
three Articles of the Constitution. Mechanisms called “checks and balances” exist
to prevent each of the three branches from having so much power
that the other branches cannot legitimately serve their constitutional functions.
More ev...
Free Dictionary No Date (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Federal+government+%28US%29)
The federal government of the United States is the centralized United States
governmental body established by the United States Constitution. The federal
government has three branches: the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Through a system of separation of powers or "checks and balances", each of these
branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other
two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other
branches. The policies of the federal government have a broad impact on both the
domestic and foreign affairs of the United States. In addition, the powers of the
federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which leaves a great
deal of authority to the individual states.
SME 2010
75
T
Chillz Lab
US Definitions
The U.S. is the 50 states and DC
DiPaoloa 2k (Frank, Tax Accountant – Tax Form Processing LLC, taxformprocessing.com/tax/faq/tax26.htm)
You AND your spouse (if filing jointly) MUST have lived in the United States for
more than half of the tax year (AT LEAST 183 days or AT LEAST 184 days if a
leap year – These days do NOT need to be consecutive). The United States is
defined as any of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The federal government controls territory beyond the 50 states
American Patriot Network 95 (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/howcome.html)
Again, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is defined as property
owned by the United States, not the States themselves. This is further clarified in
Hooven v. Evatt in which the Court said, "In exercising its constitutional power to
make all needful regulations respecting territory belonging to the United States,
Congress...is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when legislating
for the United States"
The U.S. refers to the states, territories, and possessions of the U.S.
Dorsey
&
Whitney
LLP
3
(http://www.dorsey.com/files/tbl_s21Publications/PDFUpload141/198/SECRulesRegs_AnlystCert_2_26_03pdf.pdf, review of SEC
hearing on U.S. bounds)
U.S. Person is defined by Regulation S Rule 902(k) and includes among others, all
residents of the United States, all legal entities organized within the United States,
any account of a U.S. person managed or held by a foreign entity, and trusts for
which a U.S. person is a trustee. The United States is defined as the United
States of America, its territories and possessions, any State of the United
States, and the District of Columbia.
SME 2010
76
T
Chillz Lab
Federal Definitions
Federal means pertaining to the central government
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96
Federal: 1)pertaining to or of the nature of a union or states under a central
government distinct from the individual governments of the separate states 2)of,
pertaining to, or involving such a central government
Federal means connected with the central government
Cambridge Dictionary, 2000 Cambridge University Press p.728
Federal – adj. of or connected with the central government of some countries
Federal means relating to a central government
The Chambers Dictionary, 2006 Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. Page 549
Federal – adj. relating to or consisting of a treaty or a covenant; confederate, found
upon mutual agreement; (of a union or a government) in which several states, while
independent in home affairs, combine for national general purposes, as in the United
States; of or relating to the national or central government in such a union, as opposed
to regional or state government
Federal means a government where power is divided between central and regional
governments
Collins English Dictionary 98(General Consultant: JM Sinclair, HarperCollins, pg
1568) [Tanay]
Federal: 1)of or relating to a form of government or a country in which power is
divided between one central and several regional governments. 2) of or relating to a
treaty between provinces, states, etc., that establishes a political unit in which the
power is so divided. 3)of or relating to the central government of a federation 4)of or
relating to any union or association of parties or groups that retain some autonomy
Federal means relating to the national government of the United States
Black’s Law Dictionary 99
federal, adj. Of or relating to a system of associated governments with a vertical
division of governments into national and regional components having different
responsibilities; esp., of or relating to the national government of the United
States.
SME 2010
77
T
Chillz Lab
Government Definitions
Government is political control over the actions of citizens
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96
Government: 1)the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the
members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the
affairs of habitants of a state, community, etc. 2)the form or system of rule by which a
state, community, etc., is governed
Government is the system that rules a community
Collins English Dictionary 98(General Consultant: JM Sinclair, HarperCollins, pg
1568) [Tanay]
Government: 1) the exercise of political authority over the actions, affairs, etc., of a
political unit, people, etc., as well as the performance of certain functions for this unit
or body; the action of governing; political rule and administration 2) the system by
which a community, etc., is ruled.
Government is the group that controls a political unit
Cambridge Dictionary, 2000 Cambridge University Press p.728
Government – n. the offices, departments, and groups of people that control a country,
state, city, or other political unit; government is also a particular system of managing a
country, state, city, etc.
Government is management
The Chambers Dictionary, 2006 Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. Page 646
Government – n. a ruling or managing; control; a system of governing; the body of
persons authorized to administer laws, or to govern the state
Government is the political and administrative hierarchy of the state
Political Science Dictionary 73 (Dryden Press, Illinois, p. 174)
Government is the political and administrative hierarchy of an organized
state. Governments exercise legislative, executive, and judicial functions; the
nature of the governmental system is determined by the distribution of these
powers. Government may take many forms, but it must be sufficiently powerful
and stable to command obedience and maintain order. A government’s position
also depends on its acceptance by the community of nations through its diplomatic
recognition by other states.
Government is the apparatus of the state
Shafritz 88 (The Dorsey Dictionary of American Government and Politics, p. 249)
Government is the formal institutions and process through which binding decisions are made for a society. Henry David
Thoreau (1817-1862) wrote in Civil Disobedience (1849) that “that government is the best which governs least”. This
statement is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson but while it certainly reflects his philosophic sentiments, it has never been
found in any of Jefferson’s writings.
2 The apparatus of the state, consisting of executive,
legislative, and judicial branches. 3 A political entity that has taxing authority and jurisdiction over a
defined geographic area for some specified purpose, such as fire protection or schools. 4 The indiciduals who temporarily
control the institutions of a state or subnational jurisdiction. 5 The United States government, especially as in “the
government”.
SME 2010
78
T
Chillz Lab
**Should**
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
1NC--Should Means New (past tense shall) (1/2)
A. Violation - Should refers to a future act that has not been carried out –the
affirmative must defend a world where the federal government enacts a policy
increasing social services that has not yet been enacted
Remo 32 Foresi v. The Hudson Coal Co, SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
106 Pa. Super. 307; 161 A. 910; 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 239 July 14,
As regards the mandatory character of the rule, the word 'should' is not only
an auxiliary verb, it is also the preterite of the verb, 'shall' and has for one of its
meanings as defined in the Century Dictionary: "Obliged or compelled (to);
would have (to); must; ought (to); used with an infinitive (without to) to
express obligation, necessity or duty in connection with some act yet to be
carried out." We think it clear that it is in that sense that the word 'should' is used
in this rule, not merely advisory. When the judge in charging the jury tells them
that, unless they find from all the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
defendant is guilty of the offense charged, they should acquit, the word 'should' is
not used in an advisory sense but has the force or meaning of 'must', or 'ought
to' and carries with it the sense of obligation and duty equivalent to
compulsion. A natural sense of sympathy for a few unfortunate claimants who
have been injured while doing something in direct violation of law must not be so
indulged as to fritter away, or nullify, provisions which have been enacted to
safeguard and protect the welfare of thousands who are engaged in the hazardous
occupation of mining.
B. This is a better interpretation
1. Limits – There are a huge number of past instances where the federal
government has increased social services, every Social Service Act the government
has passed since FDRs New deal in the 30s has involved a clause for PLIP– each of
these is wildly unpredictable for the negative. AND, the abuse of unlimited topics is
magnified when debating the past since we can’t have generics – every case occurs
in a different timeframe which means our disadvantages and case arguments have
to be written to dozens of different contexts. We would literally have to have a tub
for every era of American history.
2. Ground – Consensus is generally settled on historical questions which means you
can choose ones where the literature is not only slanted but actually indicates such a
slanted consensus. Moreover, we know past actions didn’t cause nuclear wars or
anything else extreme but the aff still has the opportunity to make counter-factual
claims about failure to enact such programs causing nuclear war – this is a losing
proposition – they will ALWAYS outweigh
3. Education – Debate trains us to be future policy makers, lawyers and activists.
All of these require the ability to make COST-BENEFIT CALCULATIONS relying
on PREDICTIVE INFORMATION to be effective. This is a skill that can only and
best be taught in policy debates using the assumptions of fiat. If history is valuable
and relevant it can be used as empirical examples to prove and disprove future
arguments which solves all your offense
79
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
1NC--Should Means New (past tense shall) (2/2)
AND, Utopianism such as fiat is key to formulating realistic political strategies for
future social change
Streeten 99 (Paul, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Boston University, Development, “The Case For
Being Utopian”, Volume 42, Issue 2, p. 118)
First, Utopian thinking can be useful as a framework for analysis. Just as
physicists assume an atmospheric vacuum for some purposes, so policy analysts
can assume a political vacuum from which they can start afresh. The physicists’
assumption plainly would not be useful for the design of parachutes, but can serve
other purposes well. Similarly, when thinking of tomorrow’s problems, Utopianism
is not helpful. But for long-term strategic purposes it is essential. Second, the
Utopian vision gives a sense of direction, which can get lost in approaches that
are preoccupied with the feasible. In a world that is regarded as the second-best
of all feasible worlds, everything becomes a necessary constraint. All vision is lost.
Third, excessive concern with the feasible tends to reinforce the status quo. In
negotiations, it strengthens the hand of those opposed to any reform. Unless the
case for change can be represented in the same detail as the case for no change, it
tends to be lost. Fourth, it is sometimes the case that the conjuncture of
circumstances changes quite suddenly and that the constellation of forces,
unexpectedly, turns out to be favourable to even radical innovation. Unless we
are prepared with a carefully worked out, detailed plan, that yesterday could
have appeared utterly Utopian, the reformers will lose out by default. Only a
few years ago nobody would have expected the end of communism in Central and
Eastern Europe, the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the unification of Germany,
the break-up of Yugoslavia, the marketization of China, the end of apartheid in
South Africa. And the handshake on the White House lawn between Mr Peres and
Mr Arafat. Fifth, the Utopian reformers themselves can constitute a pressure
group, countervailing the selfinterested pressures of the obstructionist groups.
Ideas thought to be Utopian have become realistic at moments in history when
large numbers of people support them, and those in power have to yield to their
demands. The demand for ending slavery is a historical example. It is for these
five reasons that Utopians should not be discouraged from formulating their
proposals and from thinking the unthinkable, unencumbered by the inhibitions
and obstacles of political constraints. They should elaborate them in the same
detail that the defenders of the status quo devote to its elaboration and
celebration. Utopianism and idealism will then turn out to be the most realistic
vision.
C. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness
80
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Extensions of NEW (at past tense more grammatical)
1. We have a grammatical interpretation – arguing what is technically more
consistent is irrelevant – formal grammar is rarely used and every day
ungrammatical constructions prove it doesn’t spiral into the destruction of all
meaning
2. Massive fairness issues supersede – A mangled but fair resolution would
probably produce some good debates – people will find ways to stop the slide into
ungrammatical hell but an interpretation the structurally wires in unfairness like
theirs inherently precludes the possibility of good debates
3. You’re not grammatical – traditional rules governing should have been
abandoned – it is just used for future obligation
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 0 (4th Edition, p. 1612)
Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional
rules governing the use of should and would are largely ignored in modern
American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person
to express conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second
and third persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for should, however. Should
is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he) should decide to go. Should is also used in all
three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go. On the other hand, would is used to
Usage Note
express volition or promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to
call your attention to an oversight. Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than
should. Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should’ve.
4. This straight up makes no sense – if the resolution was a past-tense it would have
said “should have” – they should have to come up with a coherent recognizable
sentence using should in the context they talk about before you accept this
interpretation
81
T
SME 2010
82
T
Chillz Lab
Should Definitions
Should means ought
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should)
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do
that.
More ev…
Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should)
2 —used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis
commanded I should do so — Shakespeare> <this is as it should be — H. L.
Savage> <you should brush your teeth after each meal>
The past tense of shall definition is uncommon and out of regular use
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should)
Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been
advanced for should and would, but again the rules have had little effect on usage.
In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the
subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to
sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the directions. Because
the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty,
necessity, etc. (You should get your flu shot before winter comes), its use for other
purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I
should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to
many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British
English: Had I been informed, I should (American would) have called immediately.
I should (American would) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and
will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the
textbook rule in making a choice between should and would.
More evidence on past tense of shall
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should)
Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the
traditional rules governing the use of should and would are largely ignored in
modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first
person to express conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat
more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second and third
persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have
answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for should, however.
Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he)
should decide to go. Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or
obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go.
SME 2010
83
T
Chillz Lab
Should Definitions
Merriam-Webster,
July
2,
2009
(“Should”,
webster.com/dictionary/should, Date of Access: July 2, 2009)
Past of SHALL
1-used in auxiliary function to express condition
http://www.merriam-
Should is a recommendation
NFPA 2006 http://www.testladders.com/nfpa_ch3.htm
The definitions contained in this chapter shall apply to the terms used in this standard.
Where terms are not included, common usage of the terms shall apply.
3.2.4. Should. Indicates a recommendation or that which is advised but not required.
Should is non-binding
United Nations Environment Program 06
http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Resources/Glossary/tabid/69/Default.aspx?letter=
S
Should. As negotiating language, should entails an advice, not an obligation, to do
something. However, while non-binding, it implies a stronger imperative than may.
Should expresses desire or opinion
Cambridge Dictionary, 2000
Cambridge University Press p.792
Should – v. aux. Used to express that it is necessary, desirable, admirable, or imperative
to perform the action of the following verb; used to express a desire or opinion
Should is mandatory
CERN 08
http://internal-audit.web.cern.ch/internal-audit/method/glossary.html
Should - The use of the word "should" in the Standards represents a mandatory
obligation
Should is obligatory
Merriam Webster Online
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should
used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency <'tis
commanded I should do so — Shakespeare><this is as it should be — H. L.
Savage><you should brush your teeth after each meal>
Should is obligatory
Collins English Dictionary 98
(General Consultant: JM Sinclair, HarperCollins, pg 1568) [Tanay]
Should:the past tense of shall: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is
considered by the speaker to be obligatory
SME 2010
84
T
Chillz Lab
Should Definitions
Should is the past tense of shall
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96
Should: 1) past tense of shall 2)used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency 3)used to
express condition 4)used to make a statement less direct or blunt
Should is a duty or obligation
Webster's 84 II, p. 1078
Should is used to express duty or obligation
Should means the past tense of shall
Blacks Law Dictionary 1990
The past tense of shall; ordinarily implying duty or obligation: although usually no
more than an obligation of propriety or expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby by
distinguishing it from ought. It is not normally synonymous with “may” and although
often interchangeable with the word “would” it does it not ordinarily express certainty
as will sometimes does.
Should isn’t the past tense of shall
Words and Phrases 06 “Should.” Def. C.A.1. Words and Phrases Dictionary. Volume
39. 2006
Term “should” in statute indicates recommended course of action, but does not itself
imply obligation associated with “shall.”
Should implies future obligation
Keller ’32 (P.J., Judge, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Remo Foresi v. The Hudson Coal Co.,
Appellant., 106 Pa. Super. 307; 161 A. 910; 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 239, L/N)
As regards the mandatory character of the rule, the word 'should' is not only an
auxiliary verb, it is also the preterite of the verb, 'shall' and has for one of its meanings
as defined in the Century Dictionary: "Obliged or compelled (to); would have (to); must;
ought (to); used with an infinitive (without to) to express obligation, necessity or duty in
connection with some act yet to be carried out." We think it clear that it is in that sense that
the word 'should' is used in this rule, not merely advisory. HN1Go to this Headnote in
the case.When the judge in charging the jury tells them that, unless they find from all
the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the offense
charged, they should acquit, the word 'should' is not used in an advisory sense but has
the force or meaning of 'must', or 'ought to' and carries [***8] with it the sense of
[*313] obligation and duty equivalent to compulsion. A natural sense of sympathy for
a few unfortunate claimants who have been injured while doing something in direct
violation of law must not be so indulged as to fritter away, or nullify, provisions which
have been enacted to safeguard and protect the welfare of thousands who are engaged
in the hazardous occupation of mining.
SME 2010
85
T
Chillz Lab
Should Definitions
Should is equal to obligation
WORDS AND PHRASES 53, Vol. 39, p. 313.
The word “should”, denotes an obligation in various degrees, usually milder
than ought. Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 p.2d 839, 842, 198 Or.
556.
Should indicates obligation or duty
Compact
Oxford
English
Dictionary
8
(“should”,
2008,
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/should?view=uk)
Should modal verb (3rd sing. should) 1 used to indicate obligation, duty, or
correctness. 2 used to indicate what is probable. 3 formal expressing the conditional
mood. 4 used in a clause with ‘that’ after a main clause describing feelings. 5 used in a
clause with ‘that’ expressing purpose. 6 (in the first person) expressing a polite request
or acceptance. 7 (in the first person) expressing a conjecture or hope. USAGE Strictly
speaking should is used with I and we, as in I should be grateful if you would let me
know, while would is used with you, he, she, it, and they, as in you didn’t say you
would be late; in practice would is normally used instead of should in reported speech
and conditional clauses, such as I said I would be late. In speech the distinction tends
to be obscured, through the use of the contracted forms I’d, we’d, etc.
Should expresses desirability
Cambridge
Dictionary
of
American
English
7
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=should*1+0&dict=A)
should (DUTY)
auxiliary verb
used to express that it is necessary, desirable, advisable, or important to
perform the action of the following verb
Should is mandatory unless under circumstances that warrant a change in
procedure
Studio Cabrini, No Date, http://www.studiocabrini.com/index.htm
Should: Auxiliary verb indicating a lesser obligation to comply with the main verb
that follows. Used when there is recognition that although bound by duty,
there may be circumstances that warrant not proceeding as stated.
Should Is Mandatory
European
Organization
for
Nuclear
Research
(CERN),
No
Date,
http://internal-audit.web.cern.ch/internal-audit/method/glossary.html
Should - The use of the word "should" in the Standards represents a mandatory
obligation.
Should is past tense of shall
shall. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2004 Fourth
Edition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shall
SME 2010
86
T
Chillz Lab
(shāl)
shall
aux.v. past tense should (shŏŏd)
Should Is Not Mandatory
Should is a recommendation
Australian Government, Department
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main
Should Indicates a recommendation.
of
Health
and
Ageing,
No
Date,
Should is advice
United Nations Environment Programme, No Date, http://www.unep.org
As negotiating language, should entails an advice, not an obligation, to do
something. However, while non-binding, it implies a stronger imperative than
may.
SME 2010
87
T
Chillz Lab
Should = Recommendation
Should implies a recommendation
VDH
(Virginia
Department
of
Health,
http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/EnvironmentalHealth/Wastewater/wwtechnology/definition
s.htm, date accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK) Should - means a recommendation.
Should means recommended
Linux Foundation (http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSBCore-generic/def.html
Linux
Foundation,
date
accessed:
6/25/2010,
AJK)
it is recommended that; ought to
Should means recommended
Business Dictionary (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/should.htmldate
accessed:
6/25/2010,
AJK)
In general, recommended but not mandatory.
SME 2010
88
T
Chillz Lab
Should = Obligation
Means
a
mandatory
obligation
CERN
Internal
Audit
8
(http://internal-audit.web.cern.ch/internalaudit/method/glossary.html,
date
accessed:
6/25/2010,
AJK)
Should - The use of the word "should" in the Standards represents a mandatory
obligation.
Should
means
that
the
following
action
is
obligated
to
occur
Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/should, April 28, 2010, date accesed:
6/25/2010, AJK)
Used to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be
obligatory.You should go.
Means
the
following
action
is
to
occur
Institute of Internal Auditers (http://www.theiia.org/guidance/standards-andguidance/ippf/standards/full-standards/?i=8317,
date
accessed:
6/25/2010)
The Standards use the word "should" where conformance is expected unless, when
applying professional judgment, circumstances justify deviation.
Should
means
that
the
following
action
is
to
occur
Studio Cabrini (http://www.studiocabrini.com/index_file/GMP_Glossary.htm, date
accessed:
6/25/2010,
AJK)
Should: Auxiliary verb indicating a lesser obligation to comply with the main verb
that follows. Used when there is recognition that although bound by duty, there may be
circumstances that warrant not proceeding as stated.
Should means that the following action must occur
Dictionary.com(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should,
date
accessed:
6/25/2010, AJK)
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
Should
means
an
obligation
Yourdictionary.com(http://www.yourdictionary.com/should, date accessed: 6/25/2010,
AJK)
used to express obligation, duty, propriety, or desirability: you should ask first, the
plants should be watered weekly
SME 2010
89
T
Chillz Lab
**Substantially**
SME 2010
90
T
Chillz Lab
1NC-Substantially=20%
A. Definition--"substantial reduction" means 20 percent
Magee v. Dir 02 (Magee v. Dir., 80 Ark. App. 162., lexis)
The general rule is that a substantial pay reduction gives an employee good cause
for quitting. Yet, there is no set percentage or bright-line rule that makes a
reduction in pay "substantial." The weight of authority, however, appears to be
that a reduction of over 20 percent is so substantial as to compel an employee
to quit a job and have good cause to do so, but a reduction of less than 20
percent is not.
B. Violation—the Aff plan doesn't reduce US military or policy presence by 20
percent (or insert plan-specific explanation)
C. Standards
1. Bright-line—Affirmatives that require a 20 percent reduction in military or
police presence are topical—those than require less than 20 percent are NOT
2. Ground—mandating that Affirmatives require reduce military or police
presence by 20 percent is vital for Negative disad and kritik link ground and
counterplan ground in the form of offsets or smaller percentage reductions
3. Limits—forcing Affirmatives to reduce presence by 20 percent is critical in
preventing a proliferation of Affirmatives that only marginally reduce US military
or policy presence
D. Topicality is a voting issue—tells the Negative what to and what not to prepare
for in debates
SME 2010
91
T
Chillz Lab
1NC Substantially=25%
A. Interpretation—A substantial reduction is defined by a decrease of at least 25%
of the total quantity
DoD 3 (“Operation of Defense Acquisition System”, www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/DoDI50002signedMay1203.doc)
The DoD Components shall not terminate or substantially reduce participation in international
cooperative ACAT ID programs under signed international agreements without USD(AT&L) approval; or in international
cooperative ACAT IAM programs without ASD(C3I) approval. A DoD Component may not terminate or substantially
reduce U.S. participation in an international cooperative program until after providing notification to the USD(AT&L) or the
ASD(C3I). As a result of that notification, the USD(AT&L) or the ASD(C3I) may require the DoD Component to continue
to provide some or all of the funding for that program in order to minimize the impact on the international cooperative
Substantial reduction is defined as a funding or quantity decrease of 25 percent
or more in the total funding or quantities in the latest President's Budget for that portion of the international
program.
cooperative program funded by the DoD Component seeking the termination or reduced participation.
B. Violation—The affirmative decreases military presence by less than 25%
C. Standards:
1. Predictability—Allowing for affs that only remove a small amount of
presence from countries makes it unpredictable because they could remove
small groups or a couple soldiers that would explode the neg research
burden.
2. Ground—Small affirmatives are able to spike out of politics links and
perception links by claiming they are small enough of a policy no one would
perceive or care, skewing DA ground.
D. Voter for fairness and education— evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
SME 2010
92
T
Chillz Lab
1NC- Substantially=50%
A. Interpretation – presence refers to the totality of US military power in a country
Blechman et al, 97 – President of DFI International, and has held positions in the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Office
of Management and Budget (Barry, Strategic Review, Spring, “Military Presence Abroad
in a New Era: The Role of Airpower,” p. 14)
Given its multifaceted nature, neither practitioners nor scholars have yet settled on
a single definition of presence. Technically, the term refers to both a military
posture and a military objective. This study uses the term “presence” to refer to a
continuum of military activities, from a variety of interactions during peacetime to
crisis response involving both forces on the scene and those based in the United
States. Our definition follows that articulated by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff:
“Presence is the totality of U.S. instruments of power deployed overseas (both
permanently and temporarily) along with the requisite infrastructure and
sustainment capabilities.”
A substantial reduction in presence requires at least a 50% decrease
Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act, 92 (1992 H.R. 4421 ; 102
H.R. 4421, text of the Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992,
introduced by Olympia Snowe, lexis)
With respect to each military installation described in subsection (b)(A) before the installation is closed or substantial reductions in its operations have
occurred, at least 75 percent of the remedial action required on the installation
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) shall be completed; and
(B) not later than two years after the installation is closed or substantial reductions
in its operations have occurred, all of the remedial action required on the
installation pursuan to such Act shall be completed. (2) For purposes of paragraph
(1), substantial reductions in the operations of a military installation shall be
considered to have occurred if more than 50 percent of the personnel assigned
to the installation, including employees and members of the Armed Forces, have
been reassigned and moved to another installation.
B. Violation – the affirmative is a minor reduction in presence
C. Voting issue –
1. Limits – allowing minor reductions allows countless variations of small affs likes
reducing a single type of intelligence gathering or a covert op in Afghanistan or
arms sales to Japan; it makes adequate research impossible
2. Negative ground – topic disads won’t link to minor modifications, and generic
ground is vitally important to protect since there are 6 different countries with
diverse literature bases
SME 2010
93
T
Chillz Lab
2NC XT – Substantially reduce is 50%
A substantial reduction in military personnel is greater than 50%
THOMAS.gov, 92 – Summary of H.R.4421, the Comprehensive Base Closure Reform
and
Recovery
Act
of
1992
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d102:HR04421:@@@L&summ2=m&)
Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992 - Title I:
Environmental Restoration At Military Installations To Be Closed - Requires, with
respect to each military installation which is on the National Priorities List (for
substantial environmental cleanup) under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and which is to be closed
under Federal base closure Acts or otherwise by the Department of Defense
(DOD): (1) that at least 75 percent of the environmental remedial action required
under Federal law be completed before the installation is closed or substantial
reductions in its operations have occurred; and (2) that all of the required remedial
action be occurred no later than two years after such installation is closed or
substantially reduced. Defines a "substantial reduction" as the reassignment of
more than 50 percent of its personnel.
Substantial reduction is at least 50%
Pallone, 3 – US Congressional Representative (Text of H.R. 3189, introduced by
Pallone, to amend Title XVII of the Social Security Act,” 9/25,
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3189.html)
(7) SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION- The term `substantial reduction'-`(A) means, as determined under regulations of the Secretary and with respect to a
qualified beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of benefits under
the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits, an increase in premiums,
deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the
date of commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the retirement
of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6, 2004), in an amount equal to at
least 50 percent of the total average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan
as of such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to permit
comparison of values over time); and `(B) includes an increase in premiums
required to an amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth
sentence of section 602(3).'
SME 2010
94
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Substantially is arbitrary
Substantially must be given meaning even if arbitrary – contextual uses are key
Devinsky, 02 (Paul, IP UPDATE, VOLUME 5, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2002, “Is Claim
"Substantially"
Definite?
Ask
Person
of
Skill
in
the
Art”,
http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm)
In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit found that the district court, by failing to look beyond the
intrinsic claim construction evidence to consider what a person of skill in the art
would understand in a "technologic context," erroneously concluded the term
"substantially" made a claim fatally indefinite. Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417
(Fed. Cir. November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related to an improved push rod for an internal combustion engine. The patent claims a
hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has "substantially constant wall thickness" throughout the
rod and rounded seats at the tips. The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" was not supported in the
specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite. The district court
recognized that the use of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not
further defined. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in
a particular "technologic context" be found solely in intrinsic evidence: "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims,
the Federal
Circuit instructed that "resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and
specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term
in the context of the invention." The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the
district court with instruction that "[t]he question is not whether the word
'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but
how the phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of
mechanics, upon reading the patent documents."
the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field of the invention." Thus,
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
AT: HR 4421 / Comprehensive Base Closure Act
HR 4421 was never enacted – it’s not federal law
Bill Tracking Report, 92 (Bill Tracking Report for the Comprehensive Base Closure
Reform and Recovery Act of 1992, 1992 Bill Tracking H.R. 4421; 102 Bill Tracking
H.R. 4421, lexis)
COMPREHENSIVE BASE CLOSURE REFORM AND RECOVERY ACT OF
1992
SPONSOR:
Representative
Olympia
J.
Snowe
R-ME
DATE-INTRO:
March
10,
1992
LAST-ACTION-DATE:
March
10,
1992
STATUS:
Not
Enacted
TOTAL-COSPONSORS:
0
Cosponsors
SYNOPSIS: A bill to establish a comprehensive recovery program for communities
businesses, and workers adversely affected by the closure or realignment of military
installations.
95
T
SME 2010
96
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions
100,000 troops are substantial
D.O.D. Tuesday, March 19, 1996 (“Transcript : DoD News Briefing : Mr. Kenneth H.
Bacon, ATSD (PA)” http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=448
)
A: As I said, we're not there to provoke anyone. We're there to show our interest in peace
and stability in Asia. We have 100,000 troops stationed in Asia. We have a substantial
military presence in Asia. We believe that this military presence has helped bring about
an era of peace and prosperity throughout all of Asia and we're interested in preserving
that. We believe that all the countries in Asia are also interested in preserving that
atmosphere of peace and prosperity.
A reduction of 1400 troops is a substantial reduction
O’Hanlon, 8 - senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a senior advisor to the
Center for a New American Security. (Michael, “Unfinished Business U.S. Overseas
Military Presence in the 21st Century,”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/06_military_ohanlon/06_militar
y_ohanlon.pdf) GPR = Global Posture Review
The GPR will reduce total numbers of airmen and airwomen in Europe by 3,000 to
4,000.29 Incirlik in south central Turkey, after having hosted U.S. combat
aircraft and more than 3,000 Americans for years during Operation Northern
Watch, has been downsized to a total of some 1,600 Americans that primarily
support logistics and resupply flights. It is still a busy base given the amount of
U.S. traffic going eastward from Europe, but operates on a substantially smaller
scale than before.30 In Germany, Ramstein Air Base is also a logistics hub, with
an airlift wing as its core permanent unit.31 Spangdahlem Air Base by contrast
hosts F-16 and A-10 combat aircraft.32 In Italy, Aviano Air Base hosts several
dozen F-16 combat aircraft, and was critical in the air war against Serbia in 1999.33
Assuming allies permit, these airfields can be used for other types of planes,
including aircraft of particular importance during crises or conflicts in Europe and
neighboring regions, and for purposed such as intelligence, communications, and
electronic warfare assets.
Substantially means including the main part
WORDS AND PHRASES, 1964, p. 818.
“Substantially” means in substance; in the main; essentially; by including the
material or essential part.
Substantially means in the most important or basic way
MacMillan Dictionary, 10 (Macmillan English Dictionary - a free English dictionary
online with thesaurus and with pronunciation from Macmillan Publishers Limited,
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/substantially)
Substantially
3. in the most important or basic way
SME 2010
97
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions
Substantially means essentially
Encarta,09(EncartaWorldEnglishDictionary,
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861716
589)
sub·stan·tial·ly adverb Definition:
considerably: in
an
extensive,
substantial,
or
ample
way
2. essentially: in essence
Substantially means in substance, not illusory
Merriam-Webster, 8 (“substantial”, 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgibin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=substantially)
Main Entry: sub·stan·tial
1 a: consisting of or relating to substance b: not imaginary or illusory : real, true
c: important, essential
Large or for the most part
Compact Oxford Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/substantially?view=uk)
Substantially • adverb 1 to a great or significant extent. 2 for the most part;
essentially.
Large
MacMillan Online (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/substantially)
1 by a large amount or degree
Considerably
Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861716589)
sub·stan·tial·ly [ səb stánsh'lee ] adverb Definition: 1. considerably: in an
extensive, substantial, or ample way
Great amount
Princeton wordnet(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=substantially, date
accessed 6/24/2010, AJK)
well: to a great extent or degree; "I'm afraid the film was well over budget";
"painting the room white made it seem considerably (or ...in a strong substantial
way; "the house was substantially built"
Supreme Court defines substantially as to a larger degree
Brennan
(Jacquie,
http://english.disabilitylawlowdown.com/shownotes/DLLPod18.php,
“Show
18
Transcript- ADA Amendments Act, date accessed 6/24/2010, AJK)
And then a few years later in 2002 in a case called Toyota v. Williams, the
Supreme Court focused on the word “substantially” from the definition of the
“disability” and gave us a definition of “substantially” that meant
“considerably” or “to a large degree”. At the same time, the court also narrowed
SME 2010
98
T
Chillz Lab
the scope of “major life activity” saying that if you’re going to say that a major life
Substantially Definitions
Means to ‘a large degree
Supreme
Court
2
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1089.ZS.html,
TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY., INC. V. WILLIAMS (00-1089) 534 U.S. 184
(2002) 224 F.3d 840, reversed and remanded, date accessed 6/24/2010, AJK)
The Court’s consideration of what an individual must prove to demonstrate a
substantial limitation in the major life activity of performing manual tasks is guided
by the ADA’s disability definition. “Substantially” in the phrase “substantially
limits” suggests “considerable” or “to a large degree,” and thus clearly precludes
impairments that interfere in only a minor way with performing manual tasks.
Cf. Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 565. Moreover, because
“major” means important, “major life activities” refers to those activities that are of
central importance to daily life. In order for performing manual tasks to fit into this
category, the tasks in question must be central to daily life. To be substantially
limited in the specific major life activity of performing manual tasks, therefore, an
individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the
individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s
daily lives. The impairment’s impact must also be permanent or long-term. See 29
CFR §§1630.2(j)(2)(ii—iii).
Substantially means to a great extent or degree
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
well: to a great extent or degree; "I'm afraid the film was well over budget";
"painting the room white made it seem considerably (or ...
in a strong substantial way; "the house was substantially built"
Substantial requires a material change
USPTO 2004
United
States
Patent
and
Trade
Office,
www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_11_1.htm
substantial - when used in reference to degree or extent means a material matter of clear
and weighty importance.
Substantially has 10 definitions
Dictionary.com 2010
Based
on
Random
House
Dictionary
2010,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Substantially
sub·stan·tial [suhb-stan-shuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of money.
2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.
3. of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique.
4. basic or essential; fundamental: two stories in substantial agreement.
5. wealthy or influential: one of the substantial men of the town.
SME 2010
99
T
Chillz Lab
6. of real worth, value, or effect: substantial reasons.
7. pertaining to the substance, matter, or material of a thing.
8. of or pertaining to the essence of a thing; essential, material, or important.
Substantially Definitions
Substantial refers to quantity, not quality
substantial - of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size,
www.anneofgreengables.com/AnnesWorld/special_occasions/article.php
Substantially – in regard to everything material
Oxford English Dictionary, 1989
Substantially is real, not fake
Merriam Webster 2010
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Substantially
Main Entry: sub·stan·tial
Pronunciation: s&b-'stan-ch&l
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to substance b : not illusory : having merit substantial constitutional
claim> c : having importance or significance : MATERIAL substantial step had not been
taken toward commission of the crime —W. Railroad LaFave and A. W. Scott, Junior>
2 : considerable in quantity : significantly great substantial abuse of the provisions of this
chapter —U.S. Code> —compare DE MINIMIS
SME 2010
100
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially = Specific Numbers (1/2)
Substantially means at minimum 25,000 troops
Depetris 2010 (http://depetris.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/general-odierno-u-s-troopreduction-depends-on-success-of-iraqi-elections/, Daniel R. DePetris: The Political
Docket
General Odierno: U.S. Troop Reduction Depends on Success of Iraqi Elections
, Jan 14, 2010, date accessed: 6/24/2010, AJK)
Understandably, General Odierno would not declassify any information concerning
the specific logistics of the withdrawal. But in an interview with the Associated
Press a few weeks ago, he disclosed something that most Americans can take to
heart; the U.S. Military plans to withdraw 12,500 troops per month after the
Iraqi elections are completed in March. By this estimate, the United States can
expect a substantial troop reduction from Iraq in the first few months of this
year.
Substantial means a reduction of 11,000 troops
Joyner 6 (JAMES JOYNER | FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 2006, U.S. Troop Reduction in Iraq
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us_troop_reduction_in_iraq_,
date
accessed:
6/24/2010, AJK)
Casey, who said more than once last year that he expected to see “fairly
substantial” U.S. troop reductions during spring and summer of 2006, noted
that the force has dropped from about 138,000 in March to 126,900 now.
“Whether that’s ‘fairly substantial’ enough, I’ll leave to your judgment,” he said.
“As I said, I think there will be continued gradual reductions here as the Iraqis take
on a larger and larger role.”
Substantial reduction means 20,000-30,000
Reid
5
(Robert,
AP
writer,
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=20050809&id=nU8qAAAAIBAJ&sj
id=IFMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5683,3242513, “U.S. troop reductions likely next year”, date
accessed: 6/24/2010, AJK)
The broad outlines are emerging of what a top U.S. commander calls a “fairly
substantial” reduction in troop strength in Iraq next year, as the U.S.-led coalition gradually hands over
security responsibility to newly trained Iraqi forces. But the plan- contingent on political progress in Iraq, improvements in Iraqi forces and an
absence of growth in the insurgency- will leave a sizable American military presence in the most dangerous parts of this country. The
drawdown will likely begin slowly in Shute and Kurdish areas of the country that are largely untouched by the Sunni Arab insurgency. Only
when the insurgency declines substantially are sizable numbers of U.S. troops likely to leave Sunni Triangle flashpoints. That means the Bush
administration could find itself facing the November 2006 midterm elections with American forces still fighting and dying in Iraq. U.S.
officials have been speaking publically about the possibility of a troop cutback next year as the Iraqis scramble to finalize their new constitution
and plan for elections in December. That would give Iraq its first fully constitutional government since the 2003 collapse of Saddam Hussein’s
regime. At the same time, the Bush administration is giving a renewed push toward training and upgrading a credible Iraqi force capable of
assuming a greater role in security and bearing the brunt of the fighting. Last month, Gen George Casey, the most senior commander of
coalition forces in Iraq, said that if all goes according to plan, it should be possible to begin a “fairly substantial” troop reduction by the spring
and summer of next year. Casey spoke as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld met with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad to encourage them to meet
next Monday’s deadline for parliamentary approval of the new constitution. It appeared Rumsfeld’s message was intended in part as a warning
to quarrelsome Iraqi leaders that they need to get their house in order to prepare for the day when the Americans are no longer there to back
them up. “The patience of the international community, the patience of the Iraqi people and the patience of the American people will begin to
impact on the ability to sustain operations,” retired Maj. Gen. Bill Nash told National Public Radio on Friday. “Likewise, of course, by next
summer we’ll be getting ready for congressional elections in the United States. So the administration is quite anxious, of course, to get this
problem, if you will, behind them and turn it over to the Iraqis.”
Although Casey did not offer an estimate
SME 2010
101
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially = Specific Numbers (2/2)
(CONTINUES)
of how troops could go home next year, Pentagon officials have mentioned a
figure of 20,000 to 30,000 troops. That would still leave about 100,000 Americans
in Iraq well into next year.
A
substantial
change
in
troop
deployment
is
20,000
Gordon 8 (Troop 'Surge' in Iraq Took Place Amid Doubt and Intense Debate, MICHAEL R. GORDON, August 31, 2008,
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DD103BF932A0575BC0A96E9C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2)
The briefing called for a substantial troop increase, which Mr. Luti later
defined as sending 20,000 additional troops -- about five brigades -- to Baghdad
and other hot spots in Iraq. The National Security Council staff was trying to walk
a fine line under a Bush White House that cast staff members as coordinators, not
advocates. Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, later gave a
copy to Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and asked for his
assessment
SME 2010
102
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 5%
Substantial means 5%
Schroeder 8
(Peter Schroeder, 10/21/08, “Regulation: NABL to Treasury: Clarify Small PAB
Issuances,” The Bond Buyer, Lexis Nexis)
Market participants have complained in the past that the Treasury has not defined
what constitutes a "substantial" change. In response to the complaints, Treasury
proposed two safe harbors, one of which would define a "substantial" deviation as
a change of more than 5% in the amount of bonds issued from the approved
amount.
SME 2010
103
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 10%
Substantially means at least 10%
McKelvie 1999 Justice, 3-3-, United States District Court for the District of Delaware, 90
F. Supp. 2d 461; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21802
Claim 1 of the '092 patent and claim 1 of the '948 patent contain the phrase "a die
of substantially uniform cross-section." KXI contends the term "substantially"
means "at least a 10% change in size." KXI contends that as applied to the claim,
the phrase "substantially uniform cross-section" means "the die should not change
in diameter by more than 10%." Culligan contends the phrase "substantially
uniform cross-section" in the '092 and '948 patents means tthe internal cross-section
ofthediemuvarylesthanabou0.010
SME 2010
104
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 20%
Substantially is 20% less
Cheney 91(“Annual Report to the President and the Congress, January 1991)
http://osdhistory.defense.gov/docs/1991%20DoD%20Annual%20Report.pdf
An important result of the new GPALS policy approach is that out year funding
requirements will be reduced substantially. Total out year funding costs for
GPALS will be approximately 20 percent less than previous Phase I estimates
for FY 1992-97. Research on follow-on technologies will continue to be funded,
but at a more relaxed pace and schedule, to provide a hedge against future
potential threats in the post -Col d War era.
"substantial reduction" means approximately 20 percent
Words and Phrases 2002 (Volume 40A) p. 559
Pa.Cmwlth. 1996. Approximately 20% decrease in school district’s enrollment
during previous ten years constituted “substantial decrease” in enrollment
under Public School Code
Anything below 20 percent doesn't constitute a "substantial reduction"
Jennings 02 (John, Judge @ Arkansas Court of Appeals, Magee v. Dir., 80 Ark. App. 162)
"Good cause is a cause that would reasonably impel an average, able-bodied,
qualified worker to give up his or her employment." Garrett v. Director, 58 Ark.
App. 7, 944 S.W.2d 865 (1997). HN2 We will affirm the Board's decision on a
question of fact if it is supported by substantial evidence. Rankin v. Director, 78
Ark. App. 174, 79 S.W.3d 885 (2002). Substantial evidence is such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Walls v.
Director, 74 Ark. App. 424, 49 S.W.3d 670 (2001). In the case at bar the Board of
Review stated: HN3 The general rule is that a substantial pay reduction gives an
employee good cause for quitting. Yet, there is no set percentage or bright-line rule
that makes a reduction in pay "substantial." The weight of authority, however,
appears to be that a reduction of over [**3] twenty percent is so substantial as
to compel an employee to quit a job and have good cause to do so, but a
reduction of less than twenty percent is not. In this case, restoring the
claimant's salary to its previous level amounted to a reduction of approximately
eleven-percent. The Board finds that this reduction is not substantial and does
not constitute good cause for quitting the employment.
20 percent reductions are considered "substantial"\
Carrasco 94 (Enrique, Associate Professor, University of Iowa, College of Law, Summer, 30
Stan. J Int'l L. 221)
n221. See Ribe et al., supra note 144, at 7. In Chile, for example, the distributive
impact of stabilization measures was decidedly regressive. Predictably, the post1982 economic measures in Chile resulted in a substantial reduction (20% per
capita) of public social expenditures, mainly in health, education and housing.
These types of expenditures, however, benefitted the lowest forty percent of the
income group in Chile. Real wages fell by more than 20% at the outset of the
adjustment phase and remained close to that level for several years thereafter.
SME 2010
105
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 20%
20 percent reductions are "substantial"
Eschbach 86 (Judge, US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Schuneman v. United States, 783 F.2d
694, lexis)
n5 Few would dispute that a 20 percent reduction in income of $6,520 is
substantial to a person who earns at most $32,600 per year.
Reductions over 20 percent are "substantial"
Dannin 95 (Ellen, associate professor at California Western School of Law, 16 Berkeley J.
Emp. & Lab. L. 1, lexis)
n269 Of this package, economist Brian Easton comments: Thus the substantial
reductions in unemployment benefits--some of the cuts were over 20 percent-plus harsher entitlement conditions, were intended to reinforce the changes in
industrial law, by keeping unskilled wage rates lower, and--it was hoped--so
generating extra jobs. Unfortunately the fiscal impact of the package--involving
substantial reductions in social welfare spending--collapsed a fragile economy into
its sharpest post-war contraction, so the harsher welfare measures and the changes
in the industrial relations law, compounded the social pressures of an economic
downturn.
SME 2010
106
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 25%
Substantial reduction is at least 25% (in international cooperative ACAT ID
programs)
Office of the security of defense (D.O.D) April 5, 2002 (“DoD 5000.2-R”
“MANDATORY PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION
PROGRAMS (MDAPS) AND MAJOR AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM
(MAIS)ACQUISITIONPROGRAMS”
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/TTT_052005/DoD50002R.pdf?q=dod-financialmanagement-regulation-volume-2b-chapter-17)
C7.11.3.2. The DoD Components shall not terminate or substantially reduce
participation in international cooperative ACAT ID programs under signed
international agreements without USD(AT&L) approval; or in international
cooperative ACAT IAM programs without ASD(C3I) approval. A DoD
Component may not terminate or substantially reduce U.S. participation in an
international cooperative program until after providing notification to the
USD(AT&L) or ASD(C3I). As a result of that notification, the USD(AT&L) or the
ASD(C3I) may require the DoD Component to continue to provide some or all of
the funding for that program in order to minimize the impact on the international
cooperative program. Substantial reduction is defined as a funding or quantity
decrease of 25 percent or more in the total funding or quantities in the latest
President's Budget for that portion of the international cooperative program
funded by the DoD Component seeking the termination or reduced
participation.
Military context proves substantially is 25% or more
DoD 3 (“Operation of Defense Acquisition System”, www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/DoDI50002signedMay1203.doc)
The DoD Components shall not terminate or substantially reduce participation
in international cooperative ACAT ID programs under signed international
agreements without USD(AT&L) approval; or in international cooperative ACAT
IAM programs without ASD(C3I) approval. A DoD Component may not terminate
or substantially reduce U.S. participation in an international cooperative program
until after providing notification to the USD(AT&L) or the ASD(C3I). As a result
of that notification, the USD(AT&L) or the ASD(C3I) may require the DoD
Component to continue to provide some or all of the funding for that program in
order to minimize the impact on the international cooperative program.
Substantial reduction is defined as a funding or quantity decrease of 25 percent
or more in the total funding or quantities in the latest President's Budget for that
portion of the international cooperative program funded by the DoD Component
seeking the termination or reduced participation.
SME 2010
107
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 25%
Substantial means a 25% reduction in troops
AP
7
(http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jul/23/commander_northern_iraq_proposes_troop_
reduction/?more_like_this , Commander in northern Iraq proposes troop reduction
The Associated Press, July 23, 2007 , date accessed: 6/24/2010, AJK)
That, however, could mark the beginning of a phased move away from the heavy
combat role that U.S. troops have played, at a cost of more than 3,600 U.S. deaths,
for more than four years. That, in turn, could lead to the first substantial U.S.
troop reductions beginning in the spring or summer - a far slower timetable than
many in Congress are demanding. Mixon is not the only U.S. commander
contemplating a repositioning or reduction of U.S. troops in the months ahead. Col.
John Charlton, commander of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, who leads a
task force of 6,000 U.S. soldiers in a section of Anbar province that includes
Ramadi, said in an interview Friday that by January he might be ready to take a 25
percent troop cut if the Iraqi police, numbering about 6,000 now, are made
stronger by then.
SME 2010
108
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 50%
Substantial reduction is at least 50% (in joint ACAT ID programs)
Office of the security of defense (D.O.D) April 5, 2002 (“DoD 5000.2-R” “MANDATORY
PROCEDURES FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS (MDAPS) AND MAJOR
AUTOMATED
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
(MAIS)ACQUISITIONPROGRAMS”
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/TTT_052005/DoD50002R.pdf?q=dod-financial-managementregulation-volume-2b-chapter-17)
C7.10.3.12. The DoD Components shall not terminate or substantially reduce participation in joint
ACAT ID programs without Requirements Authority review and USD(AT&L) approval; or in joint
ACAT IA programs without Requirements Authority review and ASD(C3I) approval. The
USD(AT&L) or ASD(C3I) may require a DoD Component to continue some or all funding, as
necessary, to sustain the joint program in an efficient manner, despite approving their request to
terminate or reduce participation. Substantial reduction is defined as a funding or quantity
decrease of 50 percent or more in the total funding or quantities in the latest President's
Budget for that portion of the joint program funded by the DoD Component seeking the
termination or reduced participation.
Substantially means a 50% reduction
State of Minnesota 2k (9-12, http://www.hsem.state.mn.us/uploadedfile/recovery_handbook/Chapter14/Toolkit/FAQ.pdf)
What is substantial damage (SD)? A building is considered to be substantially damaged when
the total cost of repair equals or exceeds 50% of the pre-damage market value of the structure.
This includes an estimated fair market value for all donated labor and materials and the cost of any
repairs that are deferred to a future date. Land value is excluded from this determination.
Substantially means at least 50%
Justice Selya, 5-25-05, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 408 F.3d 41; 2005 U.S. App.
LEXIS 9539
For instance, the BAA permits the use of foreign goods if it is in the "public interest," 41 U.S.C. §
10d, and Law 109 does not contain such an exception. There are also disparities between the BAA
and Law 109 as the former has been interpreted in federal regulations. One such disparity is that the
preference for domestic construction materials in procurement by federal agencies is 6%, see 48
C.F.R. § 25.204(b), whereas the Preference Board currently sets the preference for purposes of Law
109 at 15%. Furthermore, the BAA requires contracts for construction of public buildings to favor
items manufactured in the United States that are "substantially all" composed from American
raw materials. 41 U.S.C. § 10b. The applicable federal regulation defines "substantially all" as
meaning at least 50%. See 48 C.F.R. § 25.101(a)(2). In contradistinction, Law 109 seems to
require that cement be manufactured 100% from indigenous (Puerto Rican) raw materials, save for
those indigenous materials that are unavailable in commercial quantities. See 3 P.R. Laws Ann. §
927(d).
SME 2010
109
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 50%
A substantial reduction in military personnel is greater than 50%
THOMAS.gov, 92 – Summary of H.R.4421, the Comprehensive Base Closure Reform
and Recovery Act of 1992 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d102:HR04421:@@@L&summ2=m&)
Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992 - Title I: Environmental
Restoration At Military Installations To Be Closed - Requires, with respect to
each military installation which is on the National Priorities List (for substantial
environmental cleanup) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and which is to be closed under Federal
base closure Acts or otherwise by the Department of Defense (DOD): (1) that at
least 75 percent of the environmental remedial action required under Federal law be
completed before the installation is closed or substantial reductions in its operations
have occurred; and (2) that all of the required remedial action be occurred no later
than two years after such installation is closed or substantially reduced. Defines a
"substantial reduction" as the reassignment of more than 50 percent of its personnel.
Substantial reduction is at least 50%
Pallone, 3 – US Congressional Representative (Text of H.R. 3189, introduced by Pallone, to amend Title XVII of the Social Security Act,”
9/25, http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3189.html)
`(7) SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION- The term `substantial reduction'-`(A) means, as determined under regulations of the Secretary and with respect to a
qualified beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of benefits under
the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits, an increase in premiums,
deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the
date of commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the retirement
of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6, 2004), in an amount equal to at
least 50 percent of the total average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan as
of such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to permit comparison
of values over time); and `(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an
amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth sentence of section
602(3).'
SME 2010
110
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 85%
Substantially is at least 85%
Justice Cudahy, 5-30-95, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 55
F.3d 1318; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 13268
An exemption from partial withdrawal liability exists, however, for those
employers for whom "substantially all the employees with respect to whom the
employer has an obligation to contribute under the plan perform work in the
building and construction industry." 29 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(1)(A). The statute does
not define "substantially all," but this court has defined it as 85 percent or
more. Continental Can Co. v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 916 F.2d 1154, 1160 (7th
Cir. 1990). The statute also does not define the time period during which the
"substantially all" restriction applies. We are therefore given no guidance as to
whether this restriction applies during only the last year of the three year testing
period, during all three years, or during the entire eight years involved in the
calculation of the partial withdrawal. Nor, to our knowledge, has any other court of
appealsaddressedthisissue.
SME 2010
111
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 70%
Substantial reduction means 75 percent—environmental studies prove
Natural Resources Conservation Service 04 ("Highly Erodible Land Conservation
Compliance," www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/compliance/helcindex.html)
A Substantial Reduction in Soil Erosion is defined as:
Generally, a 75% reduction of the potential erodibility (PE), not to exceed two (2) times the
soil loss tolerance (T) level for the predominant highly erodible soil map unit in the highly
erodible field.
Substantial reduction means at least 70 percent—crime statistics prove
Petersilia 97 (Joan, professor of criminology, law, and society in the School of Social
Ecology, University of California at Irvine, 22 Crime & Just. 149, lexis)
Gerstein et al. (1994, p. 33) conclude: "Treatment was very cost beneficial: for every dollar
spent on drug and alcohol treatment, the state of California saved $ 7 in reductions in crime
and health care costs. The study found that each day of treatment paid for itself on the day
treatment was received, primarily through an avoidance of crime. The level of criminal activity
declined by two-thirds from before treatment to after treatment. The greater the length of
time spent in treatment, the greater the reduction in crime. Reported criminal activity
declined before and after treatment as follows: mean number of times sold or helped sell
drugs (-75 percent), mean number of times used weapon/physical force (-93 percent),
percent committing any illegal activity (-72 percent), and mean months involved in criminal
activity
(-80
percent)."
Regardless of type of treatment modality, reduction in crime was substantial and
significant (although participants in the social model recovery programs had the biggest
reduction). In the California study, the most effective treatment programs cost about $
12,000 per year, per client (Gerstein et al. 1994). UCLA researchers recently concluded: "It
seems that drug abuse treatment mandated by the criminal justice system [*192] represents
one of the best and most cost-effective approaches to breaking the pernicious cycle of drug
use, criminality, incarceration, and recidivism" (Prendergast, Anglin, and Wellisch 1995).
SME 2010
112
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially Definitions- 90%
Substantial reduction means 90 percent—environmental policy proves
Menell 90 (Peter, Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of
Law, 1990 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 399, lexis)
n43 For example, in the four years following Allied Chemical Corporation's
structural changes, see supra note 22, employee injuries fell seventy-five percent.
See Coffee, supra note 22, at 456. 3M Company has also achieved substantial
reduction in environmental degradation through its internal incentive
programs. See 3 M Announces Plan to Cut Hazardous Releases by 90 Percent,
Emphasize Pollution Prevention, 20 Env't Rep. (BNA) at 441-42 (June 16, 1989);
Ling, supra note 22, at 129.
SME 2010
113
T
Chillz Lab
Substantial=Considerable Quantity
Substantial- considerable in quantity.
Merriam-Webster, 8 (“substantial”, 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgibin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=substantially)
Main Entry: sub·stan·tial
1 a: consisting of or relating to substance b: not imaginary or illusory : real, true
c: important, essential
2: ample to satisfy and nourish : full <a substantial meal>
3 a: possessed of means : well-to-do b: considerable in quantity : significantly
great <earned a substantial wage>
4: firmly constructed : sturdy <a substantial house>
5: being largely but not wholly that which is specified <a substantial lie>
Substantial- Of ample or considerable amount, quantity, or size.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 6 (Dictionary.com Unabridged, “substantial”,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=substantially&r=66)
1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of
money.
2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.
3. of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique.
4. basic or essential; fundamental: two stories in substantial agreement.
5. wealthy or influential: one of the substantial men of the town.
6. of real worth, value, or effect: substantial reasons.
7. pertaining to the substance, matter, or material of a thing.
8. of or pertaining to the essence of a thing; essential, material, or important.
9. being a substance; having independent existence.
10. Philosophy. pertaining to or of the nature of substance rather than an accident
or attribute.
Substantially- to a great or significant extent.
Compact
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
8
(“substantially”,
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/substantially?view=uk)
substantially
adverb 1 to a great or significant extent. 2 for the most part; essentially.
2008,
SME 2010
114
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially=w/o Material Qualification
Substantially is without material qualification
Black’s Law Dictionary 1991 [p. 1024]
Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification.
Substantially is without material qualification
NC Court of Appeals 3 (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/1999/980989-1.htm)
For the New York offense of driving while ability impaired to qualify as
"substantially equivalent" to the North Carolina offense of driving while under the
influence of an impairing substance, the respective statutes need not be identical in
each and every respect. Substantially is defined as "[e]ssentially; without
material qualification[.]" Black's Law Dictionary 1428 (6th ed. 1990).
SME 2010
115
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially- Japan
There
are
about
50,000
US
troops
in
Japan
McCurry 2010 (Justin, May 24, “Japan in U-turn on US marine base in Okinawa
Japan's prime minister blames rising tensions between North and South Korea for
decision”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/24/japan-uturn-us-base-okinawa,
date accessed: 6/27/2010, AJK) Despite the agreement between Tokyo and Washington,
some analysts believe the plan could still fail amid growing opposition on the island,
which hosts about half of the 50,000 US troops in Japan.
There
are
about
50,000
US
troops
in
Japan
Washington Times 2010 (May 25, “EDITORIAL: Obama to Okinawa: Abandon hope
and change
Regional
security
necessitates
U.S.
troops
on
Japanese
island”,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/25/obama-to-okinawa-abandon-hopeand-change/, date accessed: 6/27/2010, AJK) The 65-year-old U.S.-Japanese alliance,
which improbably was forged after bitter conflict in World War II, is durable, useful and
necessary. Both countries have significant mutual security and economic interests in East
Asia, and Okinawa is a prime location for basing a credible deterrent force with the
capacity to respond swiftly to any military threat. The alternatives - such as moving the
force to mainland Japan, which already hosts around half of the U.S. commitment of
about 50,000 troops in Japan; or simply withdrawing altogether - would diminish the
deterrent capacity of the U.S. presence and consequently increase the potential that they
might have to actually fight.
There
are
47,000
US
troops
in
Japan
Alabaster 2010 (Jay, May 16, “17,000 Japanese circle US base in peaceful protest”,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5islkPj_84APsquFWNdqr2kuTwD
QwD9FNU9DG0,
date
accessed:
6/27/2010,
AJK)
Futenma is home to only about 2,000 U.S. Marines but has long been a symbol of the
U.S. presence on Okinawa. The island hosts more than half of the 47,000 U.S. troops
in Japan.
SME 2010
116
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially- Iraq
A substantial troop reduction in Iraq would be 25,000 troops
VandeHei
and
Goldfarb
6
(http://web.lexisnexis.com/scholastic/inline=y&smi=LOGOS&key=12311&componentseq=1&type=logo
Jim and Zachary, August 27, Washington Post, “Democrats Split Over Timetable For
Troops; In Close Races, Most Reject Rapid Pullout”, http://web.lexis
nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=231a651a63eb1c046c24b3c1a9e57c1a&_docnum=2
&wchp=dGLzVzb-zSkVk&_md5=6ad3f95b084810bacbc45b6193cd3057, date accessed:
6/27/2010,
AJK)
Of the 59 Democrats in hotly contested House and Senate races, a majority agree with the
Bush administration that it would be unwise to set a specific schedule for troop
withdrawal, and only a few are calling for substantial troop reductions to begin this
year, according to a Washington Post survey of the campaigns. The large number of
Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to
the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to "cut and
run" amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war. At the same time, the decision by
many Democrats to refrain from advocating a specific plan for withdrawal complicates
their leaders' efforts to convince voters that they offer a clear new direction for the
increasingly unpopular war. "It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans
are for putting it back together," said Chris Murphy, the Democrat challenging Rep.
Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.). Murphy favors bringing home National Guard and reserve
units, or about 25,000 of the 138,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, beginning next
year, and leaving it to Bush's military commanders to determine the rest of the exit
strategy.
There
are
92,000
troops
in
Iraq
Strategy Page 2010 (May 27, “Iraq Fades But Does Not Disappear”,
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20100527.aspx, date accessed:
6/27/2010, AJK) For the first time since 2003, there are more American troops in
Afghanistan than in Iraq (or Kuwait). As of May 24, there were 94,000 U.S. troops in
Afghanistan, and 92,000 in Iraq. In the last two years, American troop strength in
Afghanistan has gone from 30,000 to nearly 100,000 (a number that will be reached by
the end of the year). In that same time, troop strength in Iraq has gone from 150,000 to, in
a few months, 50,000.
SME 2010
117
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially – Kuwait
There are 80,000 troops in Kuwait
ABC 2010 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125373&page=1)
In the desert kingdom of Kuwait, a country that is smaller than New Jersey, there are
already more than 50,000 U.S. troops nearly at the ready, with thousands
more pouring in daily.
Every couple of hours, hundreds of new soldiers arrive in military camps where the heartbeat of a
giant force with no time to waste before war seems to pound out loud. Situated on Iraq's southeast
border, Kuwait would be the main launching pad for a U.S.-led invasion, though for now, it serves
as a rehearsal stage.
"Large parts of western Kuwait can be used to do things like fire practice, test our artillery, conduct
small maneuvers," ABCNEWS military analyst Anthony Cordesman told Good Morning America.
"We can't do that in places like Turkey or in most other places in the Middle East."
The U.S. military is maintaining 10 bases around the tiny emirate, including a command
headquarters, a logistics center and two Air Force bases. More than a quarter of Kuwait has been
cordoned off to make room for American exercises and troop movements.
Kuwait, the target of an Iraqi invasion in 1991, has not mended fences with its neighbor. By the
end of February, 80,000 troops are expected to be in place there.
SME 2010
118
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially – South Korea
30,000 troops in SK
Pessin 2010 (Al, Pentagon, http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/US-Announces-NewMilitary-Exercises-with-South-Korea-94757294.html)
Joint U.S.-South Korean exercises always anger North Korea, but there are nearly 30,000
U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and they exercise with their South Korean
counterparts all the time. Last week, the top U.S. military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said the
troops in South Korea had not been put on any heightened state of alert as a result of the ship
sinking, but that they are in a constant state of readiness.
SME 2010
119
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially – Afghanistan
There are 94,000 troops in afghanistan.
Foreign
Policy
10
(May
25,
Katherine
Tiedmann,
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/25/daily_brief_more_us_troops_in_afghanistan_than_iraq)
For the first time since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, there are more U.S.
troops deployed in Afghanistan than Iraq -- 94,000 compared with 92,000
(BBC, AP, AFP, Tel). The total number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is expected
to reach 98,000 later this year, and has roughly tripled under the Obama
administration.
SME 2010
120
T
Chillz Lab
Substantially – Turkey
5000 total military personnel in Turkey
Sariibrahimoglu
7
(LALE
SARIIBRAHIMOGLU
06.09.2007
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/48156/us-congress-should-weigh-importance-ofincirlik-base.html TBC 6/24/10)
The US also has a very large presence at İncirlik and İskenderun, with around
5,000 men in total, including some engineers and workers. US C-17 cargo
planes have been flying in and out of İncirlik carrying military equipment to Iraq
while using the base as a depot for various goods to be carried to the region.
3000 troops in Turkey
Xinhuanet
3
(3/21,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/200303/21/content_792693.htm)
BEIJING, March 21 (Xinhuanet) -- Although the Turkish parliament Thursday
approved the motion on sending troops to northern Iraq and opening Turkish
airspace to US planes, Ankara and Washington have yet to reach a final
agreement over the issue. However, the US troops in Turkey are using the
Incirlik air base and a depot atAnkara as military bases. Located in the
southern province of Adana and about 56 km from the Mediterranean Sea, the
Incirlik air base is the operational equipment and material reserve center for
US troops in the event of an attack on the north of Iraq. More than 3,000 US
troops, mainly from the US Air Force's 39th expeditionary joint force and support
units for forces patrolling the "security zone" in northern Iraq, are stationed at the
air base which has a main runway of over 3,000 meters and an off-duty runway of
over 2,700 meters. About 500 troops, mainly from the US Air Force's No.7217 base
contingent, are stationed at the Ankara depot, five kilometers from the center of
Ankara, the Turkish capital. Their major task is also to provide aid for troops
patrolling the "security zone" in Iraq. Enditem
SME 2010
121
T
Chillz Lab
Substantial Definitions- TNW
Only a reduction of 16,000 TNWs is a substantial – START proves
Haralambos Athanasopulos, 2000 (Nuclear disarmament in international law,
http://books.google.com/books?id=P0KfUGzIp_IC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=%22T
he+Legal+Impact+of+the+START+I+Treaty+on+the+U.S.Soviet+Nuclear+Disarmament+Process.%22&source=bl&ots=QX89jxHuxZ&sig=Nmpz
YY2hspfUfh5wz4uiDB3ge0I&hl=en&ei=PtonTLzpK4iHnQeT4eG8Bg&sa=X&oi=book
_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Legal
%20Impact%20of%20the%20START%20I%20Treaty%20on%20the%20U.S.Soviet%20Nuclear%20Disarmament%20Process.%22&f=false)
The Legal Impact of the START I Treaty on the U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Disarmament
Process. A legal evaluation of its impact on U.S.-Soviet bilateral nuclear
disarmament clearly shows that the START I Treaty constitutes a significant
development to this end. Indeed, the fact that both parties are obliged to reduce
through elimination and conversion their lethal strategic offensive nuclear
arms by approximately 7,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which at the time of
the signature of the treaty numbered about 23,000 leads to the conclusion that
the START I Treaty requires a substantial reduction in the U.S.-Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenals. Despite these reductions, both parties will still have
deployed nearly 16,000 strategic nuclear warheads, which are more than enough to
destroy not only themselves, but civilization itself many times over in a U.S.-Soviet
nuclear war.
Turkey has 50-90 TNWs
Claudine Lamond and Paul Ingram January 23 2009 (Politics around US tactical
nuclear
weaponsinEuropeanhoststateshttp://www.atlanticcommunity.org/app/webroot/files/article
pdf/CLamondTNWinNATO.pdf)
While exact figures of US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe are classified (NATO
does not publish figures on its nuclear arsenals); it is believed there are
approximately 200-350 US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.2 In Belgium,
Germany and the Netherlands there are said to be 10-20 TNW B-61s based at each
of the following airbases: Kliene Brogel, Buchel and Volkel. In Italy around 50
TNW are thought to be based on the Aviano airbase and 20-40 on the Ghedi Torre
airbase. The United States is believed to hold around 50-90 TNW at the Incirlik
airbase in Turkey.
SME 2010
122
T
Chillz Lab
Substantial Definitions- PMCs
Contractors are a substantial part of the war in Iraq
U.S. Congress October 30, 2009 “Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
Quarterly
ReporttotheUnitedStatesCongress”http://www.sigir.mil/files/quarterlyreports/October200
9/Report_-_October_2009.pdf
Contractors continue to play a substantial role in supporting U.S. military and
diplomatic operations and sustainment, as well as reconstruction programs, in
Iraq. DoD reports that as of August 2009, almost 174,000 contractor personnel
were
working
in
Iraq.
For
a
breakdo
SME 2010
123
T
Chillz Lab
Aff – Substantially Reduce – Big Percentages Bad (1/2)
No precise percentage standard for a substantial reduction – 20% is a good cut-off
Supreme Court of Arkansas 2 (12-18, http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2002b/20021218/e01-293.html.)
Unemployment compensation -- statement by Board of Review as to when
substantial reduction in pay is good cause for quitting employment -- consistent
with previous holding by court of appeals. -- The Board of Review stated that the
general rule was that a substantial pay reduction gives an employee good cause for
quitting; the Board found that there was no set percentage or bright-line rule
that made a reduction in pay "substantial"; however, the weight of authority
appeared to be that a reduction of over twenty percent was so substantial as to
compel an employee to quit a job and have good cause to do so, but a
reduction of less than twenty percent was not; the Board's decision was
consistent with the appellate court's earlier holding that there was no talismanic
percentage figure that separated a substantial reduction in salary from one
that was not.
Substantially is imprecise – 10-20% is sufficient
Army
Logistics
Management
College
98
(12-22,
https://akss.dau.mil/askaprof-
akss/qdetail2.aspx?cgiSubjectAreaID=7&cgiQuestionID=2688)
The FAR states that best value procurements can be awarded based upon adequate price competition if the offeror provides the greatest value to
the Government and price is a substantial factor in source selection. Has the term "substantial factor" been defined? Since price is only one
could a situation where price represents
10% of the overall best value score be "substantial"? 20%? There is no
published guidance on what is "substantial." It can best be defined as
whatever the contracting officer or Program Executive decide substantial is. In
element to be scored (in addition to technical, management, etc.)
FAR 15.304 (c) it states "The evaluation factors and significant subfactors that apply to an acquisition and their relative importance are within
The question asks for a definition that is
highly subjective in nature. One of the acquisition improvements that has come about is that the contracting/program
the broad discretion of agency acquisition officials......" Rationale:
personnel are empowered to make determinations within a broader scope of their authority.
Context is critical – No universal definition of substantial
Ferrera
7
(6-18,
Lucas,
LLP
@
Finkelstein,
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/2007/06/what_is_material_made_of_1.html.)
Newman,
Ferrera,
According to established precedent, terms like "material" or "substantial" don't
lend themselves to a precise, all-encompassing definition. Our favorite quote on
the topic can be found in the case of Park East Land Corporation v. Finkelstein, 299
N.Y. 70 (1949), wherein our state's highest court -- the New York State Court of
Appeals -- noted as follows: 'Substantial' is a word of general reference which
takes on color and precision from its total context. Having little if any meaning
when considered in abstract or in vacuum, it must be defined with reference to
the peculiar legal and factual setting in which it occurs .... In other words, what is
"substantial" will vary from case to case, depending on the underlying facts and
circumstances. However, when the parties to a lease agree that certain conduct will
comprise a "substantial obligation," or that misconduct may be deemed a
"substantial breach," such private agreements have been honored and enforced by
SME 2010
124
T
Chillz Lab
Aff – Substantially Reduce – Big Percentages Bad (2/2)
(CONTINUES)
the courts in the absence of some statutory prohibition or affront to some publicpolicy consideration.
Substantially is context-dependent – Reasonability is critical
Commonwealth
of
Australia
(http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/816379?pageDefinitionItemId=86167)
In various cases ‘substantial’ has been defined as large, weighty, big, real or of
substance, or not insubstantial. It is not straightforward. Its meaning depends on
the context. It is an important concept in trade practices law because it arises in so
many provisions. Many sections of the Act will only be breached where the effect
or likely effect of the conduct will be to ‘substantially lessen competition in a
market’. The term ‘substantial’ is used elsewhere in the Act, for example: deciding
whether a merger would result in a substantial lessening of competition in a
substantial market in determining whether a corporation has misused its market
power, it must first be established that the corporation has a substantial degree of
power in the relevant market in determining whether goods are a product of
Australia, whether they have been substantially transformed. Basically, the term
must be understood in a relative sense—whether the effect in question is important
or weighty in relation to the size of the particular market. In Stirling Harbour
Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority [2000] FCA 38; (2000) ATPR 41-752
Justice French said that to work out whether competition is being substantially
lessened ‘there [must] be a purpose, effect or likely effect of the impugned conduct
on competition which is substantial in the sense of meaningful or relevant to the
competitive process’.
8
SME 2010
125
T
Chillz Lab
Aff – Substantially = Quality, Not Quantity
Substantially relates to quality, not quantity
Design & Artists Copyright Society 3 (http://www.dacs.org.uk/index.php?c=86&m=5&s=5.)
Copyright is infringed when an individual carries out one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights (see FAQ 5 above) without the permission
The test to determine what is
substantial is a qualitative test and not a quantitative one. This means that
there may be an infringement even if a small but distinctive portion of the original
artwork was copied.
of the copyright owner in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the artistic work.
More ev…
Lands
99
(Robert,
12-1,
Finer
Stephens
http://www.theaoi.com/Mambo/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=226&Itemid=26)
Innocent
Solicitors,
If you copy the whole of another person’s work, you will probably infringe their
copyright. You will probably infringe their copyright if you copy a substantial part
of another’s work. What is substantial is determined by the quality of the
portion used, not just the quantity. In other words, if you copy the most
important part of a work, it will be substantial even if it’s only a small
percentage of the whole.
SME 2010
126
T
Chillz Lab
Aff – Subtantially = Vague
Interpreting substantially to be less than completely results in vagueness
Justice Wangelin, 5-10-83, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Southeastern
Division), 563 F. Supp. 679; 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17063
The Flood Control Act of 1965, did not adopt all of the provisions of House Document Number
308. The Act only approved the, "* * * the project and plans substantially as recommended by
the Corps of Engineers". The recommendation of the Corps of Engineers in House Document
Number 308, paragraph 70(b), did not refer to artificially crevassing the front line levees except
indirectly in reference to paragraph 18 of the report requiring local interests to provide modified
flowage easements and save harmless agreements. Congress in using the word, "substantially"
did not approve of all of the recommendations of the Chief Engineer and its use creates a
vagueness and uncertainty as to whether this particular plan received Congressional
approval, especially considering the serious and harmful results which would flow from the
operation of the plan some 18 years after the purported Congressional authorization.
SME 2010
127
T
Chillz Lab
A2: Mat Qualification
Doesn’t mean all
Justice Berdon, 8-24-99, Supreme Court of Connecticut, 250 Conn. 334; 736 A.2d 824; 1999 Conn.
LEXIS 303
In addition, the plain meaning of "substantially" does not support the defendant's arguments.
Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990) defines "substantially" as "essentially; without material
qualification; in the main . . . in a substantial manner." Likewise, "substantial" is defined as, "of
real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substance; actually
existing; real; not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. . . . Synonymous with
material." (Citations omitted.) Id. Thus, the requirement of a "substantial" association creates a
threshold far below the exclusive or complete association argued by the defendant.
SME 2010
128
T
Chillz Lab
**Reduce**
SME 2010
129
T
Chillz Lab
1NC-Reduce=/=Eliminate
A. Interpretation—Reduce means to make something smaller in size—it is distinct
from eliminate
Words and Phrases 2(Volume 36B, p. 80)
The word “reduce” is its ordinary signification does not mean to cancel, destroy,
or bring to naught, but to diminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state. Green
v. Sklar, 74 N.E. 595, 188 Mass. 363
B. Violation—The aff eliminates presence rather than reducing it.
C. Standards:
1. Grammatical Predictability—it is impossible to predict an elimination of
troops, destroying the negatives ability to generate ground.
2. Education— It is not real world to remove all presence from nations,
eliminating military presence ignores the in-depth real-world debate about
the strategy behind military withdrawals.
D. Voter for fairness and education—evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
SME 2010
130
T
Chillz Lab
1NC-Reduce=/=Consolidate
A. Interpretation—Reduce means to decrease or diminish
EnglishTest.net
(http://www.english-test.net/toeic/vocabulary/words/086/toeicdefinitions.php, date accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
Definition of reduce (verb) forms: reduced; reduced; reducing to lessen; to
diminish; to decrease
B. Violation—The affirmative consolidates troops.
C. Standards:
1. Predictability—Consolidation is unpredictable because it is impossible to
predict where the negative would consolidate, allowing the aff to generate
non-reciprocal offense.
2. Ground—The aff is able to claim advantages from the relocation of the
troops, while stealing neg ground based on perception and where the troops
would be relocated.
3. Extra-Topical—The resolution doesn’t give the aff ground to decide where
the troops go when removed—relocating is extra topical. Extra topicality is
an independent voting issue because it allows the aff to gain advantages of
actions outside the resolution while destroying predictable link ground for
the neg.
D. Voter for fairness and education—evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
SME 2010
131
T
Chillz Lab
1NC– Reduce Excludes Eliminate
A. Interpretation - Reduce excludes eliminate
Words and Phrases, 2 (vol 36B, p. 80)
Mass. 1905. Rev.Laws, c.203, § 9, provides that, if two or more cases are tried
together in the superior court, the presiding judge may “reduce” the witness fees
and other costs, but “not less than the ordinary witness fees, and other costs
recoverable in one of the cases” which are so tried together shall be allowed. Held
that, in reducing the costs, the amount in all the cases together is to be considered
and reduced, providing that there must be left in the aggregate an amount not less
than the largest sum recoverable in any of the cases. The word “reduce,” in its
ordinary signification, does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught,
but to diminish, lower, or bring to an inferior state.—Green v. Sklar, 74 N.E.
595, 188 Mass. 363.
B. Violation – the affirmative withdraws completely
C. Voting issue –
1. Limits – they create six more affirmatives and explode the topic literature base;
we have to be accountable for the entire peace movement and answer critical affs
which require distinct strategies
2. Predictability – our evidence signifies the ordinary meaning of reduce; moving
beyond the ordinary meaning of words sets a precedent to interpret the all other
words unpredictably
SME 2010
132
T
Chillz Lab
1NC– Reduce Requires Permanence
A. Reduce means permanent reduction – it’s distinct from “suspend”
Reynolds, 59 – Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt,
as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents [NO NUMBER IN
ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9
A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959)
Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84,
prescribes a reduction only if the pensioner should again take a public job. The
disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type of employment. The reason for
the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension benefits are
available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment,
while in the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having
earned his reward with almost no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to
the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree the benefits of the System to
which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a living and
had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under
section 83 were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other
employment the whole purpose of the provision would be defeated, i.e., the System
might just as well have continued payments during the other employment since it
must later pay it anyway. [***13] The section says "reduced", does not say that
monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself
shall be reduced. The plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish , lower
or degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency.
B. Violation – the aff only suspends a military operation, it doesn’t reduce it
C. Voting issue –
1. Limits – allowing suspension effectively doubles the size of the topic – all
currently run affs can be suspended or reduced
2. Negative ground – allowing suspension destroys our disad links, it allows them to
say that the possibility of resuming presence deters or signals that the US is still
committed
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
1NC– Reduce Excludes Preventing Future Increases
A. Reduce means to diminish in size – this excludes refusing to accept future
increases
Guy, 91 - Circuit Judge (TIM BOETTGER, BECKY BOETTGER, Director, Michigan
Department of Social Services (89-1831), Defendants-Appellants Nos. 89-1831, 89-1832
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 923 F.2d 1183;
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 671)
The district court concluded that the plain meaning of the statutory language does
not apply to the termination of employment one obtains on his own. A termination,
the court held, is not a refusal to accept employment. In this case, the plain
meaning of the various words suggests that "refuse to accept" is not the
equivalent of "terminate" and "reduce." As a matter of logic [**18] and common
understanding, one cannot terminate or reduce something that one has not
accepted. Acceptance is [*1189] a pre-condition to termination or reduction.
Thus, a refusal to accept is a precursor to, not the equivalent of, a termination
or a reduction. This distinction is also reflected in the dictionary definitions of
the words. "Accept" is defined in anticipatory terms that suggest a precondition ("to
undertake the responsibility of"), whereas "terminate" and "reduce" are defined in
conclusory terms ("to bring to end, . . . to discontinue"; "to diminish in size,
amount, extent, or number."). See Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (9th ed.
1985).
B. Violation – the affirmative prevents a planned deployment, it doesn’t reduce an
existing deployment
C. Voting issue –
1. Limits – they explode the topic, they force us to prepare for all current military
presence and every possible proposal to increase presence. Any aff that has a card
saying some deployment is “likely” meets their burden for a new aff
2. Negative ground – they destroy our disads, all of our links are to existing
deployments
133
T
SME 2010
134
T
Chillz Lab
1NC - Reduce means to decrease
A. Reduce means decrease – excludes the possibility or result of increasing
Friedman, 99 – Senior Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(CUNA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED
STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 98-5033 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 169 F.3d 737; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1832; 99-1 U.S. Tax
Cas. (CCH) P50,245; 83 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 799 February 9, 1999, Decided, lexis)
In the case of a mutual life insurance company, the deduction for policyholder
dividends for any taxable year shall be reduced by the amount determined under
section 809.
"The amount determined" under § 809, by which the policyholder dividend
deduction is to be "reduced," is the "excess" specified in § 809(c)(1). Like the word
"excess," the word "reduced" is a common, unambiguous, non-technical term that
is given its ordinary meaning. See San Joaquin Fruit & Inv. Co., 297 U.S. at 499.
"Reduce" means "to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number." Webster's
Third International Dictionary 1905. Under CUNA's interpretation of "excess" in §
809(c), however, the result of the "amount determination" under § 809 would be
not to reduce the policyholder dividends deduction, but to increase it. This
would directly contradict the explicit instruction in § 808(c)(2) that the
deduction "be reduced." The word "reduce" cannot be interpreted, as CUNA
would treat it, to mean "increase."
B. Violation – the affirmative doesn’t cause a net reduction, they result in a increase
C. Voting issue –
1. Limits – allowing the aff to effectually increase military presence explodes our
research burdens
2. Negative ground – their affirmative creates a result that destroys all of our disad
links, which stem from the net reduction in presence
SME 2010
135
T
Chillz Lab
2NC XT – Reduce means decrease numerically
Reduce means to diminish to a smaller number
Oxford English Dictionary, 89 (online, at Emory)
reduce, v.
26. a. To bring down, diminish to a smaller number, amount, extent, etc., or
to a single thing.
Reduce means to make smaller
Webster’s, 93 (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, online at Emory)
reduce vb -ED/-ING/-S
b (1) : to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number : make
smaller: LESSEN, SHRINK
Reduce means to lessen
Oxford English Dictionary, 89 (online, at Emory)
reduce, v.
b. To lower, diminish, lessen.
Reduce means to decrease
Encarta
World
Dictionary,
07
(http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=186170
0111)
reduce
Definition:
1. transitive and intransitive verb decrease: to become smaller in size, number,
extent, degree, or intensity, or make something smaller in this way
Reduce means to diminish in size
Merriam
Webster
Online
Dictionary,
08
(http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/reduce)
reduce
transitive verb
1 a: to draw together or cause to converge : consolidate <reduce all the questions to
one> b (1): to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number <reduce taxes>
<reduce the likelihood of war> (2): to decrease the volume and concentrate the
flavor of by boiling <add the wine and reduce the sauce for two minutes> c: to
narrow down : restrict <the Indians were reduced to small reservations> d: to make
shorter : abridge
Reduce means to make smaller
Cambridge
Advanced
Learner’s
Dictionary,
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=66270&dict=CALD)
reduce
verb [I or T]
to make something smaller in size, amount, degree, importance, etc:
08
SME 2010
136
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Reduce excludes eliminate
Reduce includes elimination
US Code, 09 (26 CFR 54.4980F-1, lexis)
(c) Elimination or cessation of benefits. For purposes of this section, the terms
reduce or reduction include eliminate or cease or elimination or cessation.
Reduce can include an elimination
Federal Register, 10 (26 CFR 1.411(d)-3, Current as of 5/19/10, lexis)
(7) Eliminate; elimination; reduce; reduction. The terms eliminate or elimination
when used in connection with a section 411(d)(6)(B) [26 USCS § 411(d)(6)(B)]
protected benefit mean to eliminate or the elimination of an optional form of
benefit or an early retirement benefit and to reduce or a reduction in a retirementtype subsidy. The terms reduce or reduction when used in connection with a
retirement-type subsidy mean to reduce or a reduction in the amount of the subsidy.
For purposes of this section, an elimination includes a reduction and a reduction
includes an elimination.
SME 2010
137
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Reduce excludes suspend
Reduce is a form of suspension
Widener, 01 – Judge for US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CARRINGTON GARDENS
ASSOCIATES, I, A VIRGINIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENRY G. CISNEROS, SECRETARY OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee, 1 Fed. Appx. 239; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 634, 1/17, lexis)
Under the regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 886.123, the payments to Carrington could have
been stopped for good, the contract terms aside. For construction of the contract
terms, we adopt the wording of the opinion of the district court for the next three
paragraphs of this opinion which follow: The plain meaning of the word "withhold"
is "to retain in one's possession that which belongs to or is claimed or sought by
another. . . . To refrain from paying that which is due." Black's Law Dictionary
1602 (6th ed. 1990). Using this common meaning of "withhold," HUD clearly has
the authority to retain housing assistance payments. But, the HAP Contract's
withhold remedy also limits how long [**7] the funds may be retained. The
housing assistance payments may be retained only "until the default under this
Contract has been cured." Tr. Ex. 8, § 26. Once the default is cured, HUD may no
longer keep the retained funds. This remedy, therefore, creates a trust type
relationship where HUD has the authority to keep the withheld funds on the
owner's account only while the owner is in default and thereafter must pay out the
withheld funds when the default is cured.In contrast, the reduce-or-suspend remedy
suggests a more permanent forfeiture of funds. The word "suspend" means "to
interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to post pone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to
discontinue temporarily, but with an expectation or purpose of resumption." Black's
Law Dictionary 1446 (6th ed. 1990). "Reduce" means "to diminish in size, amount,
extent, or number." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1905 (1981).
<3> Based on these definitions, "reduce" is merely a less radical form of
"suspend."Under the common meanings of "reduce" and "suspend," HUD has the
authority to discontinue housing assistance payments entirely or diminish the size
of the payments while Carrington Gardens [**8] is in default. Like the withhold
remedy, this remedy limits how long payments may be discontinued or diminished
-- only "until the default under this Contract has been cured." Tr. Ex. 8, § 26. After
the default has been cured, therefore, HUD must resume full housing assistance
payments. Unlike the withhold remedy, however, under the plain language of the
reduce-or-suspend remedy, HUD is under no obligation to pay out any
discontinued or diminished funds. The words "suspend" or "reduce" furnish no
inference or suggestion that HUD is obligated to retain suspended or reduced funds
on the owner's account until a default is cured. This language in the HAP Contract
speaks [*243] only to HUD's obligation to begin full payments after the default is
cured. JA 546-548.
SME 2010
138
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Reduce is restore
Defining reduce as restore is archaic and obsolete
Webster’s, 93 (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, online at Emory)
reduce vb -ED/-ING/-S2 archaic a : to lead back : cause to returnb : to
restore to righteousness: 3 a obs : REDIRECT b obs : to bring backc : to
bring to a specified state or condition by guidance or leadership
4 archaic a : to cause to recur b : to restore to a former condition
SME 2010
139
T
Chillz Lab
2NC Reduce=/=Consolidate-Predictability
75 bases in Iraq—could consolidate to any of them, it’s unpredictable
Gerson 7 (Joseph, Director of Programs and Director of the Peace and Economic Security Program for
the AFSC in New England, http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/winter07/josephgerson.html)
Post-invasion, the U.S. military established 110 bases in Iraq. By spring 2006
the Pentagon had “reduced the size of its footprint” by consolidating them into
approximately 75 bases across the country. As authority is turned over to the
central government in Baghdad or seized by competing Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurdish
mini-states, the Pentagon is working feverishly to further consolidate the U.S.
military presence to 14 “enduring bases” in Northern Iraq (Kurdistan),
Baghdad, Anbar province (home to Sunni Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tikrit), and Shi’adominated southern approaches to Baghdad.
The US occupies over 700 bases in Afghanistan—they could relocate to all of them
Turse
10
(Nick,
editor
and
award
winning
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/10/opinion/main6193925.shtml)
writer,
2/10,
A spokesman for the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) tells
TomDispatch that there are, at present, nearly 400 U.S. and coalition bases in
Afghanistan, including camps, forward operating bases, and combat outposts.
In addition, there are at least 300 Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan
National Police (ANP) bases, most of them built, maintained, or supported by
the U.S. A small number of the coalition sites are mega-bases like Kandahar
Airfield, which boasts one of the busiest runways in the world, and Bagram Air
Base, a former Soviet facility that received a makeover, complete with Burger King
and Popeyes outlets, and now serves more than 20,000 U.S. troops, in addition to
thousands of coalition forces and civilian contractors.
SME 2010
140
T
Chillz Lab
Reduce Definitions
Reduce means to decrease or change
Cleveland industrial Square v. Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals 1992
"Reduce" means "to lessen," or "to change to a different form."
Reduce means to make smaller
State v. Knutsen, 2003 71 P. 3d 1065 - Idaho: Court of Appeals January 29, 2003
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4180324369703559674&q=%22reduce+means%22&hl=
en&as_sdt=2002
To "reduce" means to diminish in size, amount, extent or number, or to make
smaller, lessen or shrink.
Reduce means to diminish
Define.com (http://define.com/reduce, date accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
1.To bring or lead back to any former place or condition.[Obs.] And
to his brother's house reduced his wife.--Chapman.
The sheep must of necessity be scattered, unless the great Shephered of souls oppos
e,orsomeof
his delegates reduce and direct us.Evelyn. 2.To bring to any inferior state, with resp
ect to rank, size, quantity, quality, value, etc.; to diminish; to lower; to degrade;
to impair;
as,
to reduce a sergeant to
the ranks;
to
reduce adrawing;
to reduce expenses; to reduce the intensity of heat. ''An ancient but reduced family.''
--Sir W. Scott.
Reduce
means
to
decrease
or
diminish
EnglishTest.net
(http://www.english-test.net/toeic/vocabulary/words/086/toeicdefinitions.php,
date
accessed:
6/25/2010,
AJK)
Definition of reduce (verb) forms: reduced; reduced; reducing to lessen; to diminish; to
decrease
Reduce means to make something smaller in size
Dictionary.com
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reduce,
date
accessed:
6/25/2010, AJK)
1.to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.: to reduce one's weight
by 10 pounds.
2.to lower in degree, intensity, etc.: to reduce the speed of a car.
Reduce means to diminish in size or to prevent war
Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce, 2010, date
accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
transitive verb 1 a : to draw together or cause to converge : consolidate <reduce all the
questions to one> b (1) : to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number <reduce
taxes> <reduce the likelihood of war> (2) : to decrease the volume and concentrate the
flavor of by boiling <add the wine and reduce the sauce for two minutes> c : to narrow
down : restrict <the Indians were reduced to small reservations> d : to make shorter :
abridge]
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
141
T
SME 2010
142
T
Chillz Lab
Reduce Definitions
The word reduce means to diminish in size. Prefer our definition its contextual to
the military. (extra definition)
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery 2007 Petersons Publishing Company Arco
The word reduce means to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number. To
reduce the chances of war means to lessen the likelihood that there will be war. The
word reduce will sound familiar to you because of its frequent use in math; for
example, reducing both sides of an equation. Related words are reduction and
redundant.
To reduce is to lessen in quantifiable number, separate from modification which
means to lessen in severity. (r-spec)
State v. Knutsen, 71 P. 3d 1065 - Idaho: Court of Appeals 2003
By its plain language, Rule 35 grants a district court the authority within a limited
period of time to reduce or modify a defendant's sentence after relinquishing
jurisdiction. To "reduce" means to diminish in size, amount, extent or number,
or to make smaller, lessen or shrink. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1905 (1993). To "modify" means to make
more temperate and less extreme, or to lessen the severity of something. Id. at
1452. Thus, under the plain meaning of its language, Rule 35 authorizes a district
court to diminish, lessen the severity of, or make more temperate a defendant's
sentence. An order placing a defendant on probation lessens the severity of a
defendant's sentence and thus falls within the district court's authority granted by
Rule 35. Other state jurisdictions have held likewise in interpreting similar rules for
reduction of sentence. See State v. Knapp, 739 P.2d 1229, 1231-32 (Wy.1987)
(similar rule of criminal procedure authorizes reduction of a sentence of
incarceration to probation); People v. Santana, 961 P.2d 498, 499
(Co.Ct.App.1997) (grant of probation is a "reduction" under Colorado Cr. R.
35(b)).
Reduce means to attack the causes of a situation, not just deal with the
consequences.
Graeme Smith MD. , Statistical Analyst Melbourne Graduate School of Education 1995, Urban Animal
Management
Conference
Proceedings,
http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Holding_facilities_UAM95Smith.pdf
“Holding
Facilities”
Our mission is not just to care for Melbourne's lost, sick and abandoned animals. It
is to look after, and reduce the incidence of, lost and abandoned animals (Fradkin,
1994). The key difference is enshrined in the word reduce. It demands that we
strike at the causes of the these situations rather than just address the
consequences. This holistic approach is a water-shed development which must be
understood by any student of today's urban animal management scene. The above
has been the motivation and raison d'etre for the still ongoing expansion program at
the Lost Dogs' Home and Cat Shelter over the past ten years.
SME 2010
143
T
Chillz Lab
Reduce – Can Eliminate
Reducing to zero is grammatical
American Heritage Dictionary 9 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zero+out
zero out 1. To eliminate (a budget or budget item) by cutting off funding. 2. To
reduce to zero.
It’s used in a policy context
Rudd 10 (Kevin Prime minister of Australia 19 February 2010 Transcript of Interview
on Channel Seven's Sunrise Program The Prime Minister was interviewed by Melissa
Doyle on Channel Seven's Sunrise Program)
PM: Well let me be absolutely blunt with you Ray, in terms of dealing with the
challenge of getting rid of commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean, and
particularly in the Australian Whale Sanctuary - we oppose it. What we've said
we've done for the last two years is work diplomatically with the Japanese to try
and get them to agree to an outcome. Specifically, what we're putting to the
Japanese is to take where they are now, which is the slaughter of some
hundreds of whales each year and reduce that to zero. If we don't get that as a
diplomatic agreement, let me tell you, we'll be going to the International Court
of Justice. Secondly, on the timeline question which you asked about, can I say
this to you Ray - if we don't reach a landing point with the Japanese diplomatically,
that action will occur well before the commence of the next whaling season, which
is this November, OK? So, we have put ourselves onto a timeline, we're working
it through with the Japanese, but if they don't come at this agreement to
reduce to zero, we will initiate that action.
SME 2010
144
T
Chillz Lab
Reduce – Can Consolidate
Counter-Interpretation—Reduce means to consolidate
Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce, 2010, date
accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
transitive verb 1 a : to draw together or cause to converge : consolidate <reduce
all the questions to one> b (1) : to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number
<reduce taxes> <reduce the likelihood of war> (2) : to decrease the volume and
concentrate the flavor of by boiling <add the wine and reduce the sauce for two
minutes> c : to narrow down : restrict <the Indians were reduced to small
reservations> d : to make shorter : abridge]
SME 2010
145
T
Chillz Lab
**Its*
SME 2010
146
T
Chillz Lab
1NC- Its ≠ TNW
A. Interpretation - Its implies ownership
Glossary
of
English
Grammar
Terms,
2005
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a
noun and to show possession or ownership. EG. This is your disk and that's mine.
(Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)
B. Violation –
Nuclear weapons in Turkey belong to NATO.
Meier, 4-28-1998 (Oliver, Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security statement
coordinator, "NATO Nuclear Weapons Transfers," http://www.bits.de/public/articles/om280498.htm)
Mr. Chairman, we would like to draw attention to a case of nuclear proliferation that has been moving up the diplomatic and political agenda since
1995. Under NATO nuclear sharing arrangements, 150-200 US nuclear weapons remain deployed in Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, the
Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Under
NATO nuclear sharing arrangements, these countries are involved
in consultations on the possible use of these weapons and training for employment of these weapons of mass destruction. It is
also clear that the other member states of the Alliance - Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, and Spain pursue diplomatic
policies which support the nuclear policies of the three nuclear weapon states in NATO, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The
three candidate members, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, have adopted the same approach. We believe that these arrangements - which
enable some non-nuclear weapon states to be actively involved in the nuclear weapons policies of the Western nuclear powers - are contradicting
the intent and possibly the letter of Articles I and II of the NPT. It is therefore timely and appropriate for these issues to be addressed in the NPT
Review Process. NATO nuclear weapons and the associated arrangements represent a major hurdle to further and substantial
steps toward nuclear disarmament. The continued deployment of these weapons in Europe and the continued practice of nuclear sharing harms the
nonproliferation regime in several respects: First, it runs counter to the NPT’s main purpose of limiting access to nuclear weapons. It actually widens
access to nuclear weapons for training purposes in peacetime and use during wartime. NATO’s system of nuclear sharing enlarges the number of
states who participate in nuclear planning. Currently, all NATO member states who wish to do so can participate in discussions on nuclear planning
and doctrine. With the planned enlargement of the Alliance, the number of states eligible to participate in these arrangements will increase. Further,
in case of war, the United States still plans to transfer control over nuclear weapons to Allied countries. Current NATO policy increases the number
of countries with the capability to wage nuclear war. Six states, which claim non-nuclear status under the NPT have that capability. As the
distinguished delegate from Turkey said yesterday in his prepared statement, "Turkey...apart
Alliance, does not possess nuclear weapons."
from the nuclear umbrella of NATO
C. Topicality is a Voting Issues
1. Predictability – No way predict presence not tied to the agent in the resolution.
This invigorates topic precision and education on US foreign policy.
2. Ground – Political capital and legitimacy disads depend on a possessive
connection to the United States. It explodes the research burden to anything dealing
with the military in that country.
SME 2010
147
T
Chillz Lab
1NC–Its Excludes PMC’s
A. Interpretation – its implies ownership
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005
(http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to
substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows
that it belongs to me.)
Military means belonging to the armed forces
Cambridge
Advanced
Learner’s
Dictionary,
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/military_1)
military adjective relating to or belonging to the armed forces
10
B. Violation – private military contractors aren’t owned by the government, they
are independent
C. Voting issue –
1. Limits – including PMCs doubles our Iraq and Afghanistan research, and it’s a
huge, entirely separate body of research that risks overstretch
2. Negative ground – few of our generic disads to presence apply to PMCs, because
the aff maintains all normal US presence
SME 2010
148
T
Chillz Lab
2NC Its ≠ TNW
NATO’s owns the TNWs.
Claudine Lamond June 2009 (“Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Russian Foreign Policy” “International security report” http://www.atlanticcommunity.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/140809_ISR%20-%20Russian%20TNW%20C%20Lamond.pdf)
The stationing of NATO’s TNWs in western European states has been a continued sore point in relations between
Russia and the five host states of Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. Russia resents the current nuclear sharing arrangement
as it believes such actions are a violation of their obligations to the NPT. Their removal or consolidation would mark an improvement in European‐
Russian relations. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller has signalled that America is willing to enter in negotiations with Russia
about these deployments and such discussion could begin as early as December 2009.16
And, TNWs are US made BUT belong to NATO.
Zvi Bar'el Sunday, February 21, 2010 (Haaretz “Iran is regional superpower even without nukes”
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9441)
Of course, Netanyahu forgot to mention to Papandreou what he already knows - that
there are about 90 American-made tactical
nuclear weapons in Turkey, part of the NATO arsenal, which no one knows what to do with as Turkey has no aircraft dedicated
to this purpose. Saudi Arabia lacks the scientific infrastructure for nuclear capability, and Egypt has for more than 25 years been debating where it
will build its first nuclear reactor. A nuclear Middle East is still a distant dream.
SME 2010
149
T
Chillz Lab
AT: You Exclude Turkey
The U.S. has troops in Turkey and are hated. You get an AFF and good ground.
Claudine Lamond and Paul Ingram January 23 2009 (Politics around US tactical nuclear weapons in European host states
http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/CLamondTNWinNATO.pdf)
There have been public expressions of resentment towards the US military presence in
Turkey ever since the lead up to the US war with Iraq. The United States insisted on the
government allowing American troops to use Turkey as a staging post, despite
overwhelmingly antiwar Turkish public and political opinion. Limited permission was
granted after heavy debates and delay in the Turkish parliament
SME 2010
150
T
Chillz Lab
AT: PMC’s=Agents of the USFG
Private contractors are distinct entities from the federal government
Barbier, 7 – US District Judge (Carl, TIEN VAN COA, ET AL VERSUS GREGORY
WILSON, ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-7464 SECTION: J(1) UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 87653, lexis)
As to federal question jurisdiction, Defendants state that P&J was the prime
contractor for USACE and Gregory Wilson was its employee, with both parties
acting under the control and direction of USACE, thus invoking derivative
immunity from state tort claims. As such, Plaintiffs' claims should have been
brought under the FTCA and are governed exclusively thereunder.
However, in their motion to remand, Plaintiffs argue that as an independent
contractor, P&J is not an employee of the federal government, and
consequently does not enjoy derivative immunity and cannot invoke the FTCA.
Plaintiffs cite United States v. New Mexico in support of the notion that private
contractors, whether prime or subcontractors, are not government employees nor
are they agents of the federal government. 455 U.S. 720, 102 S. Ct. 1373, 71 L. Ed.
2d 580 (1982). According to the Court, "[t]he congruence of professional
interests between the contractors and the Federal Government is not
complete" because "the contractors remained distinct entities pursuing
private ends, and their actions remained [*4] commercial activities carried on
for profit." Id. at 740; see also Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 70 S.
Ct. 755, 94 L. Ed. 1017 (1950).
SME 2010
151
T
Chillz Lab
AT: PMC’s=Military Presence
PMCs are distinct from official US military presence
Scahill, 7 – independent journalist (Jeremy, “Flush with Profits from the Iraq War,
Military Contractors See a World of Business Opportunities”, Alter Net,
http://www.alternet.org/world/59571/)
During the 1991 Gulf War, the ratio of troops to private contractors was about 60 to 1.
Today, it is the contractors who outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq. As of July 2007, there
were more than 630 war contracting companies working in Iraq for the United States.
Composed of some 180,000 individual personnel drawn from more than 100 countries,
the army of contractors surpasses the official U.S. military presence of 160,000 troops.
SME 2010
152
T
Chillz Lab
Its Definitions
Its =
Collins Essential English Dictionary 6 (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/its)
Adjective: of or belonging to it: its left rear wheel, I can see its logical
consequence
American Heritage 2k (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/its)
adj. The possessive form of it. Used as a modifier before a noun: The airline
canceled its early flight to New York.
SME 2010
153
T
Chillz Lab
Its-TNW=NATO Definitions
Nuclear weapons in Turkey belong to NATO
Meier, 4-28-1998 (Oliver, Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security statement
coordinator,"NATONuclearWeaponsTransfers,"
http://www.bits.de/public/articles/om280498.htm)
Mr. Chairman, we would like to draw attention to a case of nuclear proliferation
that has been moving up the diplomatic and political agenda since 1995. Under
NATO nuclear sharing arrangements, 150-200 US nuclear weapons remain deployed in
Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Under
NATO nuclear sharing arrangements, these countries are involved in consultations on the
possible use of these weapons and training for employment of these weapons of mass
destruction. It is also clear that the other member states of the Alliance - Canada, Denmark,
Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, and Spain pursue diplomatic policies which support
the nuclear policies of the three nuclear weapon states in NATO, France, the United Kingdom
and the United States. The three candidate members, Poland, the Czech Republic and
Hungary, have adopted the same approach. We believe that these arrangements which enable some non-nuclear weapon states to be actively involved in the nuclear
weapons policies of the Western nuclear powers - are contradicting the intent and
possibly the letter of Articles I and II of the NPT. It is therefore timely and
appropriate for these issues to be addressed in the NPT Review Process. NATO
nuclear weapons and the associated arrangements represent a major hurdle to further and
substantial steps toward nuclear disarmament. The continued deployment of these
weapons in Europe and the continued practice of nuclear sharing harms the
nonproliferation regime in several respects: First, it runs counter to the NPT’s main
purpose of limiting access to nuclear weapons. It actually widens access to nuclear
weapons for training purposes in peacetime and use during wartime. NATO’s
system of nuclear sharing enlarges the number of states who participate in nuclear
planning. Currently, all NATO member states who wish to do so can participate in
discussions on nuclear planning and doctrine. With the planned enlargement of the Alliance,
the number of states eligible to participate in these arrangements will increase. Further, in
case of war, the United States still plans to transfer control over nuclear weapons to
Allied countries. Current NATO policy increases the number of countries with the
capability to wage nuclear war. Six states, which claim non-nuclear status under the
NPT have that capability. As the distinguished delegate from Turkey said yesterday
in his prepared statement, "Turkey...apart from the nuclear umbrella of NATO
Alliance, does not possess nuclear weapons."
SME 2010
154
T
Chillz Lab
Its-TNW=NATO Definitions
TNWs in Turkey belong to NATO
Richard Weitz April 12 2010 ([Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for
Political-Military Analysis, the Hudson Institute] “THE FUTURE OF NATO NUCLEAR
WEAPONSONTURKISHSOIL”
http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/turkey/2010/100412-TRA.pdf)
As part of the current NATO deliberation, there have been proposals to
increase the number of U.S. nuclear weapons stored in Turkey as part of an
alliance-wide consolidation of NATO’s TNW arsenal. Some proponents of
retaining NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements favor removing them from
those European countries that no longer want them on their soil and relocating them
into those countries that do, which might only include Turkey and perhaps Italy. If
NATO withdrew U.S. TNW from all other European countries, the Turkish
government could find it uncomfortable remaining the only NATO nuclearhosting state, and might request their removal from its territory as well. But
then Turkey might proceed to develop an independent nuclear deterrent in any case
for the reasons described above.
NATO has TNWs in Turkey
Claudine Lamond June 2009 (“Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Russian Foreign Policy”
“Internationalsecurityreport”http://www.atlanticcommunity.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/140809_ISR%20%20Russian%20TNW%20
C%20Lamond.pdf)
The stationing of NATO’s TNWs in western European states has been a
continued sore point in relations between Russia and the five host states of
Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. Russia resents the
current nuclear sharing arrangement as it believes such actions are a violation of
their obligations to the NPT. Their removal or consolidation would mark an
improvement in European‐ Russian relations. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Rose Gottemoeller has signalled that America is willing to enter in negotiations
with Russia about these deployments and such discussion could begin as early as
December 2009.16
The 90 TNWs in Turkey are part of NATOs arsenal
Zvi Bar'el Sunday, February 21, 2010 (Haaretz “Iran is regional superpower even
without nukes” http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9441)
Of course, Netanyahu forgot to mention to Papandreou what he already knows that there are about 90 American-made tactical nuclear weapons in Turkey,
part of the NATO arsenal, which no one knows what to do with as Turkey has no
aircraft dedicated to this purpose. Saudi Arabia lacks the scientific infrastructure for
nuclear capability, and Egypt has for more than 25 years been debating where it
will build its first nuclear reactor. A nuclear Middle East is still a distant dream.
SME 2010
155
T
Chillz Lab
Its- Afghanistan soldiers = NATO Definitions
U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are under control of NATO
Kosta Harlan June 8, 2010 (“10 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan, U.S. occupation
crumbling:DeadliestdayonrecordthisyearforU.S./NATOoccupation”
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2010/6/8/10-nato-troops-killed-afghanistan-usoccupation-crumbling)
Ten NATO occupation soldiers were killed by Afghan resistance forces on
June 7, marking the deadliest day on record for the U.S. occupation of
Afghanistan. Seven of those killed were U.S. soldiers. NATO reported that five
troops were killed in an insurgent attack against a police training center, two
soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing attack and one in a small arms attack.
One day earlier, June 6, five NATO troops were killed in small arms fire attacks, a
roadside bombing and a car crash. It is unclear if the car crash was related to a
resistance attack.
U.S. troops are part of NATO
MSNBC 6/18/2010 (“5 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan: Three Americans among the
casualties”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37780826/ns/world_newssouth_and_central_asia/)
Five NATO troops including three Americans died in fighting Friday in
Afghanistan, raising to 34 the number of U.S. troops killed in the war so far this
month. NATO said Friday that two Americans died in an insurgent attack and
another died in a roadside bomb explosion, but did not provide further details. The
U.S. command confirmed their nationalities but did not specify where they died.
SME 2010
156
T
Chillz Lab
Its=Belonging to the USFG
Its means possession
Encarta,9(EncartaWorldEnglishDictionary,http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictio
nary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861622735)
Its adjective Definition: indicating possession: used to indicate that something
belongs or relates to something
Its means belonging to
Oxford English Dictionary, 89 (2nd edition, online at Emory)
its, poss. pron. A. As adj. poss. pron. Of or belonging to it, or that thing (L. ejus);
also
refl.,
Of
or
belonging
to
itself,
its
own
(L.
suus)
SME 2010
157
T
Chillz Lab
Its= related to
Its means associated with
Compact
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
10
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/its?view=uk)
its possessive determiner 1 belonging to or associated with a thing previously
mentioned or easily identified. 2 belonging to or associated with a child or animal
of unspecified sex.
Its means related to
MacMillan
Dictionary,
10
(http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/its)
Its is the possessive form of it. belonging or relating to a thing, idea, place,
animal, etc. when it has already been mentioned or when it is obvious which
one you are referring to
SME 2010
158
T
Chillz Lab
PMCs are agents of the government
Private contractors are agents of the US government
AUSNESS ‘86 – Professor of Law, University of Kentucky (RICHARD, Fall,
“Surrogate Immunity: The Government Contract Defense and Products Liability.”, 47
Ohio St. L.J. 985, Lexis Law, dheidt)
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling. The Court
reasoned that the immunity that protected officers and agents of the federal
government acting within the scope of their authority should be extended to
private contractors who also acted on the government's behalf. n71 According to
the Court: ". . . [I]t is clear that if this authority to carry out the project was validly
conferred, that is, if what was done was within the constitutional power of
Congress, there is no liability on the part of the contractor for executing its will." n72
The court also observed that the landowner could have sought compensation from
the government for his injury in the court of claims. n73 Apparently, it thought that
the plaintiff had attempted to circumvent the accepted statutory procedure by suing
the contractor instead of the government. n74 Over the years, courts have advanced
various theories to explain the government contract doctrine. For example, the
Court in Yearsley suggested that the contractor partakes of the government's
immunity because it has acted as an agent of the government. In fact, some courts
have limited the government contract defense to situations where there is an actual
agency relationship between the contractor and the government. n75
PMCs operate as agents of the government
Johnson, 85- US Circuit Judge, Eleventh Circuit (Edwin Lees SHAW, as personal
representative of the Estate of Gary Scott Shaw, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
GRUMMAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant No. 84-5803
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 778 F.2d
736; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25443; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P10,901 December 19, 1985,
lexis)
A second and analytically distinct defense is the "government agency defense."
It grows out of the Supreme Court's decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross
Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 60 S. Ct. 413, 84 L. Ed. 554 (1940), in which the
Court absolved from liability a contractor who, at the request of the government,
built dikes in the Missouri River and accidentally washed away part of petitioners'
land. The Yearsley court apparently regarded this contractor as "an agent or
officer of the government," acting on the government's behalf. Id. at 21, 60 S.
Ct. at 414. Since "the action of the agent is 'the act of the government,'" id. at 22, 60
S. Ct. at 415, the contractor could be deemed to share in federal sovereign
immunity. Although such immunity has been waived in many cases, where injuries
to military personnel incident to service result from defective [**9] product design,
the government may not be sued for damages under the Feres doctrine. See Feres v.
United
States,
340
SME 2010
159
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Military= belonging to the armed forces
Military means related to the armed forces
MacMillan
Dictionary,
10
(http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/military)
Military relating to armies or armed forces and the way in which they are
organized
.
Military means characteristic of the armed forces
Compact
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
10
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)
Military adjective relating to or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces.
SME 2010
160
T
Chillz Lab
**Military**
SME 2010
161
T
Chillz Lab
1NC– Military=Only Ground Forces
The adjective “military” excludes the Navy—the aff does not
RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY 2010
(“Military,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/military)
–adjective
1. of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as
distinguished from the navy: from civilian to military life.
Predictable limits—US Code distinguishes between military and naval forces—their
interpretation multiplies the topic
18 USC 2387
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002387----000-.html)
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the
United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force,
Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast
Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is
commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy,
includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.
SME 2010
162
T
Chillz Lab
2NC XT– Military=Only Ground Forces
“Military” means land forces
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 2009
(“Military,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/military)
4. Of or relating to land forces.
The adjective “military” refers to land forces
SPIRITUS TEMPORIS 2005
(History website, “Military,” http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/military/meaning-of-theword.html)
In formal British English, "military" as an adjective refers more particularly to
matters relating to an army (land forces), as opposed to the naval and air force
matters of the other two services.
SME 2010
163
T
Chillz Lab
Military Must Be All
The adjective “military” means the plan must apply to all of the armed forces
generally
SPIRITUS TEMPORIS 2005
(History website, “Military,” http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/military/meaning-of-theword.html)
In American English, "military" as an adjective is more widely used for
regulations pertaining to and between all the armed forces like military
procurement, military transport, military justice, military strength and
military force.
SME 2010
164
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Military is only ground forces
“Military” includes the Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard
RANDOM HISTORY 2007
(History website; all authors have at least a BA, many have advanced degrees,
“Pluralism, Expansionism, and Democracy: A History of the U.S. Military,” Random
History and Word Origins for the Curious Mind, December 14,
http://www.randomhistory.com/1-50/020military.html)
In many ways, the history of the America’s military is a history of America itself, for it is
a projection of America’s political, economic, and institutional issues. U.S. military
history is both vast and complex, but its pluralistic military institutions, dual force of
professional and citizen soldiers, and commitment to civilian control of the military have
been consistent themes. As of 2007, the term “military” encompasses the Army, Navy,
Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps, which are all under the command of the
Department of Defense. The U.S. president is Commander in Chief of each of these
branches and also has authority to assume control of individual state militia or National
Guard units. Today, America still stands as the world’s premier military superpower, but
it has not always been this way.
Context matters—for the purposes of deployment strategy, in theaters with
different forces all aspects of armed power are included as “military”
VEGO 2003
(Milan, Professor of Operations, US Naval War College, Naval Strategy and Operations
in Narrow Seas, pp. 1-2)
In the strict meaning of the term, military strategy does not involve the actual application
of military force, but is principally focused on accomplishing national military and/or theater-strategic
objectives through national or coalition/alliance strategy, determining principal and secondary theaters of war and overall
military posture (offensive or defensive), deciding on the distribution of armed forces to various
theaters, and conflict/war termination. Depending on the medium where sources of military power
are to be applied, military strategy encompasses naval, airspace, and land aspects. Many
theoreticians differentiate naval from airspace strategy, while the term ‘military strategy’ is commonly used when referring to land
warfare.
SME 2010
165
T
Chillz Lab
**Military Presence*
SME 2010
166
T
Chillz Lab
1NC-Presence=/=Weapons
A. Interpretation—Presence refers to physical experience, not technology
Steur 92 (Jonathon, PhD Stanford, transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/liu/ english25/materials/class26notes.html)
"The key to defining virtual reality in terms of human experience rather than
technological hardware is the concept of presence. Presence can be thought of
as the experience of one's physical environment; it refers not to one's surroundings as they
exist in the physical world, but to the perception of those surroundings as mediated by both automatic
and controlled mental processes (Gibson, 1979): Presence is defined as the sense of being in an
environment. Many perceptual factors help to generate this sense, including input from some or all sensory channels,
as well as more mindful attentional, perceptual, and other mental processes that assimilate incoming sensory data with
current concerns and past experiences (Gibson, 1966). Presence is closely related to the phenomenon of distal attribution or
externalization, which refer to the referencing of our perceptions to an external space beyond the limits of the sensory organs
themselves (Loomis, 1992)."
B. Violation—Weapons are not a part of our presence.
C. Standards:
1. Predictable Limits—Allowing weapons to count as presence explodes the
topic by allowing any object to be topical, exponentially expanding the topic,
killing the neg's ability to generate stable offense.
2. Education—Without a predictable definition for what is considered
presence, it’s impossible to generate stable negative ground, destroying clash
and in-depth debate of the topic.
D. Voter for fairness and education—evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
SME 2010
167
T
Chillz Lab
1NC-Presence=/=PMC’s
A. Interpretation— Presence is military and police personnel
MSN/Encarta No date (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737158/presence.html)
A group of official personnel, especially police, military forces, or diplomats,
present or stationed in a place to represent their country and maintain its interest.
maintained a heavy military presence in the capital.
Military personnel requires active duty designation
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Defense
88
(http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/321.1.1.4.46.html.)
Military Personnel. Includes all U.S. military personnel on active duty, U.S.
National Guard or Reserve personnel on active duty, and Military Service
Academy cadets and midshipmen.
B. Violation—The aff reduces contractors.
C. Standards:
1. Predictable Ground—The aff is able to claim offense from reducing
contracted soldiers, allowing them to co-opt offense against generic troop
withdrawal, denying the neg stable ground.
2. Education—The lack of predictable ground skews clash, eliminating
education by skewing depth because we have to debate generic arguments
rather than specific DA’s and CP’s to the aff.
D. Voter for fairness and education—evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
SME 2010
168
T
Chillz Lab
1NC-Presence=Bases
A. Interpretation—Military Presence is defined as a U.S. military bases
Meernik 94
(James, University of North Texas, 1994, Presidential Decision Making and the Political Use of Military Force, International
Studies Quarterly, Vol 38, p. 127)
The level of American involvement in an area in which an opportunity takes place is perhaps the most visible demonstration
of US commitment.
US military involvement as defined includes: (1) an established
American military
presence, defined as a U.S. military base,
(2) the furnishing of military aid to some state or
organization, or (3) a prior use of force. Such investment represents American interest and obligation to allies, enemies, and
neutral
parties
alike.
B. Violation—the aff reduces troops.
C. Standards:
1. Predictable Limits—Inclusion of troops in the topic justifies removal of
different types of troops from different areas from any number and
combination of topic countries, killing predictability and exploding the topic.
Bases are more predictable because there are a limited number of bases that
allow for more predictable research.
2. Education—Bases allow for more in-depth debate because we can debate
the merit of each specific base, while there is less literature on the individual
troop battalions that the aff removes.
D. Voter for fairness and education—evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
1NC-Presence=Material(No Security Guarantees)
A. Interpretation— Presence requires the physical existence of something
Encarta 9(http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737158/presence.html)
pres·ence [ prézz'nss ] (plural pres·ences) noun Definition: 1. existence in
place: the physical existence or detectability of something in a place at a
particular time.
And security guarantees are distinct from presence
Russell 9 (James, Naval Postgraduate School, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=814)
The United States confronts the altered regional security environment with a strategy
that remains rooted in its Cold War experience which featured collective defense arrangements backed by security
guarantees, forward military presence, and strong U.S.?host nation military relations. In order to
mitigate threats to regional security, the United States must first come to grips with the linkages between the intrastate,
interstate, and global environments in the region. With the linkages established, the threats to regional security and stability
as suggested in the Davos Forum?s formulation make perfect sense: geopolitical instability, energy supply disruptions,
weapons proliferation, and international terrorism. To contain these threats, the United States must reconnect its security
strategy to the regional environment, recognizing that it cannot simply apply ?capabilities portfolios? to complex political
and military problems bounded by history and regional circumstances. The analysis presented here suggests that state
behavior in the region is the product of an altered security dilemma, in which internal political pressures are discouraging
regional states from entrusting responsibility for their strategic security to outside powers, and instead are moving them to
redirect their security efforts inward.
B. Violation—The aff removes a security guarantee.
C. Standards:
1. Predictable Limits—Affs such as security guarantees explodes the topic,
allowing any military agreement to be topical,
2. Ground—Security agreements destroy predictable link ground because
the literature is distinct between troops/weapons/bases and security
guarantees.
D. Voter for fairness and education—evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
169
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
1NC– Presence=Physical Presence– excludes “virtual”
Presence
A. Interpretation Presence requires forward deployed forces physically present within the country
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence:
ImplicationsforAcquisitionandUseofForces,”March,http://cna.org/sites/default/files/resea
rch/2793019200.pdf) Italics in original, CONUS = Continental United States
Another difference between presence and crisis response is that decisions on forces for presence are taken at the strategic
Presence is a routine activity; the size
of the baseline force operating forward changes relatively slowly as the
strategic assessment of the situation in the theater evolves. At this level,
routine deployments and changes in U.S forces based forward are made
through U.S. initiatives, scheduled well in advance, ideally in consultation with
allies. Crisis response is conceptually distinct from presence in that it is not a
routine activity; the forces needed are reckoned at the operational and tactical
levels in response to "tactical warning" of the initiatives of adversaries. Changes
are not scheduled in advance and may well be undertaken before consultations with allies can be completed . This
means that presence planning should be concerned only with forces forward—
whether based, deployed, or there on a rotational basis—and that forces in
CONUS, important as they are for the credibility of forces forward, cannot be
considered as executing the presence mission. This distinction provides an
important boundary for force planners because the need for CONUS-based
forces can be safely reckoned exclusively on the basis of the crisis response and
warfighting needs of major regional contingencies. Unless this distinction is made, overseas
level, while those for crisis response are operational and tactical.
presence cannot be a separate activity if the forces needed for it become those forward and in CONUS when the build- up to
an MRC begins. This boundary poses no problems for deciding the needs for all forces except for forces to be used in the
Caribbean and for strategic bombers in general. The proximity of the Caribbean means that forces in the southern United
States proper (and Puerto Rico, Panama, etc.) are "present" without having to be "overseas"; therefore, the relatively small
forces needed for presence and crisis situations there will not be further considered here.
Bombers can be
employed (that is, used without first being deployed) anywhere in the world quickly and
directly from CONUS. Knowledge of this fact by adversaries undoubtedly
serves as a deterrent on a routine basis, thus meeting one of the objectives of
overseas presence. However, bombers can only deter; they cannot contribute
to its other presence goals—e.g., building coalitions, developing
interoperability, and so on. Although the question of whether to include CONUS-based bombers as a
component of overseas presence is one of judgment, on balance, their limited contribution to the goals
of presence dictate they not be considered part of presence.
B. Violation – the aff doesn’t effect forces actually in the topic countries, it just
targets intangibles like “US commitment”
C. Voting issue –
Limits – they explode the topic, they allow debates over the US military umbrella or
arms sales or even how the US approaches military consultation
170
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Negative ground – we lose core disads to troop reductions, like troop shift or
appeasement
1NC– Presence must be linked to military objectives
A. Interpretation Presence is the deployment of military forces explicitly linked to a political end
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
Beyond the direct defense of the United States, U.S. conventional forces fulfill three
strategic functions: overseas presence, immediate crisis response, and sustained,
large-scale combat. The definitions of the three provide the framework for decision
on forces. Basically, forces needed for other tasks—for example, peace-keeping and
peace enforcement—are lesser cases of these three. (The Bush Administration grouped
the latter two together under the label "Crisis Response." The Bottom-Up Review does
not address crisis response except by implication as part of phase 1, before large-scale
combat in a "major regional contingency."
Mr. Aspin tends to put the label
presence on all forward forces whether they are forces for presence (as will be
specified) or whether they are engaged in the tasks of crisis response.) A basic
problem with overseas presence is that the term describes both a military posture
(military means) and a military mission (military means and political objectives). In
the case of presence as a mission, the objective is influence on behalf of a variety of
U.S. political goals. This ambiguity is made worse by the fact that the term has been in
use since at least the 1960s, but it has never been defined in the JCS dictionary of
military terms. As a strategic task of the armed forces, overseas presence is here
defined as the routine operation of forces forward (the means) to influence what
foreign governments,113 both adversary and friend, think and do (the ends)
without combat.114 Overseas presence does not constitute a strategy, though it or a
similar term may in time become the shorthand name for the national strategy. The
national strategy is one of engagement of U.S. power in the key regions to promote
their stability and democratic development. As described in the body of this paper, a
national strategy would integrate the components of U.S. power to achieve stability in
the short term and build cooperative relations in the long term. The latter would
address the dangers inherent in the international system, outlined in table 1, on page
23.
B. Violation– the aff just changes the military mix within a country without
changing the political ends of presence
C. Voting issue –
1. limits – they explode the topic to include anything and everything the US military
does, including military musical groups and public relations exercises
2. negative ground – the topic is about changing US military strategy, we should get
the deterrence disad every debate because the topic requires strategic realignment.
171
T
SME 2010
172
T
Chillz Lab
They make the topic bidirectional – they can decrease troops but maintain the
overall military commitment to a country with a more efficient military
1NC– Presence=Only Troops
A. Interpretation –
Substantially means including the main part
WORDS AND PHRASES, 1964, p. 818.
“Substantially” means in substance; in the main; essentially; by including the
material or essential part.
Presence refers to personnel stationed in a region
The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military, 2 (by Oxford University Press,
Inc. All rights reserved, republished and cited as “US Military Dictionary” at:
http://www.answers.com/topic/presence)
US Military Dictionary:
presence
n.a group of people, especially soldiers or police, stationed in a particular place: maintain
a presence in the region.
SME 2010
173
T
Chillz Lab
1NC- Presence=Troops + Bases
A) Military presence is troops, bases, land, offshore personel.
Substantially – in regard to everything material
Oxford English Dictionary, 1989
Presence is Troops, bases, offshore personell and troop integration.
Asako 2010
Kageyama Hokkaido-based journalist and filmmaker. “Marines Go Home: Anti-Base
Activism in Okinawa, Japan and Korea”Compiled, edited and translated by Philip Seaton,
http://japanfocus.org/-Kageyama-Asako/3335
With the exception of the governor, the entire Okinawan leadership was now in the
hands of anti-base forces, and even the Governor has faced tremendous pressure to
reject the Henoko plan. Following the wave of optimism that accompanied the
victory of the Democratic Party of Japan in the August 2009 elections on a specific
pledge to move bases outside the prefecture, or outside of Japan, serious doubts
have arisen about the base decision. In the face of intense US pressure, the DPJ is
actively exploring alternative base sites including Henoko and other Okinawan
islands as well as on mainland Japan and in Guam. Of course, even if the Hatoyama
administration succeeds in honoring its election pledge to move Futenma out of the
prefecture or out of Japan altogether, this would not be more than a slight dent in
the US military presence in Japan: at present (March 2010) comprising 85
facilities covering 77,000 acres of land, and numbering 36,000 on-shore
personnel and 11,000 personnel afloat.12 Nor would this halt the increased
integration of US and Japanese military forces, a process which is accelerating. The
US military continues to conduct live-fire exercises in Yausubetsu. Indeed, the
majority of SDF facilities are used jointly by the Japanese and US militaries on a
daily basis, as are a number of civilian facilities such as ports and airports.
B) Plan only removes troops and bases, not offshore troops or integrated troops.
C) Vote neg—
1. Limits—there are an infinite number of modifications to agreements or access
rights an aff could make leaving no stable research ground for a cohesive negative
strategy.
2. Education—their interpretation devolves into infinite debates about how to
maintain a presence, avoiding discussion that tests military presence in a given
country which is the heart of the topic.
SME 2010
174
T
Chillz Lab
1NC- Presence=Troops + Agreements
A) Aff must completely reduce troops, bases and agreements
Substantially: without material qualifications
Black’s Law Dictionary 1985
Presence includes troops, bases and agreements
Dancs 2009
Anita, assistant professor of economics at Western New England College and a Foreign
Policy In Focus analyst."The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence" Washington,
DC:
Foreign
Policy
In
Focus,
July
2,
http://www.fpif.org/reports/the_cost_of_the_global_us_military_presence
The U.S. military's global presence is vast and costly. More than one-third of U.S.
troops are currently based abroad or afloat in international waters, and hundreds of
bases and access agreements exist throughout the world. At the beginning of the
21st century, the government pushed to expand this presence through a variety of
mechanisms. Yet the Department of Defense's budget presentations lack enough detail
to make it possible to know the precise cost. The budgets don't break down the
numbers, for example, on maintaining bases at home and overseas.
B) They just remove or relocate troops
C) Vote neg—
1. Limits—There are thousands of minor modifications affs could make to troop
deployment or basing, guaranteeing bi-directionality because they could just claim
the remaining troops would be more efficient/effective and preventing any stable
research for a cohesive negative strategy.
2. Ground—There is no stable Disad or counterplan ground based on merely
removing troops or consolidating bases because any readiness or other troop base
disad could be solved by stronger agreements or security guarantees.
3. Neg interp superior-- There are a finite number of agreements dictating US
military presence in a given country, guaranteeing a fair division of ground and
disads/counterplans that test the desirability of US military presence in a region.
SME 2010
175
T
Chillz Lab
1NC– “Presence” = Non-Combat Activities
A. Interpretation - Presence requires regular, non-combat activities – forces
engaged in combat or one-time noncombat missions aren’t part of U.S. presence
Thomason 2 – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis (James, “Transforming US
Overseas Military Presence:
Evidence
and Options
for
DoD,”
July,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf
WHAT IS OVERSEAS MILITARY PRESENCE?
Our working definition of US overseas military presence is that it consists of all the
US military assets in overseas areas that are engaged in relatively routine, regular,
non-combat activities or functions. By this definition, forces that are located
overseas may or may not be engaging in presence activities. If they are
engaging in combat (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), or are involved in a
one-time non-combat action (such as an unscheduled carrier battle group
deployment from the United States aimed at calming or stabilizing an emerging
crisis situation), then they are not engaging in presence activities. Thus, an asset
that is located (or present) overseas may or may not be “engaged in presence
activities,” may or may not be “doing presence.” We have thus far defined
presence activities chiefly in “negative” terms—what they are not. In more
positive terms, what exactly are presence activities, i.e., what do presence activities
actually entail doing? Overseas military presence activities are generally viewed
as a subset of the overall class of activities that the US government uses in its
efforts to promote important military/security objectives [Dismukes, 1994]. A
variety of recurrent, overseas military activities are normally placed under the
“umbrella” concept of military presence. These include but are not limited to US
military efforts overseas to train foreign militaries; to improve inter-operability
of US and friendly forces; to peacefully and visibly demonstrate US
commitment and/or ability to defend US interests; to gain intelligence and
familiarity with a locale; to conduct peacekeeping activities; and to position
relevant, capable US military assets such that they are likely to be available
sooner rather than later in case an evolving security operation or contingency
should call for them.
B. Violation – the aff ends combat missions, not presence missions.
C. Voting issue 1. Limits – allowing combat missions allows affs to change specific strategies in
Afghanistan or Iraq, like ending cluster bombing without actually reducing forces
themselves, it explodes the literature base
2. Negative ground – presence missions are about deterrence and reassurance –
including combat missions avoids core negative disads
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
1NC– Presence Excludes Active Combat Missions/Crisis
Response
A. Interpretation - Presence requires regular, non-combat activities – forces
engaged in combat or one-time noncombat missions aren’t part of U.S. presence
Thomason, 2 – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis (James, “Transforming US
Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD,” July,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf
WHAT IS OVERSEAS MILITARY PRESENCE?
Our working definition of US overseas military presence is that it consists of all the
US military assets in overseas areas that are engaged in relatively routine, regular,
non-combat activities or functions. By this definition, forces that are located
overseas may or may not be engaging in presence activities. If they are
engaging in combat (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), or are involved in a
one-time non-combat action (such as an unscheduled carrier battle group
deployment from the United States aimed at calming or stabilizing an emerging
crisis situation), then they are not engaging in presence activities. Thus, an asset
that is located (or present) overseas may or may not be “engaged in presence
activities,” may or may not be “doing presence.” We have thus far defined
presence activities chiefly in “negative” terms—what they are not. In more
positive terms, what exactly are presence activities, i.e., what do presence
activities actually entail doing? Overseas military presence activities are
generally viewed as a subset of the overall class of activities that the US
government uses in its efforts to promote important military/security
objectives [Dismukes, 1994]. A variety of recurrent, overseas military activities
are normally placed under the “umbrella” concept of military presence. These
include but are not limited to US military efforts overseas to train foreign
militaries; to improve inter-operability of US and friendly forces; to peacefully
and visibly demonstrate US commitment and/or ability to defend US interests; to
gain intelligence and familiarity with a locale; to conduct peacekeeping activities;
and to position relevant, capable US military assets such that they are likely to
be available sooner rather than later in case an evolving security operation or
contingency should call for them.
B. Violation – the aff ends combat missions, not presence missions.
C. Voting issue 1. limits – allowing combat missions allows affs to change specific strategies in
Afghanistan or Iraq, like ending cluster bombing without actually reducing forces
themselves, it explodes the literature base
2. negative ground – presence missions are about deterrence and reassurance –
including combat missions avoids core negative disads
176
T
SME 2010
177
T
Chillz Lab
1NC– Military Presence =/= Drones
A. Our Interpretation is military presence is bases with combat forces.
Layne in ‘10
(Professor, and Chair in Intelligence and National Security @ Texas A&M)
(Christopher,
May
12,
Personal
Correspondence,
http://abnormalmeans.com/2010/05/definition-of-military-presence/)
My interpretation would be that “military presence” means bases with combat forces (or
bases that normally are maintained by skeleton units but are maintained to receive
combat forces crisis/surge type circumstances). I do not think in the normal meaning of
the term that the US has military bases in N. Korea.
B. Violation – the affirmative only the use of drones in Afghanistan.
C. Reasons to prefer
1. Ground – all core negative disads require removal of large portions of military
forces from the topic countries. The affirmative is destroys terminal uniqueness by
only making piecemeal reductions.
2. Limits – our interpretation provides an adequate limit, while excluding
unpredictable affirmatives such as remove certain weapons systems, or x platoon.
Allowing and infinite number of small affs places an unsustainable research burden
the negative and destroys competitive equity.
3. Education – Their interpretation shifts the debate from a question of whether the
U.S. should have military presence in countries to a debate over strategy in current
conflict. The aff could remove Abrams tanks because just troops are more effective.
D. Topicality is a voting issues for competitive equity and fairness.
SME 2010
178
T
Chillz Lab
1NC–Military Presence =/= CTS
A. Our Interpretation is military presence is bases with combat forces.
Layne in ‘10
(Professor, and Chair in Intelligence and National Security @ Texas A&M)
(Christopher,
May
12,
Personal
Correspondence,
http://abnormalmeans.com/2010/05/definition-of-military-presence/)
My interpretation would be that “military presence” means bases with combat forces (or
bases that normally are maintained by skeleton units but are maintained to receive
combat forces crisis/surge type circumstances). I do not think in the normal meaning of
the term that the US has military bases in N. Korea.
B. Violation – the plan only removes a computer algorithm and cameras.
C. Reasons to prefer
1. Ground – all core negative disads require removal of large portions of military
forces from the topic countries. The affirmative is destroys terminal uniqueness by
only making piecemeal reductions.
2. Limits – our interpretation provides an adequate limit, while excluding
unpredictable affirmatives such as remove certain weapons systems, or x platoon.
Allowing and infinite number of small affs places an unsustainable research burden
the negative and destroys competitive equity.
3. Education – Their interpretation shifts the debate from a question of whether the
U.S. should have military presence in countries to a debate over strategy in current
conflict. The aff could remove Abrams tanks because just troops are more effective.
D. Topicality is a voting issues for competitive equity and fairness.
SME 2010
179
T
Chillz Lab
1NC – Military Presence =/=Animal Soldiers
A. Our Interpretation is military presence is bases with combat forces.
Layne in ‘10
(Professor, and Chair in Intelligence and National Security @ Texas A&M)
(Christopher,
May
12,
Personal
Correspondence,
http://abnormalmeans.com/2010/05/definition-of-military-presence/)
My interpretation would be that “military presence” means bases with combat forces
(or bases that normally are maintained by skeleton units but are maintained to
receive combat forces crisis/surge type circumstances). I do not think in the normal
meaning of the term that the US has military bases in N. Korea.
B. Violation – the affirmative only removes military dogs.
C. Reasons to prefer
1. Ground – all core negative disads require removal of large portions of military
forces from the topic countries. The affirmative is destroys terminal uniqueness by
only making piecemeal reductions.
2. Limits – our interpretation provides an adequate limit, while excluding
unpredictable affirmatives such as remove certain weapons systems, or x platoon.
Allowing and infinite number of small affs places an unsustainable research burden
the negative and destroys competitive equity.
3. Education – Their interpretation shifts the debate from a question of whether the
U.S. should have military presence in countries to a debate over strategy in current
conflict. The aff could remove Abrams tanks because just troops are more effective.
D. Topicality is a voting issues for competitive equity and fairness.
SME 2010
180
T
Chillz Lab
2NC – AT: Counter Interp – Animal Soldiers
Even if they win there interpretation of military presence, they are not substantial.
Substantially means 30%
Business Day in ‘3
“Stock exchange reels as rand rules roost” 12/4/03. Lexis.
After the close on Tuesday, Impala warned that its results for the half-year ending
on December 31 this year are set to be substantially lower than the previous
comparative period. According to the JSE's listings requirements,
"substantially" means a change of more than 30%.
<if not read by the 2AC>
At most there are 2000 dogs serving in the Middle East, compared to 90,000
troops just in Iraq.
The United States War Dogs Association 10
[United States War Dog Association website, “Past, Present, Future”, June 18, 2010, p. http://www.uswardogs.org/]
It has been estimated that these courageous canine heroes saved over 10,000 lives
during the conflict in Vietnam. Today all branches of our Armed Forces are
utilizing Military Patrol Dogs specializing in Drug and Bomb/Explosive
detection. There are approximately 600-700 of these canines in the Middle
East in such places as Kuwait, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. They are
being used to patrol Air Bases, Military Compounds, Ammunition Depots and
Military Check Points. They are guarding and protecting our Military Personnel as
they were trained to do, with Courage, Loyalty and Honor.
Our interpretation is preferable:
A. Ground – The Affirmative’s interpretation destroys the core disads on the topic, all
require a removal of bases and troops. We lose China Expansionism, Hegemony Good,
Allied Prolif, etc, which are the core negative arguments isolated in the topic paper. The
affirmative’s interpretation also destroys global uniqueness to all of our disadvantages by
only requiring piecemeal reductions to the overall forces in the topic countries. This
destroys competitive equity.
B. Limits – The aff’s interpretation allows any removal of military items to be topical.
Under their interpretation Removing x weapon system or y platoon would be topical.
Affirmatives could remove a certain class of tank, ak-47s, hand grenades, or a certain squad
with a Senator’s kid in it. This places an unsustainable burden of research on the negative,
which destroys competitive equity. Only our interpretation places a manageable limit on the
topic, which allows for better debate. Fewer affs is better. You should prefer depth to
breadth because it allows for a more complete understanding of issues and allows for more
specific debates versus debates over generics every round. Our interpretation would allows
affs like withdrawal bases from Iraq, withdrawal 50,000 troops from Afghanistan,
withdrawal the Okinawa base from Japan.
C. Education – Only our interpretation allows for debate over the core question of the
resolution: should the U.S. have military operations in the topic countries. The affirmative
shifts the question of the topic to debates over strategy. Affs could withdrawal Humvees
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
from Iraq, and have and advantage based around safer transportation the U.S. would use
instead.
181
T
SME 2010
182
T
Chillz Lab
2NC Presence=/=Weapons—Limits
Weapons explode the topic—justifies this list in Iraq alone
Iraq War 9(Iraq War info website, Iraq Weapons, http://www.iraq-war.ws/weapons/)
Iraq War Weapons
Coalition Weapons
Ground Weapons
* M16A2 semiautomatic rifle
* M4/M4A1 carbine
* M4/M4A1 Special Operations
modified
* M203 grenade launcher
* M249 squad automatic weapon
(SAW)
* M60E3 machine gun
* M240G medium machine gun
* M40A1 sniper rifle
* M24 sniper rifle
* M82A1M special application
scoped rifle
* M2 .50 caliber machine gun
* M9 pistol
* MP-5N 9mm submachine gun
* AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles
* AN/PVS-7B night vision goggles
* M252 81mm medium extended
range mortar
* M224 60 mm lightweight mortar
* M120 mortar
* Stinger missile
* Shoulder-launched multipurpose
assault weapon (SMAW)
* AT4 antitank weapon
* AN/PVS14 night vision goggles
* MK-19 grenade launcher
* M1A1 Abrams battle tank
* M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle
* M6 Bradley linebacker
* Humvee
* M109A6 Paladin howitzer
* M270 multiple launch rocket
system
* Patriot missile system
* Avenger Humvee
* Light Armored Vehicle
* M88A2 Hercules Recovery
Vehicle
* Challenger II battle tank
* Warrior combat vehicle
* Saxon armored personnel carrier
* Scimitar reconnaissance vehicle
* Striker anti-armor vehicle
* Sabre reconnaissance vehicle
* Land Rover light truck
* SA-80 rifle
* AS 90 Braveheart howitzer
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
183
T
Munitions
* JDAM air-to-surface precision
bomb
* JSOW air-to-surface precision
bomb
* GBU laser-guided bombs
* GBU-28/37 "bunker-buster" bomb
* "Daisy cutter" 15,000-pound bomb
* MK82 500-pound bomb
* MK84 2,000-pound bomb
* Thermobaric weapon
*
Tomahawk/AGM-86
cruise
missiles
* Have Nap missile
* Maverick air-to-surface missile
* HARM anti-radar missile
* AIM-120 air-to-air missile
* Hellfire air-to-surface missile
* TOW anti-armor missile
* Stinger anti-aircraft missile
* Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb
(MOAB)
Warships
* USS Abraham Lincoln
* USS Constellation
* USS Kitty Hawk
* USS Harry S. Truman
* USS Theodore Roosevelt
* Carrier battle group ships
* Guided-missile cruiser
* Guided-missile destroyer
* Attack submarine
* Guided missile
* Amphibious assault ship
* Oiler
* Fast combat support ships
* Amphibious transport/dock ship
* Landing craft, air cushioned
Aircraft
* See Iraq War Aircraft
Weapons Of Mass Destruction
* Chemical and biological defense
* Nuclear, biological, chemical
detection
* Tactical nuclear warheads
SME 2010
184
T
Chillz Lab
2NC Presence=/=Weapons—Limits
Over fifty different types of equipment in Afghanistan alone
Wikileaks
7
(TBC
6/24/10
http://content.wuala.com/contents/WikiLeaks/leaks/Afghanistan_OEF_Property_List/
WATGH7.html)
METAL DETECTOR,
ACORN IED JAMMER, COMPUTER SET,DIGITA
COMPUTER SET,DIGITA Q COM SE AN/UYK-128(V)3 D T D ANCYZ10 V3 DETECTOR MTL H/HELD
EN DEC TACLANE KG 175
LOADER,SCOOP TYPE-(673725)
IRIDIUM SATELLITE TELEPHONE:
950 RADIO PORTABLE HAND HELD: HT750 RADIO
PORTABLE:
512
NAVIGATION SET,SATE VSAT VERTEX : 1.5 METER SPEAKER AND
SIREN FOR PUBLIC WAR EXPLOSIVES, DETECTOR PORTABLE:
INSRTS ENHNCD SM XS
INSRTS ENHNCD SM S
INSRTS
ENHNCD SM MED
INSRTS ENHNCD SM XLG INSRTS ENHNCD
SM LG MG 50 M2 HB FL GD/VEH Y MG 50 M2 HB FL GD/VEH
MT
MAC GUN 40MM MK93 MONO NI VIS AN/PVS-14 36 MG GRENAD MK19
MODIII
MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B
NAVIGATION SET: SAT
NAV SET SAT AN/PSN- 3 NAV SET SAT AN/PSN-13
SPIKE
STRIP,
TIRE DEFLATION DEVI RT-1523E(C)/U
REC TR RT-1523A(C)/U
REC RT-1523B(C)/U RADIO SET AN/VRC-92F
RDO
SET
AN/PSC5RADIO SET AN/VRC-91D
RT-1523D(C)U
Z
RADIO VRC-103
RT-1796 SI THE AN/PAS-13B(V)2 SI THE AN/PAS-13B(V)3 TR 1 1/4T 4X4
M998P1 TR CAR/T C 1 M998A1P1 TR W CR 1 1/4T M966P1 TRK UTIL
HMMWV M1114 TRK UTIL HMMWV M1114
Q
TPE TRK UTIL
HMMWV M1114 CARRIER XM1151P1
TRIPOD GROUND MTD
TBL HT 60PNG 60HZ 93W TELEPHONE SET TA-1/PT TOOL KIT MMTK
Y
LTT 1 TLR CGO 3/4 T M101A2 TLR CGO 3/4 T M101A2
TRAILER WTR M149A2 TRK CGO D/S M923
UTILITY VEHICLE,4WD(JOHN DEER 6 UTILITY VEHICLE,4WD-(JOHN DEER 6
SME 2010
185
T
Chillz Lab
2NC Presence=/=PMC’s
Contractors explode the topic—serve other funcitons
Singer 8 (Peter W. Singer JUNE 05, 2008 Director, 21st Century Defense Initiative
Forbes
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0605_military_contractors_singer.aspx TBC
6/24/10)
The vast bulk of these contractors handle military support functions: building
and operating military bases, maintaining and repairing military equipment
and vehicles, and moving massive convoys of supplies that are both vital to the
operation's survival (like gas and ammunition) and not so vital (like Pizza Hut
Personal Pan Pizza). Getting those jobs done has incurred a great cost, both
financial and human; according to Department of Labor insurance claims, 1,292
contractors have been killed and 9,610 wounded as of April 2008. Contracting
out logistics has brought the skills and resources of hundreds of companies
from around the world to support the war effort. But, much like when a
business outsources too much of its supply chain, this process has caused a loss of
control. While companies only perform the jobs specified in their contract, war is
an environment in which flexibility is needed most.
Contractors explode the topic – innumerable unpredictable functions
Lendman 10 (Stephen Lendman 1-19-10 esearch Associate of the Centre for Research
on Globalization Outsourcing War - Rise Of Private Military Contractors (PMCs)
http://www.rense.com/general89/outs.htm TBC 6/24/10)
By privatizing the military, America pierced the last frontier to let private
mercenaries serve in place of conventional forces. Singer defines three types of
companies: 1. "Military provider firms" Whatever their functions, they're
used tactically as combatants with weapons performing services formerly done
exclusively by conventional or special forces.
2. Military consulting
companies They train and advise, much the way management consulting
firms operate for business. They also provide personal security and bodyguard
services.
3. Military support firms
They perform non-lethal services.
They're "supply-chain management firms....tak(ing) care of the back-end,
(including) logistics and technology assistance...." They also supply intelligence
and analysis, ordnance disposal, weapons maintenance and other non-combat
functions.
SME 2010
186
T
Chillz Lab
2NC Presence=Bases—A2: Underlimits
Bases don’t underlimit—there are hundreds in topic countries
Vine 9(David, Assistant professor of Anthropology@American University, February 25,
“Too Many Overseas Bases”, http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases)
Officially the Pentagon counts 865 base sites, but this notoriously unreliable number
omits all our bases in Iraq (likely over 100) and Afghanistan (80 and counting ),
among many other well-known and secretive bases. More than half a century after World War II and the Korean War, we
still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Others are
scattered around the globe in places like Aruba and Australia, Bulgaria and Bahrain, Colombia and Greece,
Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, and of course, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — just to name a
few. Among the installations considered critical to our national security are a ski center in the Bavarian Alps, resorts in Seoul
and Tokyo, and 234 golf courses the Pentagon runs worldwide.
SME 2010
187
T
Chillz Lab
2NC Drones– AT: We Meet
This is stupid – they are correct drones are stored in bases in Afghanistan. However,
they only remove the drones and not the bases they are store in. A topical version of
the affirmative would remove the bases they are store in and the drones.
SME 2010
188
T
Chillz Lab
2NC – AT: Counter Interp – Drones 1/2
Even if they win there interpretation of military presence, they are not substantial.
Substantially means 30%
Business Day in ‘3
“Stock exchange reels as rand rules roost” 12/4/03. Lexis.
After the close on Tuesday, Impala warned that its results for the half-year ending
on December 31 this year are set to be substantially lower than the previous
comparative period. According to the JSE's listings requirements,
"substantially" means a change of more than 30%.
They do not require a substantial reduction.
There interpretation is flawed –
A. Defines the wrong word - Their Thomas evidence defines what military presence
activities are, not what the United States Military presence is, only our Layne
evidence defines the term of art in the resolution.
B. No intent to define - Their BML evidence is not defining military presence, you
should prefer evidence that defines the term of art over evidence with the two words
used in conjunction.
C. Does not say drones – Their BML evidence describes the Unmanned bombs, like
the Tomahawk, not Human operated aircraft that are used to deliver weapons.
There interpretation is not exclusive of ours – we could combine the two so that a
topical aff must remove bases and combat troops that do the activities they outline.
There is a topical version of their aff, that’s above.
Our interpretation is preferable:
A. Ground – The Affirmative’s interpretation destroys the core disads on the topic,
all require a removal of bases and troops. We lose China Expansionism, Hegemony
Good, Allied Prolif, etc, which are the core negative arguments isolated in the topic
paper. The affirmative’s interpretation also destroys global uniqueness to all of our
disadvantages by only requiring piecemeal reductions to the overall forces in the
topic countries. This destroys competitive equity.
B. Limits – The aff’s interpretation allows any removal of military items to be
topical. Under their interpretation Removing x weapon system or y platoon would
be topical. Affirmatives could remove a certain class of tank, ak-47s, hand grenades,
or a certain squad with a Senator’s kid in it. This places an unsustainable burden of
research on the negative, which destroys competitive equity. Only our interpretation
places a manageable limit on the topic, which allows for better debate. Fewer affs is
better. You should prefer depth to breadth because it allows for a more complete
understanding of issues and allows for more specific debates versus debates over
generics every round. Our interpretation would allows affs like withdrawal bases
SME 2010
189
T
Chillz Lab
from Iraq, withdrawal 50,000 troops from Afghanistan, withdrawal the Okinawa
base from Japan.
2NC – AT: Counter Interp – Drones 2/2
C. Education – Only our interpretation allows for debate over the core question of
the resolution: should the U.S. have military operations in the topic countries. The
affirmative shifts the question of the topic to debates over strategy. Affs could
withdrawal Humvees from Iraq, and have and advantage based around safer
transportation the U.S. would use instead.
D. Aff flex is inevitable - All of the affirmatives have a multitude of advantages to
provide flexibility. Loss of disad ground makes it impossible to go neg, which
outweighs
aff
flex.
SME 2010
190
T
Chillz Lab
2NC– AT: Counter Interp – CTS
Even if they win there interpretation of military presence, they are not substantial.
Substantially means 30%
Business Day in ‘3
“Stock exchange reels as rand rules roost” 12/4/03. Lexis.
After the close on Tuesday, Impala warned that its results for the half-year ending
on December 31 this year are set to be substantially lower than the previous
comparative period. According to the JSE's listings requirements,
"substantially" means a change of more than 30%.
They do not require a substantial reduction.
Our interpretation is preferable:
A. Ground – The Affirmative’s interpretation destroys the core disads on the topic,
all require a removal of bases and troops. We lose China Expansionism, Hegemony
Good, Allied Prolif, etc, which are the core negative arguments isolated in the topic
paper. The affirmative’s interpretation also destroys global uniqueness to all of our
disadvantages by only requiring piecemeal reductions to the overall forces in the
topic countries. This destroys competitive equity.
B. Limits – The aff’s interpretation allows any removal of military items to be
topical. Under their interpretation Removing x weapon system or y platoon would
be topical. Affirmatives could remove a certain class of tank, ak-47s, hand grenades,
or a certain squad with a Senator’s kid in it. This places an unsustainable burden of
research on the negative, which destroys competitive equity. Only our interpretation
places a manageable limit on the topic, which allows for better debate. Fewer affs is
better. You should prefer depth to breadth because it allows for a more complete
understanding of issues and allows for more specific debates versus debates over
generics every round. Our interpretation would allows affs like withdrawal bases
from Iraq, withdrawal 50,000 troops from Afghanistan, withdrawal the Okinawa
base from Japan.
C. Education – Only our interpretation allows for debate over the core question of
the resolution: should the U.S. have military operations in the topic countries. The
affirmative shifts the question of the topic to debates over strategy. Affs could
withdrawal Humvees from Iraq, and have and advantage based around safer
transportation the U.S. would use instead.
SME 2010
191
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence Definitions
Military Presence is territories and possessions for the purpose of the military and
projecting power.
Danes 2009 (Anita, “The Cost of the Global U.S. Military Presence, July 3, 2009)
Because the United States retains territories and possessions such as Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, primarily for the purposes of
the military and projecting military power, this report includes territories and
possessions in its definition of global military presence. In other words, any
troops, bases, or other military presence in U.S. territories or possessions is
counted as “overseas.” Fewer than 2% of bases and only a few thousand personnel
are located in these territories and possessions. Yet, as the nature of global
presence shifts, territories will become more important for housing troops
overseas.
Military presence is air force, army, navy and marines
Lt. Col. Greg Laffitte April 24, 2009 (887th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron,
“Aninstrumentofpeace.”
http://assets.mediaspanonline.com/prod/2357222/nbe_04242009A32.pdf
Camp Bucca is the largest theater internment facility in Iraq. The numbers of
detainees are slowly decreasing as they are reintegrated into the Iraqi justice
system. Military personnel deployed to Camp Bucca have an incredible mission
that they perform with pride and professionalism 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. The American military presence here is best defined as a team approach
with Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps personnel quietly and diligently
accomplishing one of the most important strategic missions here in theater. We are
collectively known as part of the Multinational Force-Iraq and play a significant
role in assisting the people of Iraq on their continued journey toward peace and
prosperity.
SME 2010
192
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence=Physical
Presence means visible stationing of forces
PATTERSON‘8USNavyReserveCaptain(Mark,“DEFENDTHEAPPROACHES!”,httpw
ww.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486738&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf,
dheidt)
Throughout history, U.S. maritime strategy has evolved in response to the realities of a changing
world. As world geo-political dynamics change, US national priorities may change and with it the
threats, risks and potential operating environment for the nations’ armed forces. In response, the
Navy (including the Marine Corps) develops new strategies or modifies existing ones to support US
national strategy and priorities. One constant since the end of World War II has been the enduring
principle of forward presence as a mainstay of US maritime strategy. The term presence
encompasses many activities from port visits to stationing ships within sight of
shore to full scale operations.1 For this paper, presence is the visible positioning
or stationing of ships, aircraft and/or personnel for the purpose of influencing,
assuring or engaging other state actors or non-state actors. The scope of this
definition includes the full range of traditional and emerging military
missions, including port visits, training (personnel and forces), Theater Security
Cooperation Programs (TSCP), personnel exchanges, humanitarian assistance and
limited or full scale permissive and non-permissive military operations.
Presence requires visible posturing of forces
Jorgensen, 2 – LCDR, US Navy (Jason, “THE UNITED STATES NAVY’S ABILITY
TO COUNTER THE DIESEL AND NUCLEAR SUBMARINE THREAT WITH
LONG-RANGE ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE AIRCRAFT,”
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISO
PTR=289&CISOBOX=1&REC=1) NMS = National Military Strategy
Overseas Presence. The NMS defines overseas presence as “the visible posture
of US forces and infrastructure strategically positioned forward, in or near key
regions” (CJCS 1997b, 14). Overseas presence is a fundamental concept of US
naval operations. It ensures that the US is able to “show the flag” in order to
maintain regional peace, conduct peacetime military engagement with allies, ensure
US interests are maintained, and assure US military accessibility throughout the
world.
SME 2010
193
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence=Physical
Presence must be visible
Decamp, 92 - MAJOR, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS (William, “MARITIME
PREPOSITIONING FORCES (MPF) IN CENTRAL COMMAND IN THE 1990s:
FORCE MULTIPLIER OR FORCE DIVIDER?,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA249957&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDo
c.pdf
Presence missions are meant to deter aggression, preserve regional balances,
deflect arms races, and prevent power vacuums. They also cement alliances
and signal that our commitments are backed by action.1 The National Security Strategy
specifically called for some measure of continuing presence [in the Middle East) consistent with the desires and needs of our
friends. We will work with our friends to bolster confidence and security through such measures as exercises, prepositioning
of heavy equipment, and an enhanced naval presence.2 CINCCENT was asking for nothing more than the National Security
Strategy had already mandated. The policy marked regional crises as the predominant military threat, and indicated that their
demands, as well as the requirements of forward presence will determine the size and structure of the future forces of the
United States. The ability to project our power will underpin our strategy more than ever. We must be able to deploy
substantial forces and sustain them in parts of the world where prepositioning equipment will not always be feasible, where
adequate bases may not be available (at least before a crisis) and where there is a less developed industrial base and
infrastructure to support our forces once they have arrived. Applying the policy to the ARG/MAGTF mix in the Persian Gulf,
Webster defines presence as "the fact
or condition of being present," and present as "being in view or at hand ."'4 The
the CJCS decreed a continuous presence of an ARG/MAGTF.
Navy decided, in effect, by their choice of ARG/MAGTF/MPS mix, to split the force; therefore, the force that will actually
be present in the Persian Gulf will not be the force the CJCS ordered, but a smaller force less capable. The whole force would
not exist until the arrival of the fly-in echelon (FIE). In spirit at least, this seems contrary to the implicit preference for selfsustaining forces and a power-projection capability in places like those described in the passage, whose description fits the
Middle East. Eliminating the choice of visible presence through the choice of a deployment option that necessitates it, on the
ground, nullifies the benefits of logistic self-sufficiency and immunity from political constraints, typically enjoyed by naval
forces. There is a fine line between deterrence and provocation, and a visible presence on the ground in the Middle East could
cross that line, place the force in danger, and inhibit future U.S. regional access and influence.
Presence requires physically being present
Coe, 97 - Professor, Criminal Law Department, The Judge Advocate General's School,
United States Army (Gregory, 1997 Army Law. 25, “Restating Some Old Rules and
Limiting Some Landmarks: Recent Developments in Pre-Trial and Trial Procedure”,
April, lexis)
Reviewing the Manual for Courts-Martial, the Army court held that the
speakerphone procedure violated the law because of the logical definition of
presence, the policy reasons why physical presence is required to conduct a courtmartial, and the military judge's justification for conducting the arraignment by
speakerphone. n171 The court determined that the Manual for Courts-Martial
nowhere defines "presence" in the applicable provisions. n172 Looking to the plain
meaning of the word in Webster's Dictionary, the Army court held that presence
meant "the fact or condition of being present." n173 According to Webster's,
"present" means "being in one place and not elsewhere, being within reach,
sight, or call or within contemplated limits, being in view or at hand, being
before, beside, with, or in the same place as someone or something." n174
SME 2010
194
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence=Physical
Presence refers to deployed forces, not virtual forces
Politz, 99 – Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (UNITED STATES of
America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador Vargas NAVARRO; Samuel Pasqual
Edmondson, Defendants-Appellants. 169 F.3d 228, http://openjurist.org/169/f3d/228)
FED. R. CRIM. P. 43. The first step in interpreting the Rule is to consider the plain,
ordinary meaning of the language of the Rule. See United States v. Ron Pair
Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989).
The definition of "presence" in Black's Law Dictionary is: Act, fact, or state of
being in a certain place and not elsewhere, or within sight or call, at hand, or in
some place that is being thought of. The existence of a person in a particular place
at a given time particularly with reference to some act done there and then.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1065 (5th ed.1979) (emphasis added). The whole
dictionary definition suggests that the common-sense meaning of "presence" is
physical existence in the same place as whatever act is done there. The Webster's
definition suggests a similar meaning. The Webster's Third New International
Dictionary defines "presence" as: The fact or condition of being present: the state
of being in one place and not elsewhere: the condition of being within sight or call,
at hand, or in a place being thought of: the fact of being in company, attendance or
association: the state of being in front of or in the same place as someone or
something. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1793
(1981). This dictionary defines "present" as: [B]eing in one place and not
elsewhere: being within reach, sight, or call or within contemplated limits: being in
view or at hand: being before, beside, with, or in the same place as someone or
something. Id. Although the dissent emphasizes the phrase "within sight or call,"
the common-sense understanding of the definition is that a person must be in
the same place as others in order to be present. The plain import of the
definitions is that a person must be in existence at a certain place in order to
be "present," which is not satisfied by video conferencing.
Presence must be physical—military interpretation
Metz 10(Steven, Chairman of the Regional Strategy and Planning Department and
Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute, E-Mail
Response, posted online at: http://abnormalmeans.com/2010/06/nuclear-deterrence-isnot-military-presence/)
Normally the military distin-guishes presence from influence. So any long
range strike capability–nuclear or otherwise–would provide influence, but presence
implies some-thing physical and tangible.
Presence requires mareriality
Pennel
9
(Joe,
Retired
United
Methodist
Bishop,
9/28/9,
http://www.umportal.org/article.asp?id=5796) JPG
Howdoyoudefine“presence”? I would define presence as being both physically
and emotionally present to people who are suffering, looking for a spiritual
connection to people who are suffering in one way or another. An e-mail doesn’t
quite do as much as a knock on the door.
SME 2010
195
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence=Physical
Presence requires the ability to acknowledge one’s presence
LectLaw.com
No
Date
(The
‘Lectric
Law
Library,
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p147.htm) JPG
The existence of a person in a particular place. In many contracts and judicial
proceedings it is necessary that the parties should be present in order to
reader them valid; for example, a party to a deed when it is executed by himself, must personally
acknowledge it, when such acknowledgment is required by law, to give it its full force aud effect, and his presence
is indispensable, unless, indeed, another person represent him as his attoruey, having authority from him for that purpose.
Presence requires materiality
Merriam
Webster
Online
webster.com/dictionary/presence) JPG
Dictionarty10
(http://mw2.merriam-
Pronunciation: \ˈ pre-zən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1
:
the
fact
or
condition
of
being
present
2 a : the part of space within one's immediate vicinity b : the neighborhood of one of superior especially royal rank
3
archaic
:
company
2a
4 : one that is present: as a : the actual person or thing that is present b :
concrete
something present of a
visible or
nature
5 a : the bearing, carriage, or air of a person; especially : stately or distinguished bearing b : a noteworthy quality of poise and
effectiveness
<the
actor's
commanding
presence>
6 : something (as a spirit) felt or believed to be present
SME 2010
196
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence– A2: Must Be Physical
Presence does not require physical reality, only perception
Patrick 2 (Andrew, Nat’l Research Council, http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/virtualpresence/presenceideas.html.)
The term "presence" is defined as "the fact or condition of being present" or
"something… felt or believed to be present" (Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, 1981). Thus, "presence" may indicate a true condition when an object
is actually present in the physical world (the first definition). The term
"presence" may also connote a personal perception of the real world,
embodied in a feeling or belief (the second definition). This perception may be
wrong at times when a perception of presence occurs when an object is not present
in the real world. This case we will call the "illusion of presence" (Heeter,
1992), and our interest is in how products can create the illusion of presence and
use it for positive outcomes.
Presence is both material and normative
Morgan 8 (Matthew, The American Military After 9/11: Society, State, and Empire, Florida State U., p. 75)
In Part 1 we were introduced to the increasingly incompatible values systems of
the military and greater society. From the state perspective, the significant issue
affecting the relationship with the armed forces was salience rather than
comparability. Rather than the growing disparity between civilian and military
values, it was the waning presence of the military in the lives of most
Americans that caused it to decline in prominence. Institutional presence is
defined in term of both a material dimension (social contract) and a moral
dimension (normative ordering of priorities for what constitutes a good society).
SME 2010
197
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence=Personnel
Presence includes all military and police personnel
MSN/Encarta No date (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737158/presence.html)
A group of official personnel, especially police, military forces, or diplomats,
present or stationed in a place to represent their country and maintain its interest.
maintained a heavy military presence in the capital.
Military personnel refers to anyone who wears a uniform and can perform serve
under military command
European Defence Agency 7 (www.eda.europa.eu/WebUtils/downloadfile.aspx)
Military Personnel: Authorised strengths of all active military personnel; includes
nonMOD personnel in uniform who can operate under military command and
can be deployed outside national territory.
Military personnel requires active duty designation
Office
of
the
Secretary
of
Defense
88
(http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/321.1.1.4.46.html.)
Military Personnel. Includes all U.S. military personnel on active duty, U.S.
National Guard or Reserve personnel on active duty, and Military Service
Academy cadets and midshipmen.
Military personnel does not include temporary assignments
Alaska Air 98 (http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/company/tariff/domestic/tariff_domestic_section1.asp)
U.S. Military Personnel Unless otherwise indicated, refers only to active duty
military personnel, and means: 1) Military personnel of the United States
military agencies holding a valid active duty armed forces of the United States
green identification card, on active duty status and traveling on authorized
furlough, leave or pass. 2) Military personnel does not include personnel on
temporary duty orders traveling to or from their temporary duty station.
Personnel are publicly employed
Brainy
Quote.com
No
Date
(http://www.brainyquote.com/words/pe/personnel201602.html)
Personnel: The body of persons employed in some public service, as the army,
navy, etc.; distinguished from materiel.
SME 2010
198
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence=Personnel
Personnel must have a military rank
US Code #101, 2004 (http://vlex.com/vid/secdefinitions19217472)
Personnel Generally. The following definitions relating to military personnel
apply in this title: (1) The term "officer" means a commissioned or warrant officer.
(2) The term "commissioned officer" includes a commissioned warrant officer. (3)
The term "warrant officer" means a person who holds a commission or warrant in a
warrant officer grade. (4) The term "general officer" means an officer of the
Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps serving in or having the grade of general,
lieutenant general, major general, or brigadier general. (5) The term "flag
officer" means an officer of the Navy or Coast Guard serving in or having the grade
of admiral, vice admiral, rear admiral, or rear admiral (lower half). (6) The term
"enlisted member" means a person in an enlisted grade. (7) The term "grade" means
a step or degree, in a graduated scale of office or military rank, that is established
and designated as a grade by law or regulation. (8) The term "rank" means the order
of precedence among members of the armed forces. (9) The term "rating" means
the name (such as "boatswain's mate") prescribed for members of an armed force in
an occupational field.
This is interpreted to exclude contractors
Carney 6 (Heather, J.D. GW Law, 74 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 317, Lexis)
See 10 U.S.C. 101 (2000) (definition of military personnel does not include
contractors working alongside military forces)
DOD includes civilian employees as personnel
DOD Dictionary of Military Terms 9 (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/)
Personnel: Those individuals required in either a military or civilian capacity to
accomplish the assigned mission.
SME 2010
199
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence=Bases
Presence means bases
The Random House Dictionary
Presence: The military or economic power of a country as reflected abroad by
the stationing of its troops, sale of its goods, etc.: the American military presence in
Europe.
More ev…
Meernik 94
(James, University of North Texas, 1994, Presidential Decision Making and the Political Use of Military Force, International
Studies Quarterly, Vol 38, p. 127)
The level of American involvement in an area in which an opportunity takes place
is perhaps the most visible demonstration of US commitment. US military
involvement as defined includes: (1) an established American military presence,
defined as a U.S. military base, (2) the furnishing of military aid to some state or
organization, or (3) a prior use of force. Such investment represents American
interest and obligation to allies, enemies, and neutral parties alike.
More ev…
Lutz 9 (Catherine, Anthropology-Brown, The Bases of Empire: The global struggle against U.S. military posts, ed. Catherine Lutz, p. 6)
Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and the most visible centerpieces, of
the U.S. military presence overseas.
Military presence is U.S. Bases, attaches, advisory teams, naval port calls, and
advisory teams
Metz 10(Steven, Chairman of the Regional Strategy and Planning Department and
Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute, E-Mail
Response, posted online at: http://abnormalmeans.com/2010/05/the-best-definition-ofmilitary-andor-police-presence-so-far/)
Unfortunately, the Department of Defense itself does not define military presence. Personally,
I would use bases as the benchmark. The Wikipedia article on this is useful
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases).
There
is
more
detail
at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/index.html. While it’s probably more detail than you want to get into, here
a full report on U.S. bases: www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/obc.pdf It does, though, explain the geostrategic rationale for the
network of bases. In general,
the U.S. has three kinds of overseas military bases: 1) main
operating bases which are large sites with permanently stationed service members and their families;l 2)
forward operating sites, which are smaller but expandable sites that can support rotational forces and prepositioned equipment; and 3) coöperative security locations are are small, rapidly
expandable sites with little or no permanent U.S. presence. In countries without an
American base, the military presence would include the attaché or attaches in the embassy,
a team to manage the security assistance program, advisory teams, teams to
manage facilities which the U.S. has access to but which is not normally
manned at full strength, naval port calls, and a range of short term training
teams. These can range from a couple of guys holding seminars to full scale units. But they ebb and flow constantly.
SME 2010
200
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence= Non-Combat Activities
Presence only applies to military forces before combat
Greer 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
To establish a conceptual framework for this paper, I developed the following
definition of forward presence within the context of national defense: the visible
employment of US military personnel and/or military material as a deterrent
outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the
operational continuum short of involving major US conventional forces in combat.
My simplistic definition could be subject to endless scholarly debate. It includes small
unit combat operations of limited scope and duration and peacetime contingency
operations such as Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia, but it excludes the subsequent
combat operation designated Desert Storm. It includes our military activities in
Alaska and Hawaii. It excludes any diplomatic, economic, social or psychological
activities that do not have a military component. The term “employment” in the
definition could be criticized as denoting action or movement which could exclude what
some may term passive measures such as storage of material or unmanned (i.e.,
automated) sites or systems. However, there is always some activity associated with these
so-called passive measures (e.g., maintenance, data collection, etc), and the term
employment also encompasses emplacement. The more controversial aspect of my
definition lies in the terms “deterrent” and “visible.” Deterrence is “the prevention from
action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the
existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” Once major conventional
forces are engaged in protracted combat operations, it is clear that deterrence, by
definition, has failed. Visibility is inextricably linked to deterrence. Visible to whom? To
those we wish to deter. This is reminiscent of the old philosophical question, “If a tree
falls deep in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” In the
case of forward presence, the answer is “no.” Target audience is the key to the concept of
visibility. A target audience may be the world at large, the senior leadership of a specific
country or movement, the control cell of a terrorist organization or countless other
possibilities. Therefore, forward presence, by definition, also includes covert activities
using military personnel and/or material, as long as the activity is visible to the targeted
audience and deters that group or individual from taking an undesired action. An
invisible presence is both contradictory and serves no useful deterrent purpose, which
goes to the heart of the issue. Deterrence is the ultimate purpose of forward presence.
SME 2010
201
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence= Non-Combat Activities
Presence missions are anything short of actual combat
Blechman et al 97 – President of DFI International, and has held positions in the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Office
of Management and Budget (Barry, Strategic Review, Spring, “Military Presence Abroad
in a New Era: The Role of Airpower,” p. 13)
Occupying a continuum of operations short of actual combat, presence
missions have included the permanent basing of troops overseas, routine
military-to-military contacts, military exercises and training with other
nations, participation in multinational peace and humanitarian operations, the
provision of timely intelligence information and other data to leaders of other
nations, military deployments in response to crises, and, when necessary, the
deployment of forces in anticipation of combat.
Presence excludes the direct application of military force
Widnall and Fogleman 95 - *Secretary of the Air Force and formerly was Associate
Provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology AND **Chief of Staff, US Air Force
(Sheila and Ronald, Joint Forces Quarterly, “Global Presence”, Spring,
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/jfq2007.pdf)
At the foundation of this approach is power projection. Power projection is a
means to influence actors or affect situations or events in America’s national
interest. It has two components: warfighting and presence. Warfighting is the
direct application of military force to compel an adversary. Presence is the
posturing of military capability, including nonbelligerent applications, and/or
the leveraging of information to deter or compel an actor or affect a situation.
A sound national military strategy depends on coherent warfighting and presence
strategies.
Presence is distinct from crisis response – both are highly complex and should be
addressed separately
Dismukes 95 – analyst with the Center for Naval Analyses (Bradford, “The U.S. Military
Presence Abroad”, Strategic Review, Spring, p. 55)
Logically, forward presence has become the most important strategic task of U.S.
conventional forces. With respect to adversaries, if forces abroad are successful in
deterrence, then the requirement to respond to crises (not to mention war) can be
avoided. Presence is the primary mission; crisis response is the necessary, but less
desirable, back up. These conclusions have far-reaching consequences both for the
use of existing U.S. forces and for the acquisition of forces for the future. Because
of their scope and complexity, these necessarily must be addressed separately.
More important yet are their implications for the way Americans think about why
they should bear the risks and costs of keeping forces abroad. For America’s
partners, particularly other G7 members, there are equally important implications
for why and how they share the political and financial costs of U.S. presence.
SME 2010
202
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence= Non-Combat Activities
Presence missions are anything short of actual combat
Presence is distinct from crisis response – US policy experts avoid double counting
forces when they have different roles
Flournoy 1 - senior advisor for international security at the Center for Strategic and
InternationalStudies
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDo
c.pdf) MTWs=Major Theater Wars, SSCs=Smaller Scale Contingencies
Counting Presence Forces
The role of overseas-presence forces in MTWs and SSCs is also considered at this
stage of the process, and the overall force structure adjusted accordingly. For
example, forward-deployed naval, air, and ground forces may be part of the initial
response to a crisis; indeed, this is an express part of their purpose. Therefore, care
must be taken not to double-count such forces in both the presence and MTW or
SSC building blocks. On the other hand, some forward-deployed forces may be so
vital to deterrence and stability in a given region that they would not be withdrawn
from an unengaged theater even in the event of MTW execution. For the purposes
of the working group’s analysis, assumptions about which forces should be treated
as stay-behind forces were derived from judgments about what would be required
to meet U.S. treaty commitments, maintain deterrence and regional stability in a
given theater, and provide the regional CINC with minimum essential levels of
force protection, support to noncombatant evacuation operations, and strike
capability.
Military Presence is all non-combat assets of the military
Thomason et al. 2002 (James S. Thomason, Project Leader,
Michael P. Fischerkeller, Kongdan Oh Hassig, Charles Hawkins, Gene Porter, Robert J.
Atwell, Robert Bovey, William E. Cralley, James Delaney, “Transforming US Overseas
Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD Volume I: Main Report” July 2002,
http://www.bayan.ph/us%20war%20of%20terror/US%20BASES/US%20Mil%20Presence
%20Overseas.pdf)
US overseas military presence consists of all the US military assets in overseas
areas that are engaged in relatively routine non-combat activities or functions.
Collectively, these assets constitute one of a set of very important military instruments of national power and influence. It
is regularly asserted within the Department of Defense that these overseas
military presence activities promote key security objectives, such as
deterrence, assurance of friends and allies, the provision of timely crisis
response capabilities, regional stability and, generally, security conditions that
in turn promote freedom and prosperity.
SME 2010
203
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence= Non-Combat Activities
Presence missions are anything short of actual combat
Military Presence does not include combat forces
Thomason et al. 2002 (James S. Thomason, Project Leader,
Michael P. Fischerkeller, Kongdan Oh Hassig, Charles Hawkins, Gene Porter, Robert J.
Atwell, Robert Bovey, William E. Cralley, James Delaney, “Transforming US Overseas
Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD Volume I: Main Report” July 2002,
http://www.bayan.ph/us%20war%20of%20terror/US%20BASES/US%20Mil%20Presence
%20Overseas.pdf)
Our working definition of US overseas military presence is that it consists of
all the US military assets in overseas areas that are engaged in relatively
routine, regular, non-combat activities or functions.1 By this definition, forces that
are located overseas may or may not be engaging in presence activities. If they
are engaging in combat (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), or are
involved in a one-time non-combat action (such as an unscheduled carrier
battle group deployment from the United States aimed at calming or
stabilizing an emerging crisis situation), then they are not engaging in
presence activities. Thus, an asset that is located (or present) overseas may or may not be “engaged in presence
activities,” may or may not be “doing presence.”
Military Presence is non-combat forces
Thomason et al. 2002 (James S. Thomason, Project Leader,
Michael P. Fischerkeller, Kongdan Oh Hassig, Charles Hawkins, Gene Porter, Robert J.
Atwell, Robert Bovey, William E. Cralley, James Delaney, “Transforming US Overseas
Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD Volume I: Main Report” July 2002,
http://www.bayan.ph/us%20war%20of%20terror/US%20BASES/US%20Mil%20Presence
%20Overseas.pdf)
Overseas military presence activities are generally viewed as a subset of the overall class
of activities that the US government uses in its efforts to promote important military/security
objectives [Dismukes, 1994]. A variety of recurrent, overseas military activities are normally placed under the
“umbrella” concept of military presence. These include but are not limited to US military
efforts overseas to train foreign militaries; to improve inter-operability of US
and friendly forces; to peacefully and visibly demonstrate US commitment
and/or ability to defend US interests; to gain intelligence and familiarity with a
locale; to conduct peacekeeping activities; and to position relevant, capable US
military assets such that they are likely to be available sooner rather than later in
case an evolving security operation or contingency should call for them.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Military Presence Excludes Nuclear Umbrella Definitions
The nuclear umbrella is distinct from military presence
Kugler, 92 – senior consultant at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy
(CTNSP) of the National Defense University, he previously was a Distinguished
Research Professor there (Richard, “The Future of U.S. Military Presence in Europe,”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2008/R4194.pdf)
Conversely, any wholesale U.S. military withdrawal from Europe could leave
still-existing American nuclear commitments in Europe that are no longer
credible to allies or adversaries. Meanwhile, there would be no U.S. military
presence in Europe to exert influence over security affairs in peace, crisis, and
war. Beyond this, withdrawal could have destabilizing consequences that would
reverberate across the entire continent. The NATO alliance could be weakened and
perhaps fractured, thereby producing a military and political power vacuum in
Europe at a time of great change, stress, and uncertainty. Deterrence could be
eroded, potential aggressors would face fewer incentives to exercise restraint, and
crisis management would be rendered more problematic. Prospects for democracy,
free enterprise, cooperative diplomacy, and smooth trade relationships also could
suffer.
204
T
SME 2010
205
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence-Laundry List
Military Presence is defined as bases, military aid, active duty personnel, and
combat threats
Ladan Nekoomaram November 10, 2009 (“US military presence in foreign countries
exceeds rest of world”, http://inews6.americanobserver.net/articles/us-militarypresence-foreign-countries-exceeds-rest-world)
Military presence is defined by any nation where the U.S. has a military base,
where the U.S. is providing military aid, active duty military personnel, or
where U.S. soldiers are engaged in combat theaters.
A military expedition may be determined by the designation of officers, organization
of men and purchase of military stores
John Bouvier, Francis Rawle 1914 (“Bouvier's law dictionary and concise encyclopedia,
Volumehttp://books.google.com/books?pg=PA2336&lpg=PA2336&dq=%22constitute%
20a%20military%22&sig=4thg9qS2fnb2J3KAToh_j6R5gw&ei=jRooTILMJcP68Abx24m2Dw&ct=result&id=sIWPAAAAMAAJ&o
ts=RbFOH2Iwyh&output=text)
No particular number of men is necessary to constitute a military expedition under
the act; Its character may be determined by the designation of the officers, the
organization of the men in regiments or companies, and the purchase of
military stores;
Military presence includes access, bases, facilities, port visits, overflights and
military advisors
Harkavy 1989 (Robert E, “Bases Abroad: the global foreign military presence”)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j5J10im3ETMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq
=%22military+presence%22&ots=cZkXhpoGMm&sig=QcbtDs8ZBoQ1A7J1j9nnRQks
KlI#v=onepage&q&f=false
The above discussion of definitions- revolving mainly around the terms foreign
military presence, access, strategic access, base, facility, installation, and so onserves to initiate a discussion of the boundaries of this study. Those boundaries are
cast rather wide to encompass virtually anything that might satisfy the virtually
self-explanatory criterion of fitting all three of the words which constitute FMP‘foreign’, ‘military’ and ‘presence’. That incorporate not only the obvious- large
air and naval bases, satellite tracking facilities, etc.- but also port visits,
overflights and perhaps cadres of military advisors beyond the usual handful
normal to an arms transfer relationship. But there are some other issues: those
historical location in time and of geographical scope or emphasis.
SME 2010
206
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence-Laundry List
Military presence is bases and facilities, combat units, advisor groups and
headquarters
Harkavy 1989 (Robert E, “Bases Abroad: the global foreign military presence”)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j5J10im3ETMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR12&dq
=%22military+presence%22&ots=cZkXhpoGMm&sig=QcbtDs8ZBoQ1A7J1j9nnRQks
KlI#v=onepage&q&f=false
One might prefer the use of a still broader term, ‘foreign military presence’.
Everything that falls under the headings of bases and facilities would thereby be
included. So too would large military formations (combat units, etc.) and
military advisory groups, and headquarters operations which may be spread
around the office buildings in the centre of a host city.
Presence is defined as forces
Henry 6 (Ryan, Frmr Undersec of Defense, Naval War College Review, 59(2), http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0603henry.pdf)
Finally, operational access comprises the presence, global management, and
surging of our forces overseas, all enabled by the political and geographic access
we enjoy with hostnation partners. Presence is defined by the permanent and
rotational forces that conduct military activities (training, exercises, and operations)
worldwide, from security cooperation to crisis response. That presence consists of
both small units working together in a wide range of capacities and major
formations conducting elaborate exercises to achieve proficiency in multinational
operations. Second, our posture supports our new approach to force management,
which seeks both to relieve stresses on our military forces and their families and to
manage our forces on a global, rather than regional, basis. Combatant commanders
no longer "own" forces in their theaters; rather, forces are managed according to
according to global priorities. Third, managing our military forces globally also
allows us to surge a greater percentage of the force wherever and whenever
necessary.
Presence is limited to troops and requires a formal agreement
Mahaney 83 (Mike, Major – US Marines, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?
AD=ADA391840&Location
=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Two final terms require clarification. The first of those terms is presence. Although repeatedly tied
to the concept of peace operations, the word is never defined, and cannot be found in Joint
Publication 102, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. The
importance of this word in 1983 and today cannot be overstated. Presence is
defined by the dictionary as "The state or fact of being present," and "The
immediate proximity in time and space." The second term frequently associated with peace
operations is interposition. Like presence, interposition is currently not defined by the Department
of Defense. The most commonly used and generally accepted definition is to impose a physical
presence between the hostile parties. Benis Frank, while writing the definitive history of the Marine
operation in Lebanon, associated the term presence with the international law concept of
interposition. He defined interposition as "…the commonly accepted tenet in international law of
'interposition' which results when a major power provides military assistance in the form of troops at
the request of a legally constituted and established government unable to protect foreign citizens and
property.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
207
T
SME 2010
208
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence-Laundry List
Presence is people
American Heritage 9 (dictionary.reference.com/browse/presence)
The diplomatic, political, or military influence of a nation in a foreign country,
especially as evidenced by the posting of its diplomats or its troops there: "The
American diplomatic presence in London began in 1785 when John Adams
became our first minister" (Nancy Holmes).
More ev…
Macmillan
Dictionary
Online
(http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/presence)
a group of people, especially soldiers or police, who are in a place for a
particular purpose. We intend to maintain a presence in the country until there is
peace.
military/police presence: There is still a large British military presence in the
region.
Presence is proximate and personal
Andrus 10 (Veda, EdN-RN, Nursing Specialist,
http://nursing.advanceweb.com/regional-articles/features/therapeutic-
presence.aspx)
What is Presence? By definition, presence is "attendance or company;
immediate vicinity; proximity; ability to project a sense of ease."
Military presence includes exercises, storage agreements, military contacts and
training
Harmon 3 – US Army Major (William, “The Korean Question: Is There a Future for
Forward-Based American Forces in a Unified Korea?,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415880&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) (All bolding is in
the original)
American military doctrine addresses forward presence in Joint Publication 307, Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War. In this doctrine forward
presence is defined as, “ activities [that] demonstrate our commitment, lend
credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and provide a crisis
response capability while promoting US influence and access. In addition to
forces stationed overseas and afloat, forward presence activities include
periodic and rotational deployments, access and storage agreements,
multinational exercises, port visits, foreign military training, foreign
community support, and military-to-military contacts.”10
SME 2010
209
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence-Laundry List
Presence means visible stationing of forces – includes port calls or offshore
stationing, training, and humanitarian missions
PATTERSON 8 – US Navy Reserve Captain (Mark, “DEFEND THE APPROACHES!”,
httpwww.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486738&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, dheidt)
Throughout history, U.S. maritime strategy has evolved in response to the realities
of a changing world. As world geo-political dynamics change, US national
priorities may change and with it the threats, risks and potential operating
environment for the nations’ armed forces. In response, the Navy (including the
Marine Corps) develops new strategies or modifies existing ones to support US
national strategy and priorities. One constant since the end of World War II has
been the enduring principle of forward presence as a mainstay of US maritime
strategy. The term presence encompasses many activities from port visits to
stationing ships within sight of shore to full scale operations.1 For this paper,
presence is the visible positioning or stationing of ships, aircraft and/or
personnel for the purpose of influencing, assuring or engaging other state
actors or non-state actors. The scope of this definition includes the full range
of traditional and emerging military missions, including port visits, training
(personnel and forces), Theater Security Cooperation Programs (TSCP),
personnel exchanges, humanitarian assistance and limited or full scale
permissive and non-permissive military operations.
Presence includes sea basing, periodic deployments, storage agreements, exercises,
security and humanitarian assistance
Johnsen and Young, 92 – *Strategic Research Analyst at the Strategic Studies Institute
AND ** was a National Security Affairs Analyst at the Strategic Studies Institute and is
currently an Associate Research Professor. (William and Thomas-Durrell, “DEFINING U.S.
FORWARD PRESENCE IN EUROPE: GETTING PAST THE NUMBERS”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA255193&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
The National Military Strategy of the United States defines forward presence as
"...forces stationed overseas and afloat... periodic and rotational deployments,
access and storage agreements, combined exercises, security and humanitarian
assistance, port visits, and military-to-military contacts.'' 4 Because of this
rather all-encompassing description, forward presence currently has the
unavoidable characteristic of being all things to all people.
SME 2010
210
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence-Laundry List
Presence includes force deployments, training, exercises, drug interdiction, disaster
relief, and intelligence gathering
Brady 92 - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy (Patrick, “IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE U.S. NAVY OF A 50 PERCENT DECREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA261766&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
In this new era of regional threats the need for forward presence has become more
important.2 1 Yet defense budget cuts and the closing of many overseas bases have
prompted the DOD to reevaluate its traditional definitions of forward presence in
order for the nation to continue to fulfill its many obligations.2 2 The new
definition of forward presence emphasizes the need to "show our commitment,
lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and provide crisis
response capability while promoting U.S. influence and access." The planned
reduction of forward land-based U.S. forces worldwide could mean naval forces
will be increasingly responsible for fulfilling the objectives of forward presence.
There are six roles for the Navy under forward presence. The first role is
peacetime engagement. This is similar to the traditional presence role the Navy
has historically fulfilled. It is needed to counter the image of an American global
withdrawal as force reductions occur and fewer forces are forward based. The
forward deployment of naval forces in this role "provides an underpinning for
diplomatic activities which, when combined with other U.S. foreign policy
initiatives, are influential in shaping events. These forward operations are oriented
toward diplomacy, coalition building and the promotion of stability which fosters
peace and cooperation." 2 4 Additionally, this role will also guarantee the freedom
of the sea which will facilitate trade and improve the economic conditions of the
United States and our allies. Typical missions include: Stationed forces;
rotational overseas deployments; access and storage agreements; port visits;
military-to-military relations; and joint and combined training exercises.2 5
This role does not necessarily have to be fulfilled by aircraft carrier battle groups to
be credible. The second role is to enhance crisis response capability. Naval
forces provide the National Command Authority with the ability to react to
ambiguous warning in the early stages of a crisis. This timely show of force can
stabilize the situation and permit diplomacy to prevail. By complicating the risk
versus gain calculus of potential adversaries, we cause them to consider carefully
the initiation of activity which might be counter to U.S. interests. Depending upon
the crisis, forward deployed naval expeditionary forces can respond autonomously
or become an enabling force about which a decisive joint/coalition based response
can be shaped.2 7 The third role is protecting U.S. citizens. This includes not
only responsive and capable evacuation lift, but the ability to be able to do it in
the midst of conflict. This could also include protection against terrorists by
stopping vessels, suspected of containing terrorists or illegal arms shipments,
on the high seas. The fourth role is combating drugs. This involves ocean
surveillance of potential drug traffickers, interdiction of drug shipments, and
intelligence collection for counter narcotics agencies The fifth role is
SME 2010
211
T
Chillz Lab
humanitarian assistance. This requires the ability to respond rapidly and
effectively to disasters. As stated in the National Military Strategy, "Not only must
Military Presence-Laundry List
(CONTINUES)
our forces provide humanitarian aid, but as seen recently in Northern Iraq, in some
cases they must also be prepared to engage in conflict in order to assist and project
those in need.'"2 8 The final role is intelligence collection. This requires the ability
to overtly and covertly collect information, and then transmit real-time information
to the National Command Authorities in time to avert or mitigate crises. This role is
necessary under all four elements of the new defense agenda. Typical missions
include maritime intelligence collection in support of national requirements;
surveillance of air or naval forces that could act hostile against vital interests
of the United States; and detection, tracking, and reporting vessels involved in
terrorist-related activities.
Presence includes joint exercises, training, stationing forces, prepositioned
equipment, intelligence assets, port calls, military exchanges and foreign military
sales and co-production of equipment
Thomason 2 – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis (James, “Transforming US
Overseas Military Presence:
Evidence
and Options
for
DoD,”
July,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf
This is generally consistent, for example, with B. Dismukes’ formulation: “Overseas
presence encompasses a variety of activities…. In addition to permanent and
rotational forces forward on the ground, forces deployed at sea, and prepositioned
equipment, overseas presence includes: exercises and training of US forces with
those of friends and allies; unilateral training by US forces on foreign soil; US C3I
systems, especially in their bilateral and multilateral roles; arrangements for access
by US forces to facilities overseas; stationing and visits abroad by senior US military
and defense officials; visits to port and airfields by US naval and air forces; public
shows by demonstration teams such as Thunderbirds and a host of public affairs
activities, including military musical groups; staff-to-staff talks and studies with
foreign military organizations and analytical groups; exchanges of military people
between the US and friends and allies; military training of foreign personnel in the US
and in their home countries; training of military officers of former totalitarian and some
developing states in the roles of the military in a civil society; foreign military sales and
funding and co-production of military equipment with other nations.” [pp. 13–14]
Presence includes forward stationing, military exchanges, and training
Peay 94 – US Army General (Binford, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional
Testimony, 6/16, lexis)
Overseas presence encompasses a broad range of military actions that reduce
the likelihood of regional crisis. These activities are a blend of forward
stationing, rotational deployments and low-key, high- payoff temporary duty
activities such as military-to-military exchanges, professional seminars, and
disaster preparedness surveys. These operational requirements seem to be
supported best through traditional procedures.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
212
T
SME 2010
213
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence-Laundry List
Presence includes deployed forces, exercises, port calls, training and military to
military contacts
Department of Defense 95 (Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War, Joint
Pub 3-07, http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_07.pdf)
b. Forward Presence. Forward presence activities demonstrate our
commitment, lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and
provide a crisis response capability while promoting US influence and access.
In addition to forces stationed overseas and afloat, forward presence activities
include periodic and rotational deployments, access and storage agreements,
multinational exercises, port visits, foreign military training, foreign
community support and military-to-military contacts. Given their location and
knowledge of the region, forward presence forces could be the first which the
combatant commander commits to MOOTW.
The US national security strategy defines presence to include prepositioned
equipment, port calls, military to military contacts and exercises
Weeks and Meconis 99 – *senior scientist with Science Applications International
Corporation AND ** founder and the Research Director of the Institute for Global Security
Studies (Stanley and Charles, The armed forces of the USA in the Asia-Pacific region, p. 43)
Concerning US defense strategy and force structure, the 1995 national security
strategy reaffirmed the conclusions reached by the 1993 Bottom-Up Review.
‘Win two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies’ remained the strategy.
With regard to force structure the strategy declared that: The President has set forth
a defense budget for Fiscal Years 1996-2001 that funds the force structure
recommended by the [Bottom-Up] Review, and he repeatedly stressed that he will
draw the line against further cuts that would undermine that force structure or erode
US military readiness.33 An overseas presence of US military forces was strongly
supported, but the definition of ‘presence’ was expanded to include permanently
stationed forces and prepositioned equipment, deployments and combined
exercises, port calls and other force visits, as well as military-to-military
contacts.
Military presence is bases, exercises, visits, and deployment in conflict areas
Lutz 09 – Professor of Anthropology and International Studies, past president of the
American Ethnological Society, the largest organization of cultural anthropologists in the
U.S (Catherine, February, “The bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S. Military
Posts”,
p.
155,
http://books.google.com/books?id=nPAgU6lhAT4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Base
s+of+Empire+preview&hl=en&ei=2kcdTNC9MIP8Abcwf3IDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=
onepage&q=%22military%20presence%22&f=false)),
It was also established to respond to the new situation of a less visible U.S. military
presence: there are no more U.S. bases, but there are still year-round joint military
exercises, U.S. naval ship visits, and deployment of U.S. Special Operation Forces
SME 2010
214
T
Chillz Lab
in conflict areas, taking place under the legal framework of the Philippine-U.S.
Visiting Forces Agreement and the Mutual Logistics and Support
Military Presence-Laundry List
Military presence includes bases, carriers, facilities, supplies, equipment, training
and exercises, and arrangements
Lutz 09 – Research Professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies and
Professor of Anthropology at Brown University. (Catherine, 2009 , “US Bases and Empire:
Global
Perspectives
on
the
Asia
Pacific,”
The
Asia-Pacific
Journal,
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Catherine_/3086)
Military bases are “installations routinely used by military forces” (Blaker 1990:4).
They represent a confluence of labor (soldiers, paramilitary workers, and civilians),
land, and capital in the form of static facilities, supplies, and equipment. They
should also include the eleven US aircraft carriers, often used to signal the
possibility of US bombing and invasion as they are brought to “trouble spots”
around the world. They were, for example, the primary base of US airpower during
the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The US Navy refers to each carrier as “four and a half
acres of sovereign US territory.” These moveable bases and their land-based
counterparts are just the most visible part of the larger picture of US military
presence overseas. This picture of military access includes (1) US military training
of foreign forces, often in conjunction with the provision of US weaponry, (2) joint
exercises meant to enhance US soldiers’ exposure to a variety of operating
environments from jungle to desert to urban terrain and interoperability across
national militaries, and (3) legal arrangements made to gain overflight rights and
other forms of ad hoc use of others’ territory as well as to preposition military
equipment there. In all of these realms, the US is in a class by itself, no adversary
or ally maintaining anything comparable in terms of its scope, depth and global
reach.
Military presence includes bases, facilities, warships, planes, subs, troops, and
weaponry
Kirk and Francis 2k – Gwyn is a member of the San Francisco Bay Area Okinawa
Peace Network. Carolyn Francis is a member of Okinawa Women Act Against
Military Violence (Gwyn, Carolyn Francis, 15, “Redefining Security: Women
Challenge U.S. Military Policy and Practice in East Asia”, Berkeley Women's Law
Journal
,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkI
nd=true&risb=21_T9583109057&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1
&resultsUrlKey=29_T9583109060&cisb=22_T9583109059&treeMax=true&treeWidth
=0&csi=248074&docNo=16)
The U.S. government supports nearly 2,000 U.S. military bases and facilities located
strategically around the globe. n1 The Pacific Command is part of this network and
comprises an integrated system of bases, warships, planes, and submarines n2 that link
Hawaii, Micronesia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. n3 The three
countries that are the subject of this article have hosted U.S. bases for many years. The
United States has positioned bases across the Pacific and in Asia for the purpose of
extending the reach of U.S. troops and weaponry into Asia and, more recently, into the
SME 2010
215
T
Chillz Lab
Middle East. U.S. bases in the Philippines played a key role in U.S. interventions in the
Boxer Rebellion (China) in 1900, and in Siberia during the Russian Civil War (1918-20). n4
Philippine bases were used "for clandestine supply drops to U.S.-backed right-wing rebels in
Military Presence-Laundry List
(CONTINUES)
Indonesia" (in 1958), and the U.S. naval force from the Philippines was deployed to the Bay
of Bengal during the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh War (1971). n5 Dozens of U.S. bases in
Okinawa, mainland Japan, and the Philippines were used as forward bases during the Korean
War and the Vietnam War. n6 U.S. troops in East Asia are also deployed outside the region,
as was the case in the Persian Gulf War. n7 According to a U.S. Defense Department report,
"Asian nations provided [*231] access to ports, airfields, and maintenance facilities for
personnel, ships and aircraft en route to the Mideast." n8
Military presence is combat forces, bases, and military facilities
Harkavy 89 (Robert E., Professor of Political Science at Pennsilvania State University,
"Bases Abroad: The Global Foreign Military Presence, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 8)
One might prefer the use of a still broader term, " foreign military presence." Everything that falls under
the headings of bases and facilities would thereby be included. So too would
large military formations (combat units, etc.) and military advisory groups,
and headquarters operations which may be spread around office buildings in
the centre of a host city.
SME 2010
216
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence- Kuwait
Military presence in Kuwait include substantial Kuwaiti airbases and a Kuwaiti
brigade
Secretary of Defense William J. Perry to the American Bar Association, Aug. 6, 1996
(Volume11,Number77“TheRisksIfWeWouldBeFree”
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=959)
Our military presence includes substantial airpower operating out of Saudi and
Kuwaiti airbases. This permits us to enforce the U.N.-sponsored "no-fly" zone
over Iraq. Our presence also includes naval forces operating continuously in the
Arabian Gulf, also enforcing United Nations sanctions. And it includes two
brigade sets worth of pre-positioned military equipment -- one in Kuwait and
one afloat offshore -- and we are adding a third brigade set in Qatar.
SME 2010
217
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence-Iraq/Afghanistan
(In Iraq/Afghanistan) Military presence includes: infantry, armor, airborne
deployment, intelligence forces, security, logistics, and infrastructure
CARL BOGGS summer 2006 ([professor of social sciences and film studies at National
University in Los Angeles.“Pentagon Strategy, Hollywood, and Technowar”
http://ww3.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue41/Boggs41.htm)
The crisis of an all- volunteer military illustrates a flawed premise of technowar
and RMA -- that a smaller, flexible, more high-tech armed forces can serve U.S.
imperialism better at a time when conventional ground warfare has largely
exhausted its potential. The present volunteer model goes back to 1973, when 40
years of conscription was finally scrapped -- an inevitable outcome of the Vietnam
War. The difficulty facing war planners today is that global domination requires far
more than superior technology and firepower, especially when ground troops are
needed in large numbers for counterinsurgency, a lesson U.S. elites seemingly
never absorbed from Vietnam. The United States presently has 1.4 million troops in
uniform, but less than one-third are available for field operations and fewer yet
serve as front-line troops. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the military presence
includes not only large infantry, armor, and airborne deployments but forces
required for intelligence, security, logistics and ongoing infrastructural tasks.
Despite privatization of certain support activities, such undertakings cannot be
sustained for long without reimposing some version of the draft, an option fraught
with
new
and
likely
unacceptable
political
costs.
SME 2010
218
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence Includes PMCs
PMCs are part of US military presence
Robichaud, 7 – Program Officer at the Century Foundation, where he writes on
nonproliferation and directs the Foundation's Afghanistan Watch program. (Carl, “Private
Military Contractors Also Creating Problems in Afghanistan”, World Politics Review,
10/31/2007, http://www.centuryfoundation.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1721)
The Defense Department says the U.S. military employs 1,000 security contractors,
and the State Department and the government of Afghanistan also hire PSCs.
Estimates on the number of private security personnel in Afghanistan exceed
10,000 for registered groups alone. This number is small in absolute terms when
compared with the number of PSCs in Iraq, but it comprises a substantial
military presence for Afghanistan. If this figure is accurate, private security
personnel outnumber the troop contribution of every nation but the United States,
and are almost a third the size of the Afghan National Army (estimated at around
35,000).
PMCs are part of US military presence
Isenberg, 9 – researcher and leader of the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers
(NISAT) at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (David, “Private Military
Contractors and U.S. Grand Strategy”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/isenbergprivate%20military-contractors-2009.pdf)
The low visibility and presumed low cost of private contractors appeals to those
who favor a global U.S. military presence, but fear that such a strategy cannot
command public support. And by using contractors the United States also shift
responsibility and blame for its actions. As the United States relies more heavily
upon military contractors to support its role as world hegemon, it reinforces the
tendency to approach global crises in a unilateral, as op- posed to multilateral
manner, further ensuring that the burdens will be carried dispropor- tionately by
U.S. taxpayers. U.S. use of PMCs is inevitable until people grasp the key point,
which is that that contracting is both part of war and part of maintaining a
global military hegemonic presence.
SME 2010
219
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence Includes PMC’s
PMCs are inextricably linked to US military presence
Kaplan, 7 – Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (Robert, The
Atlantic,
“Outsourcing
Conflict”,
September,
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/09/outsourcing-conflict/6368/)
Using exclusively active-duty sergeant-majors and master sergeants of the quality
and numbers that this Army colonel required would have drained the Army of some
of its best NCOs. The most-seasoned people can’t be produced overnight.
Meanwhile, there is a ready-made retirement pool from which to draw, courtesy of
the private sector. In the case of this colonel, the contractors were to be under the
operational control of active-duty personnel; they would be allowed to fight only
in their own self-defense. The quasi-privatization of war has a long history and is
consistent with America’s efficient capitalistic economy. The idea of a large
American military presence anywhere without contractors is now unthinkable.
Without firms like KBR, the support tail in Iraq would be infinitely longer
than it is, with tens of thousands of more troops required to achieve the same
result. Buildings need to be maintained; chow halls have to be run; showers and
restrooms need to be cleaned. Mundane activities like these account for the bulk of
what private contractors do. Of course, that raises the question of bidding fairness:
Precisely because only a few such firms, including KBR, can handle massive
logistical operations in sync with American military guidelines, taxpayers need to
be protected from what are, in the absence of real competition, essentially no-bid
contracts.
SME 2010
220
T
Chillz Lab
Military Presence Excludes PMC’s
Presence is contextually juxtaposed to contract work
Henry 6 (Ryan, Frmr Undersec of Defense, Naval War College Review, 59(2), http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0603henry.pdf)
We also will need access to a broader range of facilities with little or no permanent
American presence. Relying instead on periodic service, contractor, or hostnation
support, cooperative security locations provide contingency access and serve as
focal points for security cooperation activities. A good example is Dakar, Senegal,
where the Air Force has negotiated contingency landing, logistics, and fuel
contracting arrangements, and which served as a staging area staging area for the
2003 peace operation in Liberia. A June 2005 Atlantic Monthly article by Robert
Kaplan discusses presence in the Pacific in a way that captures the idea behind
CSLs:
We will want unobtrusive bases that benefit the host country much more obviously
than they benefit us. Allowing us the use of such a base would ramp up power from
a country rather than humiliating it.... Often the key role in managing a CSL is
played by a private contractor[,] ... [u]sually a retired American noncom.... He
rents his facilities at the base from the host country military, and then charges a fee
to the U.S. Air Force pilots transiting the base. Officially he is in business for
himself, which the host country likes because it can then claim it is not really
working with the American military.... [T]he very fact that a relationship with
the U.S. armed forces is indirect rather than direct eases tensions.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Military Presence=Contrasted w Security Guarantees
Military presence is distinct from declaratory policy
Russell 9 (James, Naval Postgraduate School, http://www.nps.edu/ccc/conferences/recent/extendeddeterrenceOct09.pdf)
One contributor proposed that successful extended deterrence required at least
three components: adequate military capability, resolve to act in specified
circumstances, and communication of that resolve to allies and potential
adversaries. Others noted that the history of extended deterrence in practice
revealed the importance of Continuous, active engagement among security
partners, including effective consultative mechanisms; Persistent military contact,
cooperative planning, and engagement; A sustained U.S. military presence,
which, as several participants noted, has been declining in recent years outside of
Iraq; and Diverse political, cultural, and economic linkages that have characterized
the Atlantic alliance since the 1950s. Although effective extended deterrence must
rest upon firm declaratory policies, the truly credible signaling of its reality could
only be accomplished by these kind of continuous and diverse interactions.
More contextual evidence that security guarantees are distinct from presence
Russell 9 (James, Naval Postgraduate School, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/summary.cfm?q=814)
The United States confronts the altered regional security environment with a
strategy that remains rooted in its Cold War experience which featured collective
defense arrangements backed by security guarantees, forward military presence,
and strong U.S.?host nation military relations. In order to mitigate threats to
regional security, the United States must first come to grips with the linkages
between the intrastate, interstate, and global environments in the region. With the
linkages established, the threats to regional security and stability as suggested in the
Davos Forum?s formulation make perfect sense: geopolitical instability, energy
supply disruptions, weapons proliferation, and international terrorism. To contain
these threats, the United States must reconnect its security strategy to the regional
environment, recognizing that it cannot simply apply ?capabilities portfolios? to
complex political and military problems bounded by history and regional
circumstances. The analysis presented here suggests that state behavior in the
region is the product of an altered security dilemma, in which internal political
pressures are discouraging regional states from entrusting responsibility for their
strategic security to outside powers, and instead are moving them to redirect their
security efforts inward.
221
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Military Presence– Requires Formal Agreement
Presence requires formal agreement
Henry 6 (Ryan, Naval War College, Transforming the U.S. Global Defense Posture, http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0603henry.pdf, p. 223)
The set of bilateral and multilateral legal arrangements pertaining to our military
personnel and activities worldwide constitutes the formal framework for our
military presence, access, and activities in other countries. It defines the rights and
obligations of the parties, sets the terms for military access and activities, and
provides protections for American personnel. Some of our planned posture changes
require a foundation of new and more flexible legal arrangements. Our new legal
arrangements tend to be more concise than the elaborate arrangements we entered
into after World War II, addressing only key things the United States needs for an
expeditionary (rather than permanent) presence. These include operational
flexibility, training, logistics, financial arrangements, and status coverage for our
forces. Critical to our success in this effort has been close collaboration by the State
and Defense departments to develop a solid inter-agency team and a good
diplomatic structure for consultations and negotiations.
222
T
SME 2010
223
T
Chillz Lab
Presence-Broad Definitions
Presence activities – exhaustive list
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
Overseas presence
A principal aim of presence is to make crisis response unnecessary, just as the latter
seeks to eliminate the need for large-scale combat. In addition to permanent and
rotational forces forward on the ground, forces deployed at sea, and
prepositioned equipment, the means of overseas presence are: •Exercises and
training of U.S. forces with those of friends and allies •Unilateral training by
U.S. forces on foreign soil •U.S. C3I systems, especially in their bilateral and
multilateral roles •Arrangements for the access by U.S. forces to facilities
overseas •Stationing and visits abroad by senior U.S. military officials •Visits
to ports and airfields by U.S. naval and air forces •Public shows by U.S.
demonstration teams such as the Thunderbirds and a host of public affairs
activities including military musical groups •Staff-to-staff talks and studies
with foreign military organizations and analytical groups •U.S. participation
on multilateral staffs •Exchanges of military people between the U.S. and
friends and allies •Military training of foreign personnel in the U.S. and in their
home countrie •Training of military officers of former totalitarian and some
developing states in the roles of the military in a civil society •Foreign military
sales and funding and co-production of military equipment with other
nations.12 (Footnote 122) 122. This last would logically include an arms transfer
policy dimension. With the exception of the Missile Technology Transfer Regime
and various transparency reporting provisions of confidence-building agreements,
there are not yet any arms control aspects to this part of presence, although these
too would appear to called for. This listing is taken from the National Military
Strategy and from the unclassified introduction to Annex O of the Joint Strategic
Capabilities Plan, distributed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in December 1992.
Military presence includes exercises, storage agreements, military contacts and
training
Harmon, 3 – US Army Major (William, “The Korean Question: Is There a Future for
Forward-Based American Forces in a Unified Korea?,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415880&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) (All bolding is
in the original)
American military doctrine addresses forward presence in Joint Publication 307, Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War. In this doctrine forward presence is defined as, “ activities
[that] demonstrate our commitment, lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and provide a crisis response
In addition to forces stationed overseas and
afloat, forward presence activities include periodic and rotational
deployments, access and storage agreements, multinational exercises, port
capability while promoting US influence and access.
SME 2010
224
T
Chillz Lab
visits, foreign military training, foreign community support, and military-tomilitary contacts.”10
Presence-Broad Definitions
Presence means visible stationing of forces – includes port calls or offshore
stationing, training, and humanitarian missions
PATTERSON ‘8 – US Navy Reserve Captain (Mark, “DEFEND THE
APPROACHES!”,
httpwww.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486738&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, dheidt)
Throughout history, U.S. maritime strategy has evolved in response to the realities
of a changing world. As world geo-political dynamics change, US national
priorities may change and with it the threats, risks and potential operating
environment for the nations’ armed forces. In response, the Navy (including the
Marine Corps) develops new strategies or modifies existing ones to support US
national strategy and priorities. One constant since the end of World War II has
been the enduring principle of forward presence as a mainstay of US maritime
strategy. The term presence encompasses many activities from port visits to
stationing ships within sight of shore to full scale operations.1 For this paper,
presence is the visible positioning or stationing of ships, aircraft and/or
personnel for the purpose of influencing, assuring or engaging other state
actors or non-state actors. The scope of this definition includes the full range
of traditional and emerging military missions, including port visits, training
(personnel and forces), Theater Security Cooperation Programs (TSCP),
personnel exchanges, humanitarian assistance and limited or full scale
permissive and non-permissive military operations.
Presence includes sea basing, periodic deployments, storage agreements, exercises,
security and humanitarian assistance
Johnsen and Young, 92 – *Strategic Research Analyst at the Strategic Studies Institute
AND ** was a National Security Affairs Analyst at the Strategic Studies Institute and is
currently an Associate Research Professor. (William and Thomas-Durrell, “DEFINING
U.S. FORWARD PRESENCE IN EUROPE: GETTING PAST THE NUMBERS”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA255193&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
The National Military Strategy of the United States defines forward presence as
"...forces stationed overseas and afloat... periodic and rotational deployments,
access and storage agreements, combined exercises, security and humanitarian
assistance, port visits, and military-to-military contacts.'' 4 Because of this rather
all-encompassing description, forward presence currently has the unavoidable
characteristic of being all things to all people.
SME 2010
225
T
Chillz Lab
Presence-Broad Definitions
The US national security strategy defines presence to include prepositioned
equipment, port calls, military to military contacts and exercises
Weeks and Meconis, 99 – *senior scientist with Science Applications International
Corporation AND ** founder and the Research Director of the Institute for Global
Security Studies (Stanley and Charles, The armed forces of the USA in the Asia-Pacific
region, p. 43)
Concerning US defense strategy and force structure, the 1995 national security
strategy reaffirmed the conclusions reached by the 1993 Bottom-Up Review.
‘Win two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies’ remained the strategy.
With regard to force structure the strategy declared that: The President has set forth
a defense budget for Fiscal Years 1996-2001 that funds the force structure
recommended by the [Bottom-Up] Review, and he repeatedly stressed that he will
draw the line against further cuts that would undermine that force structure or erode
US military readiness.33 An overseas presence of US military forces was strongly
supported, but the definition of ‘presence’ was expanded to include permanently
stationed forces and prepositioned equipment, deployments and combined
exercises, port calls and other force visits, as well as military-to-military
contacts.
Presence includes force deployments, training, exercises, drug interdiction, disaster
relief, and intelligence gathering
Brady, 92 - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy (Patrick, “IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE U.S. NAVY OF A 50 PERCENT DECREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA261766&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
In this new era of regional threats the need for forward presence has become more
important.2 1 Yet defense budget cuts and the closing of many overseas bases have
prompted the DOD to reevaluate its traditional definitions of forward presence in
order for the nation to continue to fulfill its many obligations.2 2 The new
definition of forward presence emphasizes the need to "show our commitment,
lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and provide crisis
response capability while promoting U.S. influence and access." The planned
reduction of forward land-based U.S. forces worldwide could mean naval forces
will be increasingly responsible for fulfilling the objectives of forward presence.
There are six roles for the Navy under forward presence. The first role is
peacetime engagement. This is similar to the traditional presence role the Navy
has historically fulfilled. It is needed to counter the image of an American global
withdrawal as force reductions occur and fewer forces are forward based. The
forward deployment of naval forces in this role "provides an underpinning for
diplomatic activities which, when combined with other U.S. foreign policy
initiatives, are influential in shaping events. These forward operations are oriented
toward diplomacy, coalition building and the promotion of stability which fosters
peace and cooperation." Additionally, this role will also guarantee the freedom of
the sea which will facilitate trade and improve the economic conditions of the
SME 2010
226
T
Chillz Lab
United States and our allies. Typical missions include: Stationed forces;
rotational overseas deployments; access and storage agreements; port visits;
Presence-Broad Definitions
(CONTINUES)
military-to-military relations; and joint and combined training exercises.2 5
This role does not necessarily have to be fulfilled by aircraft carrier battle groups to
be credible. The second role is to enhance crisis response capability. Naval
forces provide the National Command Authority with the ability to react to
ambiguous warning in the early stages of a crisis. This timely show of force can
stabilize the situation and permit diplomacy to prevail. By complicating the risk
versus gain calculus of potential adversaries, we cause them to consider carefully
the initiation of activity which might be counter to U.S. interests. Depending upon
the crisis, forward deployed naval expeditionary forces can respond autonomously
or become an enabling force about which a decisive joint/coalition based response
can be shaped.2 7 The third role is protecting U.S. citizens. This includes not only
responsive and capable evacuation lift, but the ability to be able to do it in the midst
of conflict. This could also include protection against terrorists by stopping vessels,
suspected of containing terrorists or illegal arms shipments, on the high seas.The
fourth role is combating drugs. This involves ocean surveillance of potential
drug traffickers, interdiction of drug shipments, and intelligence collection for
counter narcotics agencies. The fifth role is humanitarian assistance. This
requires the ability to respond rapidly and effectively to disasters. As stated in the
National Military Strategy, "Not only must our forces provide humanitarian aid, but as seen recently
in Northern Iraq, in some cases they must also be prepared to engage in conflict in order to assist
and project those in need.'"2 The final role is intelligence collection. This requires the
ability to overtly and covertly collect information, and then transmit real-time information to the
National Command Authorities in time to avert or mitigate crises. This role is necessary under all
four elements of the new defense agenda. Typical missions include maritime
intelligence collection in support of national requirements; surveillance of air
or naval forces that could act hostile against vital interests of the United
States; and detection, tracking, and reporting vessels involved in terroristrelated activities.
Presence includes joint exercises, training, stationing forces, prepositioned
equipment, intelligence assets, port calls, military exchanges and foreign military
sales and co-production of equipment
Thomason, 2 – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis (James, “Transforming US
Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD,” July,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf
This is generally consistent, for example, with B. Dismukes’ formulation : “Overseas presence
encompasses a variety of activities…. In addition to permanent and rotational forces
forward on the ground, forces deployed at sea, and prepositioned equipment,
overseas presence includes: exercises and training of US forces with those of friends
and allies; unilateral training by US forces on foreign soil; US C3I systems, especially
in their bilateral and multilateral roles; arrangements for access by US forces to
facilities overseas; stationing and visits abroad by senior US military and defense officials ; visits to
SME 2010
227
T
Chillz Lab
port and airfields by US naval and air forces; public shows by demonstration teams
such as Thunderbirds and a host of public affairs activities, including military
musical groups; staff-to-staff talks and studies with foreign military organizations and analytical
Presence-Broad Definitions
(CONTINUES)
groups; exchanges of military people between the US and friends and allies; military
training of foreign personnel in the US and in their home countries; training of military officers of former
totalitarian and some developing states in the roles of the military in a civil society; foreign military
sales and funding and co-production of military equipment with other nations.”
Presence includes forward stationing, military exchanges, and training
Peay, 94 – US Army General (Binford, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional
Testimony, 6/16, lexis)
Overseas presence encompasses a broad range of military actions that reduce
the likelihood of regional crisis. These activities are a blend of forward
stationing, rotational deployments and low-key, high- payoff temporary duty
activities such as military-to-military exchanges, professional seminars, and
disaster preparedness surveys. These operational requirements seem to be
supported best through traditional procedures.
Presence includes deployed forces, exercises, port calls, training and military to
military contacts
Department of Defense, 95 (Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War,
Joint Pub 3-07, http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_07.pdf)
Forward Presence Forward presence activities demonstrate our commitment,
lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and provide a crisis
response capability while promoting US influence and access. In addition to
forces stationed overseas and afloat, forward presence activities include
periodic and rotational deployments, access and storage agreements,
multinational exercises, port visits, foreign military training, foreign
community support and military-to-military contacts.. Given their location and
knowledge of the region, forward presence forces could be the first which the
combatant commander commits to MOOTW.
Presence is an umbrella term, broadly including the sum of U.S. military activities
overseas
Graham 93 (James, NonCombat Roles for the U.S. Military in the Post ColdWar Era, U of Wisconsin Madison, p. 17)
Forward presence is a cumulative term. It includes forward stationing, the actual
stationing of U.S. military forces on the ground at U.S. military installations, as in
Japan and Korea today. Forward deployment includes these forces, plus embarked
Marine AirGround Task Forces, Navy carrier battle groups, and Air Force
squadrons on temporary deployment abroad. Finally, Forward Presence includes
all of the above plus ship visits, security assistance exercises, and the wide variety
of ways the U.S. military interacts with the Asian community.
SME 2010
228
T
Chillz Lab
Presence-Broad Definitions
Presence has been redefined in the post-Cold War era to include more than troops –
Their definitions are outmoded
Widnal & Fogleman 95 (Sheila & Ronald – Dir USAF & USAF Chief of Staff,
http://www.airforcemagazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1995/June%201995/0695verb.aspx)
[T]he Air Force has reconceptualized "presence." . . . Our concept of presence
includes all peacetime applications of military capability that promote US
influence, regardless of service. Correspondingly, the way we exert presence is
changing. . . . Our space and airborne collection platforms help provide global
situational awareness. Sometimes this information by itself can promote US
influence. In other cases, information linked to forces that can react swiftly with the
right mix of joint capabilities anywhere on the globe reduces the need for
traditional physical presence. Our bomber force, for instance, can deliver incredible
firepower anywhere on Earth in less than twenty hours. . . . Of course, permanent
presence is still imperative in many areas, . . . but the United States doesn't need
and cannot afford to be everywhere at once.
SME 2010
229
T
Chillz Lab
Presence– Broad Definitions Bad
Expansive definitions overstretch the topic – Contextual evidence proves
Moghadam 6 (Assaf, Tufts & Harvard IR, www.laits.utexas.edu/tiger/moghadam_globalizationofmartyrdom.pdf)
Pape overstretches his argument that occupation is at the root of suicide terrorism
by attempting to place these globalized attacks within a framework better suited to
traditional conflicts. To that end, he loosens his definition of occupation later in
the book when he writes that “American military presence” exists not only in
those regions where American forces are physically present, but also “where
the United States provides an explicit or widely understood security guarantee
that could be implemented using its forces in an adjacent country” (109). By doing
so, however, Pape casts such a wide net over his definition of “military
presence” that this concept becomes so widely applicable as to render it almost
meaningless. Under Pape’s loosened definition, U.S. “military presence” would
apply not only to countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but to virtually any
country in the Western hemisphere, any NATO member country, and any other
country with which the United States has friendly (or pragmatic) relations. Given
this wide definition of “American military presence,” it is difficult to imagine a
suicide attack in any country that Pape could not conceivably describe as a
“response to foreign occupation.”
SME 2010
230
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Includes Military Material
Presence refers to deployed forces and infrastructure – DOD definition
GAO, 1 – General Accounting Office (“EUROPEAN SECURITY U.S. and European
Contributions to Foster Stability and Security in Europe,” November,
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/214.pdf
DOD defines overseas presence as the mix of permanently stationed forces,
rotationally deployed forces, temporarily deployed forces, and infrastructure
required to conduct the full range of military operations.
Presence refers to deployed forces and infrastructure
Crawford, 3 – US Army Colonel, paper for the USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH
PROJECT (Paul, “Army Pre-Positioned Stocks and High-Speed Sealift,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA414836&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
The National Military Strategy (NMS) defines Overseas Presence as “the
strategic placement of permanently stationed, rotationally deployed and
temporarily deployed U.S. military forces overseas, and the infrastructure and
pre-positioned equipment necessary to sustain them in and near key regions.”5
The NMS goes on to state, “Strategic mobility requires robust sealift, airlift, space
lift, and ground transportation supported by adequate and sufficient air refueling
assets, mobility infrastructure, material handling equipment, and pre-positioned
stocks of supplies and equipment.”6 Strategic mobility is critical to our ability to
augment forward-deployed forces or quickly reinforce a region, and pre-positioned
equipment sets are a critical enabler identified in the NMS.
Presence refers to troops or military material
Greer, 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
To establish a conceptual framework for this paper, I developed the following
definition of forward presence within the context of national defense: the visible
employment of US military personnel and/or military material as a deterrent
outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the
operational continuum short of involving major US conventional forces in
combat.
Weapons are part of the US military presence
Lutz, 9 – professor of International Studies at Brown (Catherine, The Bases of Empire:
The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts, p. 6, google books)
Much of the United States' unparalleled weaponry, nuclear and otherwise, is
stored at places like Camp Darby in Italy, Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa,
and the Naval Magazine on Guam, as well as in nuclear submarines and on the
navy's other floating bases. The weapons, personnel, and fossil fuels involved in
this U.S. military presence cost billions of dollars, most coming from U.S.
taxpayers but an increasing number of billions from the citizens of the countries
involved.
SME 2010
231
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Includes Equipment
Military presence includes equipment
Hajjar 2 (Sami, Strategic Studies Inst., U.S. Military Presence in the Gulf: Challenges and Prospects, p. 20)
More ev…
Hajjar 2
(Sami,
Strategic
Studies
Inst.,
U.S.
Military
Presence
in
the
Gulf:
Challenges
and
Prospects,
p.
201)
SME 2010
232
T
Chillz Lab
Presence– Excludes Tech/Weapons
Presence refers to physical experience, not technology
Steur 92 (Jonathon, PhD Stanford, transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/liu/ english25/materials/class26notes.html)
"The key to defining virtual reality in terms of human experience rather than
technological hardware is the concept of presence. Presence can be thought of
as the experience of one's physical environment; it refers not to one's
surroundings as they exist in the physical world, but to the perception of those
surroundings as mediated by both automatic and controlled mental processes
(Gibson, 1979): Presence is defined as the sense of being in an environment.
Many perceptual factors help to generate this sense, including input from some or
all sensory channels, as well as more mindful attentional, perceptual, and other
mental processes that assimilate incoming sensory data with current concerns and
past experiences (Gibson, 1966). Presence is closely related to the phenomenon of
distal attribution or externalization, which refer to the referencing of our
perceptions to an external space beyond the limits of the sensory organs themselves
(Loomis, 1992)."
SME 2010
233
T
Chillz Lab
Presence=linked to political objectives
Presence requires explicit linkage to deterrence
Greer, 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
To establish a conceptual framework for this paper, I developed the following
definition of forward presence within the context of national defense: the visible
employment of US military personnel and/or military material as a deterrent
outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational
continuum short of involving major US conventional forces in combat. My simplistic definition could
be subject to endless scholarly debate. It includes small unit combat operations of limited scope and
duration and peacetime contingency operations such as Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia, but it excludes
the subsequent combat operation designated Desert Storm. It includes our military activities in Alaska
and Hawaii. It excludes any diplomatic, economic, social or psychological activities that do not have a
military component. The term “employment” in the definition could be criticized as denoting action or
movement which could exclude what some may term passive measures such as storage of material or
unmanned (i.e., automated) sites or systems. However, there is always some activity associated with
these so-called passive measures (e.g., maintenance, data collection, etc), and the term employment also
encompasses emplacement. The more controversial aspect of my definition lies in the terms “deterrent”
and “visible.” Deterrence is “the prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a
state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” Once
major conventional forces are engaged in protracted combat operations, it is clear that deterrence, by
definition, has failed. Visibility is inextricably linked to deterrence. Visible to whom?
To those we wish to deter. This is reminiscent of the old philosophical question, “If a tree falls
deep in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” In the case of forward
presence, the answer is “no.” Target audience is the key to the concept of visibility. A
target audience may be the world at large, the senior leadership of a specific country or movement, the
control cell of a terrorist organization or countless other possibilities. Therefore, forward presence,
by definition, also includes covert activities using military personnel and/or
material, as long as the activity is visible to the targeted audience and deters that
group or individual from taking an undesired action. An invisible presence is
both contradictory and serves no useful deterrent purpose, which goes to the
heart of the issue. Deterrence is the ultimate purpose of forward presence.
SME 2010
234
T
Chillz Lab
Presence=linked to political objectives
Presence requires decreasing perceived operational capability – not just numerical
reductions in troops
Bloomfield, 6 – senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS) and president of Palmer Coates LLC. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for
Political Military Affairs from May 2001 to January 2005 (Lincoln, “Reposturing the
Force: U.S. Overseas Presence in the Twenty-first Century,” ed: Lords,
http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/NewportPapers/Documents/26-pdf.aspx)
Central to the new initiative was the idea that capability and commitment could no longer, and should
no longer, be measured in numbers. It was not intuitively obvious to a
nonmilitary audience in Asia that, for example, anticipated reductions of
forces permanently stationed in the Republic of Korea would coincide with an
actual strengthening of the potential combat power the United States could bring
to bear against North Korea (or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the DPRK). As South
Korean newspapers wondered aloud whether Washington was reducing its
security commitment to their country, the North certainly grasped that the
United States was increasing its precision-strike power around the Korean
Peninsula while reducing its own forces’ exposure to DPRK firepower amassed just north of the Demilitarized Zone,
and it denounced the American reconfiguration. If potential adversaries were quick to recognize the military advantages to
the United States of the planned new force posture, the larger Asian audience could not be made to think differently
overnight. America’s role as the essential stabilizing force in Asia had long encouraged the region to equate numerical
presence with commitment and capability. To overcome lingering doubts in Europe and Asia, the United States will have to
demonstrate its commitment to the role of ultimate security guarantor through its actions over several years as the GDPR
posture changes are implemented.
The 3 political goals of presence are deterrence, allied cooperation, and to ensure
economic stability
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
This last is probably the greatest obstacle to a mature understanding of presence as
a mission of post-Cold War armed forces. Many feel that the reason for the
existence of military forces is purely and simply to fight16 and so logically focus
on crisis response and war. There is no question that overseas forces must possess
genuine combat capabilities, and these must be used successfully when needed.
The greatest utility of the armed forces in the new era, however, lies in three
other strategic functions that are at the heart of overseas presence •Deter
adversarie •Make common cause with friends on behalf of security •Provide
stable conditions so that the U.S. and the world economies can flourish, and
inhibit the development of trade restrictions that limit both. The first, to deter—to
achieve the nation's purposes without fighting—has been the highest goal of
strategy since Sun Tzu, and is the leading purpose of presence.1 (Forward forces
also help the U.S. and its friends exploit the initiative, invariably a source of
leverage in any competitive situation.) Deterrence also reassures allies, a major
benefit in its own right, as will be seen.18
SME 2010
235
T
Chillz Lab
Presence=linked to political objectives
(CONTINUED)
The second strategic utility of forward forces is to cooperate with friends and
allies on behalf of security. Cooperation yields two important results: The United
States should never have to fight alone unless it so chooses. Cooperation also can
encourage democracy and help develop enduring structures of regional security
within which peace and democracy can flourish.19 Third, U.S. armed forces
committed to overseas presence have important effects in reducing what the
BUR calls "economic dangers to our national security."20 By bringing stability
to the key economic regions where they operate, U.S. forces maintain a vital
condition on which economic growth depends. Forces overseas also help inhibit
further growth of trade restrictions against the U.S. by its friends—a truly postCold War effect, the extent of whose importance is just beginning to be recognized.
Presence is a question of military strategy – not troops alone
Dismukes, 95 – analyst with the Center for Naval Analyses (Bradford, “The U.S.
Military Presence Abroad”, Strategic Review, Spring, p. 49)
As a result of decisions by the Clinton Administration, reaffirming and strengthening policies
adopted by President Bush, U.S. military “overseas presence” has become a major factor affecting
the deployment of U.S. forces. The requirements established by overseas presence
are now part of the rationale for future force structure. Presence—deploying
and operating forces forward to influence, short of combat, what foreign
governments think and do—plays a crucial role in a national strategy of
“engagement and enlargement.” Operating ground, air, and sea forces overseas is a
linchpin of the national strategy: unless the United States does so successfully, the strategy could
fail, yielding an isolationist alternative and greater risks for U.S. security and economic interests.
Presence refers to the totality of US military power linked to an explicit military
objective
Blechman et al, 97 – President of DFI International, and has held positions in the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Office
of Management and Budget (Barry, Strategic Review, Spring, “Military Presence Abroad
in a New Era: The Role of Airpower,” p. 14)
The highly complex nature of military presence operations, with manifestations both psychological and
physical, makes their effects difficult to identify and assess. Nonetheless, presence missions (whether
employing forces stationed abroad or afloat, temporarily deployed or permanently based overseas, or based in
the United States) are integral parts of U.S. defense strategy. Through routine presence operations, the United
States seeks to reinforce alliances and friendships, make credible security commitments to crucial regions, and
nurture cooperative political relations. More episodically, forces engaged in presence operations can dissuade
aggressors from hostile demands, help prevent or contain regional crises, and, when conflict erupts nonetheless,
provide an infrastructure for the transition to war. Given its multifaceted nature, neither practitioners nor
scholars have yet settled on a single definition of presence. Technically, the term refers to
both a military posture and a military objective. This study uses the term
“presence” to refer to a continuum of military activities, from a variety of
interactions during peacetime to crisis response involving both forces on the
scene and those based in the United States. Our definition follows that
articulated by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Presence is the totality of U.S.
SME 2010
236
T
Chillz Lab
instruments of power deployed overseas (both permanently and temporarily)
along with the requisite infrastructure and sustainment capabilities.”2
Presence=linked to political objectives
Presence is the attempt at suasion for compellence, deterrence, or reassurance
Riehm, 96 – ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT
LEAVENWORTH KS (Peter, “Suasion Through Military Presence: An Analysis of the
Role of Presence in U.S.-Libyan Relations, l977-1995,”
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISO
PTR=868&CISOBOX=1&REC=19
Understanding how an application like presence is intended to influence is a
significant step in relating objectives of military operations to target interests.
Shortfalls lie in the absence of doctrine to tie strategic objectives to the operational
vehicle and any reliable means to measure effectiveness. Using military power to
influence can be described in terms of 'threat of force," but this thesis will focus on the
concept of suasion. Presence is more appropriately described in terms of threat of
force through force application to varying degrees. Within these degrees of threat
and force application lies the concept of suasion: Compellence, Deterrence, and
Reassurance.
SME 2010
237
T
Chillz Lab
Presence= Troops
Presence means armed forces
Oxford English Dictionary 89 (The Oxford English Dictionary, second edition, volume
XII, 1989, “presence”, Clarendon press-oxford, p. 394)
e. Politics. The maintenance by a nation of political interests and influence in
another country or region; spec. the maintenance of personnel, esp. armed forces on
the soil of an allied or friendly state; concr., armed forces stationed in this way. Also transf., denoting
the representation of a nation’s interests at an event.
Bases are the main part of the US military presence
Lutz 9 – professor of International Studies at Brown (Catherine, The Bases of Empire:
The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts, p. 6, google books)
Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and the most visible cent1erpieces, of
the U.S. military presence overseas. To understand where those bases are and how
they are being used is essential for understanding the United States’ relationship
with the rest of the world, the role of coercion in it, and its political economic
complexion. The United States’ empire of bases – its massive global impact and
the global response to it – are the subject of chapters in this book. Unlike the
pundits and the strategic thinkers who corner the market on discussions of the U.S.
military, these authors concentrate on the people around those bases and the impact
of living in their shadow. The authors describe as well the social movements which
have tried to call the world’s attention to the costs those bases impose on them
without their consent. In this introduction, I ask why the bases were established in
the first place, how they are currently configured around the world and how that
configuration is changing, what myths have developed about the functions U.S.
overseas bases serve, and, finally, introduce the global movement to push back or
expel the bases altogether.
Presence requires stationing forces within a country
Harmon 3 – US Army Major (William, “The Korean Question: Is There a Future for
Forward-Based American Forces in a Unified Korea?,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415880&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) (All bolding is in
the original)
In American security writings and military doctrine the term “forward presence”
describes military forces that are stationed, permanently or on a rotational
deployment, in a territory or nation other than the United States. In American
National Security, by Amos A. Jordan, William J. Taylor Jr., and Michael J.
Mazarr, the term is used as follows: Forward presence, or the forward
deployment of forces, can now be more usefully thought of as one component
of a larger strategy – one that acknowledges the global role of the United
States and the need to remain engaged, visible, and with forces deployed
outside the United States that are prepared to respond to contingencies in all
corners of the globe.9 In this definition the authors have identified key components
of forward presence, namely the flexibility gained by reducing deployment times
and the assurance provided to allies (and potential enemies alike) by the
engagement and visibility of the forces.
SME 2010
238
T
Chillz Lab
Presence= Troops
Military or police presence refers to stationed personnel within a place
Compact
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
10
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/presence?view=uk)
presence• noun 1 the state or fact of being present. 2 the impressive manner or appearance
of a person. 3 a person or thing that is present but not seen. 4 a group of soldiers or police
stationed in a particular place: the USA would maintain a presence in the region.
Presence refers to the stationing of personnel
American
Heritage
Dictionary
09
(http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/presence)
pres·ence
1. The state or fact of being present; current existence or occurrence.
2. Immediate proximity in time or space.
3. The area immediately surrounding a great personage, especially a sovereign.
4. A person who is present.
5. a. A person's bearing, especially when it commands respectful attention: "He continues to
possess the presence, mental as well as physical, of the young man" (Brendan Gill).
b.The quality of self-assurance and effectiveness that permits a performer to achieve a
rapport with the audience: stage presence.
5. A supernatural influence felt to be nearby.
7. The diplomatic, political, or military influence of a nation in a foreign country,
especially as evidenced by the posting of its diplomats or its troops there: "The
American diplomatic presence in London began in 1785 when John Adams became our first minister"
(Nancy Holmes).
Presence refers to official personnel
Encarta
09
(Encarta
World
English
Dictionary,
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861737
158)
pres·ence [ prézz'nss ] (plural pres·ences)
noun
7. group of official personnel: a group of official personnel, especially police, military
forces, or diplomats, present or stationed in a place to represent their country and
maintain
its
interest
maintained a heavy military presence in the capital
Presence refers to troops
MacMillan
Dictionary
10
(http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/presence)
definition of presence
noun
3. a. a group of people, especially soldiers or the police, who are in a place for a
particular purpose
We intend to maintain a presence in the country until there is peace.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
military/police presence:
239
T
SME 2010
240
T
Chillz Lab
Presence= Troops
Military forces are presence
Encarta® World English Dictionary 09 (“presence”, [North American Edition] © & (P)
2009
Microsoft
Corporation.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861737158/presence.html)
7. group of official personnel: a group of official personnel, especially police, military
forces, or diplomats, present or stationed in a place to represent their country and
maintain its interest
Troops solely define military presence
Booth et al 2000 (Bradford Booth, currently a Principal with ICF International, located in
Fairfax, VA. Dr. Booth has more than 10 years experience as a member of the social science
research community, including post-doctoral work in military personnel and family issues
and evaluation research. His primary area of specialization is the sociology of the armed
forces, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, William w Falk,
David r. Segal, Mady Wechsler Segal, GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 14 No. 2, April 2000
318-332
?
2000
Sociologists
for
Women
in
Society,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/190277.pdf)
This article uses Public Use Micro sample (PUMS) data drawn from the 1990
census to explore the relationship between military presence, defined as the
percentage of the local labor force in the active-duty armed forces, and
women's employment and earnings across local labor market areas (LMAs) in the
United States. Comparisons of local rates of unemployment and mean women's
earnings are made between those LMAs in which the military plays a
disproportionate role in the local labor market and those in which military
presence is low
Military presence is the maintenance of armed forces
United States Army Combined Arms Center 8 (September 17, “military presence”,
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/cac2/call/thesaurus/toc.asp?id=20296)
Military presence. Definition/Scope: Maintaining forces in an area to
demonstrate interest and resolve, and enhance the ability to respond quickly
in a crisis.
SME 2010
241
T
Chillz Lab
Presence=Stationed Personnel
Bases are the main part of the US military presence
Lutz, 9 – professor of International Studies at Brown (Catherine, The Bases of Empire:
The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts, p. 6, google books)
Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and the most visible centerpieces,
of the U.S. military presence overseas. To understand where those bases are and
how they are being used is essential for understanding the United States’
relationship with the rest of the world, the role of coercion in it, and its political
economic complexion. The United States’ empire of bases – its massive global
impact and the global response to it – are the subject of chapters in this book.
Unlike the pundits and the strategic thinkers who corner the market on discussions
of the U.S. military, these authors concentrate on the people around those bases and
the impact of living in their shadow. The authors describe as well the social
movements which have tried to call the world’s attention to the costs those bases
impose on them without their consent. In this introduction, I ask why the bases
were established in the first place, how they are currently configured around the
world and how that configuration is changing, what myths have developed about
the functions U.S. overseas bases serve, and, finally, introduce the global
movement to push back or expel the bases altogether.
Presence is measured by the number of military personnel in a region
Poon et al, 6 - Department of Geography, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo (Jessie, “The role of US defense exports in
Asia Pacific regionalism,” Political Geography 25 (2006) 715-734, Science Direct)
The major source of defense trade data comes from the United States International
Trade Commission (USITC) where 1989 forms the earliest year that the data are
available and 2004 the most recent (http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp).
From this database, current and historical records may be searched for U.S. exports
to Asia Pacific countries with the end use category ‘‘defense.’’ This ensured that
dual use products were excluded from the search. Seven sectors may be identified
for defense trade including military aircrafts, aircraft launching gear/parachutes,
etc., engines/turbines for military aircraft, military trucks/armored vehicles, etc.,
military ships/boats, tanks/artillery/ missiles/rockets/guns/ammunition, and
parts/special goods, etc. Not all of the sectors will be analyzed because many
countries contain only very sparse data. Approximately thirty Asia Pacific countries
are identified to be engaged in defense trade with the US although this number
varies from sector to sector. The countries include all members of APEC and the
ARF but also extend to other countries that have been excluded from these
arrangements such as Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Oceania.
Defense exports are supplemented by two other sources of data, that is, US military
presence and countries’ military expenditure. US military presence is measured
by the number and shares of active military personnel in the region. This
information is compiled by the US Department of Defense
(http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm).
SME 2010
242
T
Chillz Lab
Presence=Stationed Personnel
Reductions in presence should be measured by personnel
Poon et al, 6 - Department of Geography, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo (Jessie, “The role of US defense exports in
Asia Pacific regionalism,” Political Geography 25 (2006) 715-734, Science Direct)
Overall, the analysis in this section confirms the proposition that US geostrategic interests in the
region are supported through material sales of defense articles to its allies that are in turn reinforced
through the deployment of military personnel. However, defense exports would seem to be the
preferred tool for achieving geopolitical policies. While the exports of defense articles
have increased by 103% from $111,223 million in 1989 to $225,937 million in 2004 , US
military personnel on the other hand fell by nearly 40% from 110,262 to 66,890 in
the same period. Hence, US military presence has declined in the region over the
last 30 years. Together the geography of security points to a bloc of three key allies (Japan,
Korea, Taiwan) and several scattered complementary ones (Singapore, Australia, Thailand and in
the present days, Pakistan). Without a more regionally coherent pattern of security alliance, such
geography reinforces a system of bilateral political alliances with the US than more multilateral
regional political alliances. The three key allies for instance have no free trade agreements between
or amongst themselves despite being the region’s largest traders along with China. Meanwhile,
political allies such as Singapore and Australia are formalizing bilateral trade agreements with the
US. In sum, spatial analysis of defense exports and military presence of the US in this section tends
to side with realist’s arguments for a balance of power spatial geometry that support regional
political processes.
Presence requires the visible stationing of troops
Mastapeter, 8 - Senior Planning Officer, Department of Homeland Security,(Craig,
“THE INSTRUMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER: ACHIEVING THE STRATEGIC
ADVANTAGE IN A CHANGING WORLD,” December,
https://www.hsdl.org/homesec/docs/theses/08Dec_Mastapeter.pdf&code=9b55800f98c11
50b31a774eadc3a294b
According to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, presence is defined as the state of being
present, or of being within sight or call, or at hand; as opposed to absence.
YourDictionary defines presence as the fact or condition of being present; existence, occurrence, or
attendance at some place or in some thing.439 From the perspective of the purpose of this paper, the
FreeDictionary provides the most relevant definition the diplomatic, political, or military
influence of a nation in a foreign country, especially as evidenced by the
posting of its diplomats or its troops there. Interestingly enough, The Joint Publications 1-02,
Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms does not include a definition of presence.
However, Joint Publication 1-0, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, clearly states that an
extended U.S. presence will be required, post-termination, to conduct stability operations to enable legitimate
civil authority and attain the national strategic end state441 and that, as a nation, the United States wages war
employing all instruments of national power to achieve national strategic objectives on terms favorable to the
United States.442 It can therefore be inferred from this entry that a U.S. presence is necessary prior to and
during operations because presence demonstrates U.S. commitment, facilitates access, enhances deterrence, and
supports the transition from peace to war and a return to peace once hostilities have ended on terms favorable to
the U.S.The U.S.’ ability to maintain and fully employ its military, informational, diplomatic, legal and law
enforcement, intelligence, financial, and economic resources overseas enhances U.S. security and that of its
partners, bolsters prosperity, and promotes democracy. This ability is commonly called “presence.” In the
context of U.S. basic national security policy and strategy, presence,
especially
forward military, informational (i.e., cultural), diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence (overt,
covert, and clandestine), financial, and economic presence, unequivocally demonstrates U.S.
resolve and sets the conditions for stability and undeniable commitment to a
SME 2010
243
T
Chillz Lab
cause. U.S. presence, government and private sector, creates a planning and future
operational environment that is conducive to establishing and operationalizing
Presence=Stationed Personnel
(CONTINUED)
information dominance, or knowledge superiority, (situational awareness of the
common operating picture) and thus creating a strategic advantage.
Presence is therefore the ability to project actionable U.S. power and influence,
the means by which the U.S. frames and shapes the international environment
in ways favorable to the nation’s interests and objectives. Presence is and has been
a fundamental principle of U.S. basic national security policy and strategy since
1942, and perhaps as early as 1898. Ultimately, actionable influence and leverage is
gained through the totality of the instruments of national power — military,
informational, diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence, financial, and
economic – and underpinned by the strength of the nation’s geographic and
demographic position and its resources and/or access to resources.
Presence requires stationing forces within a country
Harmon, 3 – US Army Major (William, “The Korean Question: Is There a Future for
Forward-Based American Forces in a Unified Korea?,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415880&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) (All bolding is
in the original)
In American security writings and military doctrine the term “forward presence”
describes military forces that are stationed, permanently or on a rotational
deployment, in a territory or nation other than the United States. In American
National Security, by Amos A. Jordan, William J. Taylor Jr., and Michael J. Mazarr, the term is
used as follows: Forward presence, or the forward deployment of forces, can now be more usefully
thought of as one component of a larger strategy – one that acknowledges the global role of the
United States and the need to remain engaged, visible, and with forces deployed outside the United
States that are prepared to respond to contingencies in all corners of the globe. In this definition the
authors have identified key components of forward presence, namely the
flexibility gained by reducing deployment times and the assurance provided to allies (and
potential enemies alike) by the engagement and visibility of the forces.
Military or police presence refers to stationed personnel within a place
Compact
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
10
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/presence?view=uk)
Presence
noun 1 the state or fact of being present. 2 the impressive manner or appearance of
a person. 3 a person or thing that is present but not seen. 4 a group of soldiers or
police stationed in a particular place: the USA would maintain a presence in the
region.
Presence refers to the stationing of personnel
American
Heritage
Dictionary,
(http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/presence)
pres·ence
09
SME 2010
244
T
Chillz Lab
7. The diplomatic, political, or military influence of a nation in a foreign
country, especially as evidenced by the posting of its diplomats or its troops
there: z
Presence=Stationed Personnel
Presence refers to official personnel
Encarta,
09
(Encarta
World
English
Dictionary,
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861737
158)
pres·ence [ prézz'nss ] (plural pres·ences)
7. group of official personnel: a group of official personnel, especially police,
military forces, or diplomats, present or stationed in a place to represent their
country
and
maintain
its
interest
Presence refers to troops
MacMillan
Dictionary,
10
(http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/presence)
definition of presence
noun
3. a. a group of people, especially soldiers or the police, who are in a place for a
particular purpose
We intend to maintain a presence in the country until there is peace.
military/police presence:
There is still a large U.S. military presence in the region.
SME 2010
245
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Excludes Combat Missions
Presence only applies to military forces before combat
Greer, 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
To establish a conceptual framework for this paper, I developed the following definition of
forward presence within the context of national defense: the visible employment of US
military personnel and/or military material as a deterrent outside of the
continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational continuum
short of involving major US conventional forces in combat. My simplistic definition could
be subject to endless scholarly debate. It includes small unit combat operations of limited
scope and duration and peacetime contingency operations such as Desert
Shield in Saudi Arabia, but it excludes the subsequent combat operation
designated Desert Storm. It includes our military activities in Alaska and Hawaii. It excludes any diplomatic,
economic, social or psychological activities that do not have a military component. The term “employment” in the definition
could be criticized as denoting action or movement which could exclude what some may term passive measures such as
storage of material or unmanned (i.e., automated) sites or systems. However, there is always some activity associated with
these so-called passive measures (e.g., maintenance, data collection, etc), and the term employment also encompasses
emplacement. The more controversial aspect of my definition lies in the terms “deterrent” and “visible.” Deterrence is “the
prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a
credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” Once major conventional forces are engaged in protracted combat operations,
it is clear that deterrence, by definition, has failed. Visibility is inextricably linked to deterrence. Visible to whom? To those
we wish to deter. This is reminiscent of the old philosophical question, “If a tree falls deep in the forest and there is no one
there to hear it, does it make a sound?” In the case of forward presence, the answer is “no.” Target audience is the key to the
concept of visibility. A target audience may be the world at large, the senior leadership of a specific country or movement,
the control cell of a terrorist organization or countless other possibilities. Therefore, forward presence, by definition, also
includes covert activities using military personnel and/or material, as long as the activity is visible to the targeted audience
and deters that group or individual from taking an undesired action. An invisible presence is both contradictory and serves
no useful deterrent purpose, which goes to the heart of the issue. Deterrence is the ultimate purpose of forward presence.
Presence is distinct from crisis response and combat missions – it is the deployment
of military forces explicitly linked to deterrence or reassurance
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
Beyond the direct defense of the United States, U.S. conventional forces fulfill three strategic
functions: overseas presence, immediate crisis response, and sustained, largescale combat. The definitions of the three provide the framework for decision on forces. Basically, forces needed for
other tasks—for example, peace-keeping and peace enforcement—are lesser cases of these three. (The Bush Administration
grouped the latter two together under the label "Crisis Response." The Bottom-Up Review does not address crisis response
except by implication as part of phase 1, before large-scale combat in a "major regional contingency."
Mr. Aspin tends
to put the label presence on all forward forces whether they are forces for presence (as will be specified) or whether they are
A basic problem with overseas presence is that the
term describes both a military posture (military means) and a military mission (military
means and political objectives). In the case of presence as a mission, the objective is
influence on behalf of a variety of U.S. political goals. This ambiguity is made worse by the
engaged in the tasks of crisis response.)
fact that the term has been in use since at least the 1960s, but it has never been defined in the JCS dictionary of military
As a strategic task of the armed forces, overseas presence is here defined
as the routine operation of forces forward (the means) to influence what
foreign governments,113 both adversary and friend, think and do (the ends)
without combat.114
terms.
SME 2010
246
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Excludes Combat Missions
(CONTINUES)
Overseas presence does not constitute a strategy, though it or a similar term may in time become
the shorthand name for the national strategy. The national strategy is one of engagement of U.S.
power in the key regions to promote their stability and democratic
development. As described in the body of this paper, a national strategy would integrate the components of U.S.
power to achieve stability in the short term and build cooperative relations in the long term. The latter would address the
dangers inherent in the international system, outlined in table 1, on page 23.
An important distinguishing characteristic of overseas presence115— the
absence of combat—places it on a continuum of increasing violence with the
other strategic tasks, crisis response and sustained combat. Each form of the
application of power aims to influence political behavior. Presence is
nonviolent (though it is their potential for violence that makes forward forces
influential); crisis response involves the threat, or the actual practice, of
limited violence; sustained combat seeks to change an adversary's behavior
through large- scale violence aimed at destroying his armed forces in the field, denying him the means to
control or continue to support his operations, and so on. Thinking about the three strategic functions as points or bands on a
continuum fits the real world; yet the three define the need for distinct kinds of capabilities.
Presence missions are anything short of actual combat
Blechman et al, 97 – President of DFI International, and has held positions in the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Office
of Management and Budget (Barry, Strategic Review, Spring, “Military Presence Abroad
in a New Era: The Role of Airpower,” p. 13)
Occupying a continuum of operations short of actual combat, presence missions
have included the permanent basing of troops overseas, routine military-tomilitary contacts, military exercises and training with other nations, participation
in multinational peace and humanitarian operations, the provision of timely
intelligence information and other data to leaders of other nations, military
deployments in response to crises, and, when necessary, the deployment of forces
in anticipation of combat.
Presence excludes the direct application of military force
Widnall and Fogleman, 95 - *Secretary of the Air Force and formerly was Associate
Provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology AND **Chief of Staff, US Air
Force (Sheila and Ronald, Joint Forces Quarterly, “Global Presence”, Spring,
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/jfq2007.pdf) Italics in the original
At the foundation of this approach is power projection. Power projection is a
means to influence actors or affect situations or events in America’s national
interest. It has two components: warfighting and presence. Warfighting is the
direct application of military force to compel an adversary. Presence is the
posturing of military capability, including nonbelligerent applications, and/or
the leveraging of information to deter or compel an actor or affect a situation.
A sound national military strategy depends on coherent warfighting and presence
strategies.
SME 2010
247
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Excludes Combat Missions
Presence is distinct from crisis response – both are highly complex and should be
addressed separately
Dismukes, 95 – analyst with the Center for Naval Analyses (Bradford, “The U.S.
Military Presence Abroad”, Strategic Review, Spring, p. 55)
Logically, forward presence has become the most important strategic task of U.S.
conventional forces. With respect to adversaries, if forces abroad are successful in
deterrence, then the requirement to respond to crises (not to mention war) can be
avoided. Presence is the primary mission; crisis response is the necessary, but
less desirable, back up. These conclusions have far-reaching consequences
both for the use of existing U.S. forces and for the acquisition of forces for the
future. Because of their scope and complexity, these necessarily must be
addressed separately. More important yet are their implications for the way
Americans think about why they should bear the risks and costs of keeping forces
abroad. For America’s partners, particularly other G7 members, there are equally
important implications for why and how they share the political and financial costs
of U.S. presence.
Presence refers to regularly deployed units – excludes combat operations
Carter, 2 - Department of the Army Civilian, paper submitted for the Strategy Research
Project at the US Army War College (Robert, “CONSIDERATIONS FOR PLANNING
OVERSEAS
PRESENCE,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA404187&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
For purposes of this paper, the use of the term "overseas presence" is intended to
refer to those units and personnel that are permanently based overseas - or - in
the case of some assets (e.g., naval forces) - are deployed to a particular region on
a regular, rotational basis. (For example, U.S. forces currently fighting terrorism
in Afghanistan would not be considered part of U.S. overseas presence by this
definition. Any residual forces remaining after cessation of hostilities might be
considered permanent presence.) Please note that the data presented in this section are
somewhat dated. Cited numbers of personnel and units should be considered as
approximations only. Nonetheless, the data are adequate for giving a reasonable sense
of the magnitude and allocation of current assets abroad. To constrain the scope of this
effort to a manageable level, and focus on areas considered most vital to U.S. interests,
only the three key regions of Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East are addressed.
SME 2010
248
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Excludes Combat Missions
Presence is distinct from crisis response – US policy experts avoid double counting
forces when they have different roles
Flournoy, 1 - senior advisor for international security at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (Michele, QDR 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices for America’s
Security,Ed:MicheleFlournoyhttp://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&
Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) MTWs=Major Theater Wars, SSCs=Smaller Scale
Contingencies
The role of overseas-presence forces in MTWs and SSCs is also considered at this
stage of the process, and the overall force structure adjusted accordingly. For
example, forward-deployed naval, air, and ground forces may be part of the
initial response to a crisis; indeed, this is an express part of their purpose.
Therefore, care must be taken not to double-count such forces in both the
presence and MTW or SSC building blocks. On the other hand, some forwarddeployed forces may be so vital to deterrence and stability in a given region that
they would not be withdrawn from an unengaged theater even in the event of MTW
execution. For the purposes of the working group’s analysis, assumptions about
which forces should be treated as stay-behind forces were derived from judgments
about what would be required to meet U.S. treaty commitments, maintain
deterrence and regional stability in a given theater, and provide the regional CINC
with minimum essential levels of force protection, support to noncombatant
evacuation operations, and strike capability.
Presence is any noncombat military operation
Yost, 95 – teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School, Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars (David, “The Future of U.S. Overseas Presence,” Joint
Forces Quarterly, Summer, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/1508.pdf)
Since the late 1980s overseas presence has also become a major element in
operations other than war—peace operations, embargoes, no-fly-zone
enforcement, nation- building, arms control, democratization, civil-military
education, et al. Special operations forces, moreover, participate in unobtrusive
foreign internal defense programs that protect societies from anarchy, subversion, and
insurgency, and that promote human rights and civilian control of the military.
SME 2010
249
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Includes Combat Missions
Presence is part of combat operations
Mastapeter, 8 - Senior Planning Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Master’s
Thesis for the Naval Postgraduate School (Craig, “THE INSTRUMENTS OF
NATIONAL POWER: ACHIEVING THE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE IN A
CHANGING WORLD,” December,
https://www.hsdl.org/homesec/docs/theses/08Dec_Mastapeter.pdf&code=9b55800f98c11
50b31a774eadc3a294b
According to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, presence is defined as the state
of being present, or of being within sight or call, or at hand; as opposed to
absence.438 YourDictionary defines presence as the fact or condition of being
present; existence, occurrence, or attendance at some place or in some thing.439
From the perspective of the purpose of this paper, the FreeDictionary provides the
most relevant definition: the diplomatic, political, or military influence of a
nation in a foreign country, especially as evidenced by the posting of its
diplomats or its troops there.440 Interestingly enough, The Joint Publications 102, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms does not
include a definition of presence. However, Joint Publication 1-0, Doctrine for the
Armed Forces of the United States, clearly states that an extended U.S. presence
will be required, post-termination, to conduct stability operations to enable
legitimate civil authority and attain the national strategic end state441 and that,
as a nation, the United States wages war employing all instruments of national
power to achieve national strategic objectives on terms favorable to the United
States.442 It can therefore be inferred from this entry that a U.S. presence is
necessary prior to and during operations because presence demonstrates U.S.
commitment, facilitates access, enhances deterrence, and supports the
transition from peace to war and a return to peace once hostilities have ended
on terms favorable to the U.S. The U.S.’ ability to maintain and fully employ its
military, informational, diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence,
financial, and economic resources overseas enhances U.S. security and that of its
partners, bolsters prosperity, and promotes democracy. This ability is commonly
called “presence.” In the context of U.S. basic national security policy and
strategy, presence, especially forward military, informational (i.e., cultural),
diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence (overt, covert, and clandestine),
financial, and economic presence, unequivocally demonstrates U.S. resolve and
sets the conditions for stability and undeniable commitment to a cause. U.S.
presence, government and private sector, creates a planning and future operational
environment that is conducive to establishing and operationalizing information
dominance, or knowledge superiority, (situational awareness of the common
operating picture) and thus creating a strategic advantage. Presence is therefore the
ability to project actionable U.S. power and influence, the means by which the
U.S. frames and shapes the international environment in ways favorable to the
nation’s interests and objectives. Presence is and has been a fundamental principle
of U.S. basic national security policy and strategy since 1942, and perhaps as early
as 1898.
SME 2010
250
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Includes Combat Missions
Military presence refers to combat operations
Pape, 6 – professor of political science at the University of Chicago (Robert, Dying to
win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, p. 105-106)
The standard I use is American military presence, defined as heavy combat
operations on the homeland of Sunni Muslim majority countries for a sustained
period prior to the onset of al-Qaeda’s suicide terrorist campaign against the United
States in 1995. If American military presence, so defined, has expanded to include
still more countries during the course of al-Qaeda’s suicide campaign, then I
include those new countries as well, since they could also serve as recruiting
grounds for al-Qaeda’s ongoing suicide campaign.
“American military
presence” includes cases where American combat forces are based in the
country or where the United States provides explicitly or widely understood
security guarantee that could be implemented using its forces in an adjacent
country. It does not include cases where American military advisors are present or
where the country’s military and the U.S. military conduct joint training exercises.
This standard comports with the meaning of “occupation” in Chapter 6, because it
defines American military presence from the perspective of the terrorists, who are
likely to fear the possibility that foreign control may be imposed by force and to
suspect that security “guarantees” actually indicate American intention to defend
the regime against revolution. This is Osama bin Laden’s view of the role of U.S.
troops on the Arabian Peninsula; it is not the perspective of the United States,
which, in most of the relevant cases, would see itself as supporting an allied
government.
Presence is the physical deployment of combat forces
Murdock, 2 – Senior Advisor at the International Security Program at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (Clark, “The Navy in an Antiaccess World,”
http://web.archive.org/web/20040204233100/http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books_200
2/Globalization_and_Maritime_Power_Dec_02/26_ch25.htm)
In its April 2000 Strategic Planning Guidance, the Navy identified “combatcredible forward presence” as its “enduring contribution” to the Nation.10
According to this document, “sea-based, self-contained and self-sustaining” naval
expeditionary forces project power and influence through the means of
“Knowledge Superiority and Forward Presence,” defined as follows: Knowledge
Superiority is the ability to achieve a real-time, shared understanding of the
battlespace at all levels through a network which provides the rapid accumulation
of all information that is needed—and the dissemination of that information to the
commander as the knowledge needed—to make a timely and informed decision
inside any potential adversary’s sensor and engagement timeline. Forward
Presence is being physically present with combat credible forces to Deter
Aggression, Enhance Regional Stability, Protect and Promote U.S. interests,
Improve Interoperability, and provide Timely Initial Crisis Response where
our national interests dictate.11
SME 2010
251
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Excludes Crisis Response
Presence is distinct from crisis response – it is a routine activity that is planned for
well in advance through consultation with allies
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
Another difference between presence and crisis response is that decisions on
forces for presence are taken at the strategic level, while those for crisis response
are operational and tactical. Presence is a routine activity; the size of the baseline
force operating forward changes relatively slowly as the strategic assessment of
the situation in the theater evolves. At this level, routine deployments and changes
in U.S forces based forward are made through U.S. initiatives, scheduled well in
advance, ideally in consultation with allies. Crisis response is conceptually
distinct from presence in that it is not a routine activity; the forces needed are
reckoned at the operational and tactical levels in response to "tactical warning"
of the initiatives of adversaries. Changes are not scheduled in advance and may well
be undertaken before consultations with allies can be completed. This means that
presence planning should be concerned only with forces forward—whether
based, deployed, or there on a rotational basis—and that forces in CONUS,
important as they are for the credibility of forces forward, cannot be considered
as executing the presence mission. This distinction provides an important
boundary for force planners because the need for CONUS-based forces can be
safely reckoned exclusively on the basis of the crisis response and war- fighting
needs of major regional contingencies. Unless this distinction is made, overseas
presence cannot be a separate activity if the forces needed for it become those forward
and in CONUS when the build- up to an MRC begins.
Presence is distinguished by the absence of combat – it is by definition nonviolent
and excludes combat operations and crisis response
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
An important distinguishing characteristic of overseas presence115— the absence
of combat—places it on a continuum of increasing violence with the other
strategic tasks, crisis response and sustained combat. Each form of the
application of power aims to influence political behavior. Presence is nonviolent
(though it is their potential for violence that makes forward forces influential);
crisis response involves the threat, or the actual practice, of limited violence;
sustained combat seeks to change an adversary's behavior through large- scale
violence aimed at destroying his armed forces in the field, denying him the means to
control or continue to support his operations, and so on. Thinking about the three
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
strategic functions as points or bands on a continuum fits the real world; yet the three
define the need for distinct kinds of capabilities.
252
T
SME 2010
253
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Includes Temporary Visits
Presence includes temporary deployments
Cliff et al, 1 - associate political scientist with RAND and currently is assigned to the
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy (Roger, QDR 2001:
Strategy-Driven Choices for America’s Security, Ed: Michele Flournoy
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
3 Another method of categorizing overseas presence forces—one used in recent
reports of the Secretary of Defense—is by their degree of permanence. In this
construct, overseas presence forces can be categorized as (1) permanently
stationed, (2) rotationally deployed, and (3) deployed temporarily for
exercises, combined training, or military-to-military interactions. See Secretary of
Defense William S. Cohen, Annual Report to the President and Congress 2000, 4.
SME 2010
254
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Includes Virtual Presence
Presence includes virtual presence
Billman, 2k - LIEUTENANT COLONEL, USAF, and NATIONAL DEFENSE
FELLOW
GENERAL RIDGWAY CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH (Gregory, “The Space of Aerospace Power – Why and
How,”http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA394062&Location=U2&doc=Get
TRDoc.pdf
This chapter discusses presence, its relationship to influence, and how this
relationship affects an adversary. This discussion is done from both general
military and specific aerospace perspectives. Webster’s dictionary defines presence
as “the state or act of being present.” “Present” denotes being “alert to
circumstances,” and “readily available.” An entity is present when it is
physically “close at hand,” or even perceived to be so. Hence, an entity can be
present when it is physically so, or merely notionally so. This chapter deals
with “presence” in two ways. First, it discusses the capability of military forces
to be “present” in, near, or over an area of interest to the US. Second, it
discusses two concepts of presence -- real and virtual -- and how they relate to
the space dimension of aerospace power. Presence allows influence.
Presence activities are distinct from “being present” – it means the ability to exert
influence
Thomason, 2 – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis (James, “Transforming US
Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD,” July,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf
In everyday parlance, to “be present” means that an entity is in a particular
place at a particular time. It is the opposite of absence. Being present in this
sense does not necessarily mean that the entity is exerting a significant effect
upon the immediate surroundings. By contrast, in everyday language, to “have
presence” or “have a presence” means that an individual is able to exert and
usually is exerting a significant effect on the immediate surroundings.
Presence includes virtual presence
Widnall and Fogleman, 97 – *Institute Professor at MIT and former US Secretary of the
Air Force AND **former Air Force general (Sheila and Ronald, American Defense
Policy, ed: Hays, p. 357-358)
The thrust of forward defense was to deter potential aggressors, and if that failed, to
engage those aggressors’ forces close to their borders, halting and repelling the
aggression. As such, presence equated to and was ensured by bipolar alliances,
heavy overseas troop commitments, frequent political and military-to-military
interaction with America’s allies, and the continual courting of “on-the-fence”
nations. In short, America’s Cold War strategy was “being there.” It was a
strategy most Americans understood. As the 1980s ended and the Cold War
subsided, the basis for the traditional definition of presence began to dissolve.
America moved from the Cold War’s bipolar arrangement toward what was
SME 2010
255
T
Chillz Lab
perceived to be a new, less threatening political environment. As forward defense
lost its rationale, forward presence and overseas presence emerged. The goal of
Presence Includes Virtual Presence
(CONTINUES)
each was to assure America’s allies of our nation’s continued commitment to their
security while responding to the reality of the decreasing threat to America’s
national existence. Today the global international system has become a more
diverse panorama of political, military, and economic concerns confronting the
United States. Consequently, it is more difficult to achieve consensus on what
Americans consider “vital” national interests. Despite this, America’s military
forces are involved in more operations of greater duration than at any time in the
past twenty years; and, these operations have been conducted with 25 percent of the
total force and 40 percent fewer forward deployed forces than the services
possessed in 1989. In the face of increasing demands on U.S. military forces,
smaller force structures, and shrinking defense budgets, we can no longer afford
to physically deploy forces in every region of concern. Concurrent with changes
in the international security environment are significant advances in technology,
most notably information technologies. The ability to create, disseminate, access,
and manipulate information for one’s own ends and to control information
available to competitors or adversaries produces a potential for decisive advantage.
Much as the introduction of the airplane moved us into the three-dimensional
battlefield, information technologies lead us to consider the potential of operations
in a four-dimensional, virtual battlespace. This battlespace is not defined in terms
of traditional, centralized, geopolitical boundaries, but in terms of a decentralized,
global web of networks. As a result, we must examine new methods of
characterizing the threat – including the use of technology-based analysis – and
determine appropriate responses. To use an analogy, during the Cold War, America
was like a cop permanently guarding the door of every bank around the globe.
Changes in the security environment coupled with technological improvements and
force reductions altered America’s need to continue in this role. Hence America
replaced “the cop on the beat” with “video monitoring and alarm systems” linked to
joint military capabilities that can be brought to bear wherever and whenever
necessary. This monitoring and alarm network consists of space-based and airbreathing platform sensors and other information-gathering systems. In most
instances, information, combined with the right mix of capabilities, can achieve
U.S. goals. On occasion, information alone may be enough to attain U.S.
objectives. Of course, in some regions of the world a physical presence is
imperative; however, there may be circumstances when such a presence is
counterproductive. In instances where a physical presence is not preferred,
information capabilities provide America the option to visit the “bank” as often as
it wishes to check the integrity of the system. In an environment influenced by so
many variables, how should America best pursue the continuing need for presence?
One way is through global presence. Global presence expands the definition of
presence to include the advantages of physical and virtual means. Global
presence considers the full range of potential activities from the physical
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
interaction of military forces to the virtual interaction achieved with
America’s information-capabilities.
256
T
SME 2010
257
T
Chillz Lab
Presence Includes Training
Presence is primarily training – not just troop presence
Lutz, 9 - professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University
(Catherine, “Obama’s Empire,” New Statesman, August 3, 2009, lexis)
Moreover, these bases are the anchor - and merely the most visible aspect - of
the US military's presence overseas. Every year, US forces train 100,000
soldiers in 180 countries, the presumption being that beefed-up local militaries
will help to pursue US interests in local conflicts and save the US money,
casualties and bad publicity when human rights abuses occur (the blowback effect
of such activities has been made clear by the strength of the Taliban since 9/11).
The US military presence also involves jungle, urban, desert, maritime and
polar training exercises across wide swathes of landscape, which have become
the pretext for substantial and permanent positioning of troops. In recent years,
the US has run around 20 exercises annually on Philippine soil, which have
resulted in a near-continuous presence of US soldiers in a country whose
people ejected US bases in 1992 and whose constitution forbids foreign troops to
be based on its territory. Finally, US personnel work every day to shape local legal
codes to facilitate US access: they have lobbied, for example, to change the
Philippine and Japanese constitutions to allow, respectively, foreign troop basing
and a more-than-defensive military.
Presence includes training, officer exchanges, and military sales
Thomason
2
(James,
Institute
for
Defense
Analysis,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415954&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, p. i23)
This is generally consistent, for example, with B. Dismukes’ formulation:
“Overseas presence encompasses a variety of activities…. In addition to
permanent and rotational forces forward on the ground, forces deployed at sea, and
prepositioned equipment, overseas presence includes: exercises and training of
US forces with those of friends and allies; unilateral training by US forces on
foreign soil; US C3I systems, especially in their bilateral and multilateral roles;
arrangements for access by US forces to facilities overseas; stationing and visits
abroad by senior US military and defense officials; visits to port and airfields by
US naval and air forces; public shows by demonstration teams such as
Thunderbirds and a host of public affairs activities, including military musical
groups; stafftostaff talks and studies with foreign military organizations and
analytical groups; exchanges of military people between the US and friends and
allies; military training of foreign personnel in the US and in their home countries;
training of military officers of former totalitarian and some developing states in the
roles of the military in a civil society; foreign military sales and funding and
coproduction of military equipment with other nations.” [pp. 13–14]
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Presence only refers to military posture – not a mission
Presence just refers to a military posture – their interpretation of a presence mission
isn’t specified in the resolution
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
The core of this analysis is a comparison of the relative merits of a military posture
focused on operating forces overseas with its alternative—a posture centered on
forces in or near the continental United States (CONUS).5 Because confusion
surrounds the term presence, appendix A defines it further, showing its
relationship to the other strategic tasks of conventional forces. The basic problem is
that the term describes both a military posture, i.e., military means, and a
military mission, which cannot be meaningful without defining its ends—
influence on behalf of a variety of political goals. The problem American
strategy faces concerns military posture: whether forces have to be overseas to
achieve the desired political ends. Unless the mission is specified hereafter, the
terms "presence," "overseas presence," and "forward presence" refer only to a
military posture. Appendix A also provides the background to the discussion of
force sizing and structure in the final section of the body of this paper.
Presence solely refers to the deployment of forces overseas – it is distinct from the
political goals attached to force deployments
Kugler, 98 – senior consultant at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy
(CTNSP) of the National Defense University, he previously was a Distinguished
Research Professor there (Richard, “Future Directions for the U.S. Overseas Military
Presence”, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR956/MR956.2.pdf)
Overseas presence is a policy instrument: a means to an end, not an end in
itself. The United States deploys military forces abroad for specific purposes, and the
posture, ideally, should reflect these purposes. One purpose is to perform the important but narrow mission of waging war
and otherwise carrying out combat operations on short notice. An equally important purpose, however, is political and
strategic. Overseas-presence forces are intended to work with the forces of friendly and allied countries, as well as with U.S.
forces based in CONUS, to influence the behavior of many countries and therefore to help shape the international
environment. Both purposes must be kept in mind when judging the performance of the current posture and future
A legitimate question can be raised about whether the term overseas
presence is the best name for this endeavor. During the Cold War, the relevant term was forward defense. This
requirements
term was discarded when the Cold War ended, and it was replaced first by forward presence, then by overseas presence.
One effect has been to strip away provocative connotations; an additional
effect has been to create a term that seems devoid of purpose or activity. The
term overseas presence merely states that U.S. forces are deployed overseas,
but it says nothing about their ends and means. Perhaps a better term might be overseas security
engagement or overseas security commitments, terms that convey a sense of strategic purpose, rather than presence for its
own sake For convenience I use overseas presence. However, I provide a comprehensive definition of this term because it
includes so many things Overseas presence is the set of U.S. military assets and activities abroad that, as a complement to
power projection from CONUS, engages in purposeful security commitments and management efforts on behalf of a broad
spectrum of national objectives that are “strategic”—that is, political, economic, and military in nature.
258
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Presence only refers to a military posture – not a mission
Their interpretation conflates presence and influence – presence is just the state of
being present in a country, influence is the GOAL of presence
Jones, 95 – Major, USAF (Bud, Air & Space Power Journal 1995-1998 (there is no date
listed in the archive but this article is listed under that date range), “The Objective is
Influence, not Presence or Its Influence (not Presence) Stupid!,”
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/influenc.html)
The objective of military presence is not simply to be present as events occur,
the objective is to influence those events. Unfortunately, military presence can
easily masquerade as the objective and the argument over which particular service or mix of forces can
best attain the desired presence can dominate the debate and exclude other considerations. Presence and
influence are related, but they are not synonymous. Presence, the mere fact or
condition of being present, is much easier to achieve. It can be achieved in some special
circumstances by sending a carrier battle group or amphibious force, in a greater number of circumstances by rapidly
deploying Army elements, or in the greatest number of instances by the sudden impact of air power from Air Force
warplanes quickly launched from distant bases--including those in the continental United States. In all these cases, presence
is designed to shrink the time and distance equation so a potential military response will seem more immediate and visible.
the debate over who can best provide presence while limiting vulnerability and danger to US
causes a loss of focus on the more important objective: influence. Presence is
only a component of influence (which is a much more sophisticated and in
some ways subtler concept). Influence is also a much more elusive objective
than presence. The influence military forces can exert in the international arena is related to their presence (or
Still,
lives
capability to be present), their core capabilities, the political will to use those forces, and, most importantly, the perception of
those who you seek to influence. Moreover, in this complex world, the US military will be required to exert influence in ways
not directly related to war fighting; i.e., missions like transporting and distributing humanitarian aid, providing health and
physical services in support of relief efforts, and peacekeeping duties. Contrary to the current debate over which types of
forces will best provide presence, the real question is: which forces will work successfully across the widest possible
spectrum of events to influence future international situations The answer to that question is not as simple as the slogan
makers seem to make it. Mere presence is no guarantor of influence; after all, the United Nations
and American Express are present virtually everywhere but their influence is at best limited. For example, great claims are
made about the Navy's ability to operate in the world's coastal or littoral areas and thus, so the argument goes, making it the
most visible and flexible service to support forward presence. What these proponents do not acknowledge is that littoral
presence may or may not provide an avenue for achieving influence. In effect, a naval presence adds only the possibility for
influence.
259
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
AT: Presence=just the military means, not a mission
Just restricting the aff to the means of military presence still excludes combat
operations
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
Overseas presence
A principal aim of presence is to make crisis response unnecessary, just as the latter
seeks to eliminate the need for large-scale combat. In addition to permanent and
rotational forces forward on the ground, forces deployed at sea, and
prepositioned equipment, the means of overseas presence are •Exercises and
training of U.S. forces with those of friends and allies •Unilateral training by
U.S. forces on foreign soil U.S. C3I systems, especially in their bilateral and
multilateral roles Arrangements for the access by U.S. forces to facilities
overseas Stationing and visits abroad by senior U.S. military officials Visits to
ports and airfields by U.S. naval and air forces Public shows by U.S.
demonstration teams such as the Thunderbirds and a host of public affairs
activities including military musical groups Staff-to-staff talks and studies
with foreign military organizations and analytical groups U.S. participation on
multilateral staffs Exchanges of military people between the U.S. and friends
and allie •Military training of foreign personnel in the U.S. and in their home
countries Training of military officers of former totalitarian and some developing
states in the roles of the military in a civil society Foreign military sales and
funding and co-production of military equipment with other nations 122. This
last would logically include an arms transfer policy dimension. With the exception
of the Missile Technology Transfer Regime and various transparency reporting
provisions of confidence-building agreements, there are not yet any arms control
aspects to this part of presence, although these too would appear to called for. This
listing is taken from the National Military Strategy and from the unclassified
introduction to Annex O of the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, distributed by the
Joint
Chiefs
of
Staff
in
December
1992.
260
T
SME 2010
261
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Pape Definition-Presence=Combat
Pape’s definition defines military presence from the perspective of terrorists – its in
the context of a book on motivations for terrorism
Pape, 6 – professor of political science at the University of Chicago (Robert, Dying to
win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, p. 105-106)
The standard I use is American military presence, defined as heavy combat
operations on the homeland of Sunni Muslim majority countries for a sustained
period prior to the onset of al-Qaeda’s suicide terrorist campaign against the
United States in 1995. If American military presence, so defined, has expanded to
include still more countries during the course of al-Qaeda’s suicide campaign, then I
include those new countries as well, since they could also serve as recruiting grounds
for al-Qaeda’s ongoing suicide campaign. “American military presence” includes
cases where American combat forces are based in the country or where the United
States provides explicitly or widely understood security guarantee that could be
implemented using its forces in an adjacent country. It does not include cases where
American military advisors are present or where the country’s military and the U.S.
military conduct joint training exercises. This standard comports with the meaning
of “occupation” in Chapter 6, because it defines American military presence from
the perspective of the terrorists, who are likely to fear the possibility that foreign
control may be imposed by force and to suspect that security “guarantees” actually
indicate American intention to defend the regime against revolution. This is Osama
bin Laden’s view of the role of U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula; it is not the
perspective of the United States, which, in most of the relevant cases, would see itself
as
supporting
an
allied
government.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
AT: Presence includes more than troop deployments
Their definition of presence is the broadest possible
Scala, 98 - Office of the Secretary of Defense (Mary, “Theater Engagement Planning: An
Interagency
Opportunity”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA351762&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
During the run-up to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Joint Staff
and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy undertook a
comprehensive review of overseas presence requirements and issues. The intention
was to ensure the resources committed to presence were consistent with national
priorities in the region—and to identify overseas commitments that were
potentially excess to the emerging defense strategy. To make sure everything
was considered, the definition of “presence” was made as broad as possible—
from forward-stationed troops, to prepositioned stocks, to naval deployments,
to joint and combined military exercises, to mil-to-mil contacts. At about the
same time, the Joint Staff was working to create a notional “baseline engagement
force” in order to get a clearer historical picture of how many U.S. forces
worldwide were engaged routinely in engagement or crisis-response operations.
Both the overseas presence study and the baseline engagement force analysis were
intended to form one point of departure for the formulation of a new defense
strategy. Planners hoped to find relatively painless ways to increase spending on
military readiness and procurement, without undercutting essential warfighting
forces or technology.
The broad interpretation would mean everything the military does is topical
Meyer, 7 – Lieutenant Commander, US Navy (Richard, “Naval Presence with a
Purpose:
Considerations for the Operational Commander,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA470845&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
In 2007, naval presence is no longer enumerated as a stand-alone mission of U.S.
naval forces. However, the concept of presence is inherent in all that we do. In the
Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) there is only one specified task with presence in the
title and it is the strategic-national task 3.1, “Coordinate Forward Presence of Forces in
Theaters.”7 In the definition of this task, the UJTL strikes at the heart of the matter by
stating that presence “…is a crucial element of deterrence and can be a demonstration
of resolve to allies and potential adversaries.”8 In addition to this one task, however,
the term presence or forward presence is used in the definition of several other tasks
such as operational task 1.2.4.1, “Conduct a Show of Force”.9 This gives credence to
the belief that presence is an underlying theme in every mission we undertake as a
Navy.
262
T
SME 2010
263
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Your definition says “forward” presence
Forward presence is military presence
Zakheim et al, 96 – former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Planning and
Resources (Dov, “Political and Economic Implications of Global Naval Presence”, 9/30,
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA319811)
The United States has determined that overseas military presence during
peacetime, often termed “forward presence” or “peacetime presence”; should
remain an integral part of its force posture in the post-Cold War era. In 1996, the
United States maintains a diminished, yet still significant land and aviation presence in
Europe and in Korea. In addition, it supports a robust maritime presence, including
aircraft carrier battle groups and Marine Expeditionary Units, in the Mediterranean
Sea, the Persian Gulf and East Asia (see Table 1).
Presence is the same as forward presence / overseas presence
Dismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of
the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security
Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for
Acquisition
and
Use
of
Forces,”
March,
http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)
115. This paper uses the terms presence, overseas presence, and forward
presence interchangeably.
Overseas presence and forward presence are the same thing
National Military Strategy, 97 – prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (“Shape,
Respond,
Prepare
Now:
A
Military
Strategy
for
a
New
Era,”
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nms/index.htm#contents)
Overseas Presence. Overseas presence is the visible posture of US forces and
infrastructure strategically positioned forward, in or near key regions.
Permanently stationed and rotationally or temporarily deployed forces promote
security and stability, prevent conflict, give substance to our security commitments,
and ensure our continued access. Overseas presence enhances coalition operations
by promoting joint and combined training and encouraging responsibility sharing
on the part of friends and allies. Overseas presence contributes to deterrence by
demonstrating our determination to defend US, allied, and friendly interests in
critical regions while enabling the US to rapidly concentrate military power in the
event of crisis. The presence of our forces provides commanders with a flexible
array of options to respond promptly to aggression. Overseas presence forces
embody global military engagement. They serve as role models for militaries in
emerging democracies; contribute uniquely to the stability, continuity, and
flexibility that protects US interests; and are crucial to continued democratic and
economic development.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
AT: Resolution says “reduce military” not “military presence”
The topic is about “military presence” – the phrase “and/or police” was added as an
afterthought
Bauschard, 10 – author of the topic, coach at Lakeland and Harvard (Stefan, “2010-11
Military
Presence
Topic
Guide”
http://www.planetdebate.com/textbooks/viewSection/882
The term “police” was added to the resolution because in some countries,
particularly Iraq, many of the individuals that articles refer to as being part of the
US military presence are really “police.” This term was largely added to enable
affirmatives to topically reduce all of the US presence that could be described as
“military,” even if it was technically not military. Although the term was added for
that reason, it is likely that some affirmatives may find specific policing operations
and
reduce
tho
264
T
SME 2010
265
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Greer Definition of Presence
Greer’s definition isn’t rigorous or well thought out, it only applies to his paper
Greer, 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
The definition may not be scholastically airtight. It is only offered to provide a
conceptual frame of reference for the study. So for the purpose of this study, let
us accept that forward presence is the visible employment of US military
personnel and/or military material as a deterrent outside of the continental United
States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational continuum short of involving
major US conventional forces in combat.
SME 2010
266
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Presence is only deterrence
Presence refers to military forces deployed for the purpose of influence,
reassurance, deterrence, and initial crisis response
Flournoy, 1 - senior advisor for international security at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and served as a research professor in the Institute for National
Strategic Studies at the National Defense University (Michele, QDR 2001: StrategyDriven Choices for America’s Security, Ed: Michele Flournoy http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Italics in
original
Terms such as presence and engagement are often used rather loosely. Following
a survey and analysis of existing sources, we developed or adopted specific
definitions for the terms used to describ these strategy issues.We define overseas
presence as military forces permanently stationed or rotationally or
intermittently deployed overseas for the purposes of influence, engagement,
reassurance, deterrence, and initial crisis response. We define peacetime military
engagement as encompassing all U.S. military activities designed to enhance
constructive security relations and promote broad U.S. security interests, including
activities such as combined training and education, military-to-military
interactions, security assistance, and various other programs. U.S. overseas
presence forces are often also involved in conducting peacetime military
engagement activities.
Presence refers to military forces deployed for particular military goals of influence,
reassurance, deterrence and crisis response
Flournoy, 1 - senior advisor for international security at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and previously served as a distinguished research professor in the
Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and as the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction
(Michele, QDR 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices for America’s Security, Ed: Michele
Flournoy
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Italics in
original
Another key element of any defense strategy is overseas presence, which we
define as the military forces permanently stationed or rotationally or
intermittently deployed overseas for the purposes of influence, engagement,
reassurance, deterrence, and initial crisis response. Because many overseaspresence forces require a substantial rotation base, this element has potentially
profound implications for the size of the associated force.
SME 2010
267
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Presence is only deterrence
Presence includes crisis response and security cooperation
Henry, 6 – served as Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy since
February 2003 (Ryan, “Reposturing the Force: U.S. Overseas Presence in the Twentyfirst Century,” ed: Lords,
http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/NewportPapers/Documents/26-pdf.aspx)
Finally, operational access comprises the presence, global management, and
surging of our forces overseas, all enabled by the political and geographic access
we enjoy with hostnation partners. Presence is defined by the permanent and
rotational forces that conduct military activities (training, exercises, and
operations) worldwide, from security cooperation to crisis response. That
presence consists of both small units working together in a wide range of capacities
and major formations conducting elaborate exercises to achieve proficiency in
multinational operations. Second, our posture supports our new approach to force
management, which seeks both to relieve stresses on our military forces and their
families and to manage our forces on a global, rather than regional, basis.
Combatant commanders no longer “own” forces in their theaters; rather, forces are
managed according to global priorities. Third, managing our military forces
globally also allows us to surge a greater percentage of the force wherever and
whenever necessary.
SME 2010
268
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Definitions of “forward presence”
Forward presence is broader than military presence – it includes nonmilitary
capabilities
Challis, 93 - Lieutenant Colonel (Dan, "GENERAL PURPOSE GROUND FORCES"
WHAT PURPOSE?" 4/6,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA441096&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
JSCP = Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan
JSCP guidance for forward presence operations is similarly broad. It defines
forward presence as the "totality of U.S. instruments of power deployed
overseas (both permanently and temporarily) at any time". A wide-ranging
assortment of 34 specific actions are aligned into six categories:
•operational training and deployments
•security assistance
•peacekeeping operations
• protecting U.S. citizens abroad
•combatting drugs
• humanitarian assistance
It is evident from the JSCP that a wide variety of military and non-military
capabilities are to be integrated into the regional CINCs' plans. The breadth of
military operations envisioned in this document has huge implications for the
number, structure, training and operational tempo (OPTEMPO) of conventional
units, to include general purpose ground forces.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
AT: Reducing presence requires reducing military capability
The Global Posture Review reduced US military presence even though it was
designed to expand allied capabilities
O’Hanlon, 8 - senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a senior advisor to the
Center for a New American Security. (Michael, “Unfinished Business U.S. Overseas
Military Presence in the 21st Century,”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/06_military_ohanlon/06_militar
y_ohanlon.pdf) GPR = Global Posture Review
The GPR encompasses everything from the creation of new bases in Central
Asia and Eastern Europe to the downsizing of the U.S. military presence in
Germany to a reduction and realignment of the American presence in South
Korea and Okinawa, Japan. These changes are designed to improve U.S. and
allied options for handling new developments — such as the ongoing struggle
against extremism and terrorism, the rise of China —
269
T
SME 2010
270
T
Chillz Lab
AT: Presence Requires Visibility
Presence doesn’t depend on visibility or perception
Riehm, 96 – ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT
LEAVENWORTH KS (Peter, “Suasion Through Military Presence: An Analysis of the
Role of Presence in U.S.-Libyan Relations, l977-1995,”
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISO
PTR=868&CISOBOX=1&REC=19
This professional experience off the coast of Haiti is the genesis of this thesis.
Presence operations seemed to have been either misapplied, underutilized, or just
plain misunderstood. The US5 Harlan County incident in October 1993 is a good
example of misapplied presence with an inadequate attempt at entry and
unceremonious withdrawal of forces. Where was the disconnect? Was it lack of
doctrine or lack of appreciation for the proper employment of presence? In
pondering these questions, it became clear to the author that evaluating or
measuring the effectiveness of presence operations has been subjective and largely
intangible. Apparent ambiguity and difficulty in measuring variables make
presence a complex concept to grasp, much less apply. For this thesis, presence is
defined as any use of military power intended to influence a sovereign entity,
regardless of perception, including mere capability to measured applications
of force short of war. This thesis will attempt to discern some pattern or form to
measure
efficacy
of
presence
operations
SME 2010
271
T
Chillz Lab
**And/Or**
SME 2010
272
T
Chillz Lab
And/Or Definitions
And/or means one or more
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or)
And/or is a phrase used to indicate that one or more of the stated cases may
occur. For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates
that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are
not exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices.
More ev…
Brians 10 (Paul, Princeton, Common Errors in English Usage, http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html)
The legal phrase “and/or,” indicating that you can either choose between two
alternatives or choose both of them, has proved irresistible in other contexts and
is now widely acceptable though it irritates some readers as jargon. However, you
can logically use it only when you are discussing choices which may or may not
both be done: “Bring chips and/or beer.” It’s very much overused where simple
“or” would do, and it would be wrong to say, “you can get to the campus for this
morning’s meeting on a bike and/or in a car.” Choosing one eliminates the
possibility of the other, so this isn’t an and/or situation.
And/or means one or the other or both
Words and Phrases 07 (3A W&P, p. 220)
.A.1 (Mass.) 1981. Words “and/or,” for contract purposes, commonly mean
the one or the other or both.—Local Division 589, Amalgameted Transit
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Com. Of Mass., 666 F.2d 618, certiorari denied Local
Div. 589, Amalgamated Transit Union AFL-CIO v. Massachusetts, 102 S.Ct. 2928,
457 U.S. 1117, 73 L.Ed.2d 1329.—Contracts 159.
And/or means one or the other or both
Pullum 08 (Geoffrey K., Professor of General Linguistics – University of Edinburgh,
“And/or: "and AND or", or "and OR or"?”, Language Log, 4-14,
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=35)
Does and/or mean "and and or", or "and or or"? That is, if I say I am interested in A
and/or B, do I mean I'm interested in A and B and I'm interested in A or B, or do I
mean that I'm interested in A and B or I'm interested in A or B? (You may want to
say that it means I'm interested in A and B and/or I'm interested in A or B; but in
that case I repeat my question.) Having reflected on it for a little while, I am convinced
that the answer has to be that A and/or B must mean "A and B or A or B". That is, if an
entity A is claimed to have the property of being F and/or G, the claim amounts to
saying that either (i) A has the property of being both F and G or (ii) A has the
property of being either F or G. And to claim that F is a property of entities A
and/or B is to claim that either (i) F holds for A and B or (ii) F holds for A or B.
However, in that case and/or is effectively identical in meaning with or, so it is at first rather hard
to see why and/or exists at all. But I do have a guess. The right theory of what or means in English is that it is in general
inclusive but that sometimes the exclusive special case is conveyed as a conversational implicature. I'm going to study
SME 2010
273
T
Chillz Lab
linguistics at either York or Edinburgh would often be taken to have the exclusive sense: since you typically go to a single
university to take a single degree, and during the degree course you have no time to study elsewhere, a decision to choose
And/Or Definitions
(CONTINUES)
York would normally exclude choosing Edinburgh as well. The exclusive sense is thus conveyed: one or the other of York
and Edinburgh will be chosen, and if it is York it will not be Edinburgh, and if it is Edinburgh it will not be York. But of
course if you think about it, someone who says she is choosing between those two universities does not commit herself for
life to never studying at the other. When the two alternatives exclude each other, then the exclusive meaning is the only one
that makes sense. If you are asked whether you want to sit in the stalls or in the balcony, it's one or the other but not both,
because you can only be in one place at one time. When they don't exclude each other, it's always understood
that or allows for both: obviously someone whose ambition is to win either an Oscar or an Olympic
medal wouldn't feel a failure if they won both. Winning both would satisfy the ambition in spades. So my guess
would be that and/or is a way of underlining the point that the or is to be understood in its inclusive sense rather than its
exclusive sense. Sometimes you want to explicitly indicate "or more than one of the above", and and/or does that. Take the
first example of and/or in the Wall Street Journal corpus of 1987-1989 (a 44-million-word collection of random articles that
linguists often use as a source for real-life examples because the Linguistic Data Consortium — the host for the giant
Language Log servers — made it available in 1993 nice and cheap). The example (which actually happens to be a quotation
from the Washington Post) is this: Too many of his attitudes, claims and complaints are careless, conflicting, dubious,
inaccurate, mean, petty, simplistic, superficial, uninformed and/or pointlessly biased. I take it as obvious that if one hundred
percent of the hapless man's attitudes, claims and complaints had all ten properties — every single one was careless and
conflicting and dubious and inaccurate and mean and petty and simplistic and superficial and uninformed and pointlessly
biased — then the quoted claim would be regarded as true, not false. An or would have done the job here, but the
and/or injects a (logically redundant) reminder that
it may well be the case that more than one
of the list of ten properties applies to the miserable individual in question.
-- X or Y or both
Wood 01 (Diane P., Circuit Judge – United States Court of Appeals, “Susan E. Hess,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company”, 12-13,
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=002043)
Having determined that Hess's 1996 employment contract is properly a part of the
administrative record the district court was entitled to consider, we must next
decide whether Hartford could reasonably have determined that Hess's benefits as
of April 19, 1996, should have been based only on her 1995 draw amount. Like the
district court, we cannot read the contract that way. Hess's 1996 contract clearly
states that the draw system was to be phased out as of April 5. The contract also
specifies that her benefits, including long-term disability benefits, would be
calculated based on her "base salary and/or draw." (We note in passing that the
phrase "and/or" has its critics. Bryan A. Garner reports in A Dictionary of Modern
Legal Usage 56 (2d ed. 1995), that "and/or has been vilified for most of its life-and rightly so." He goes on to say, however, that the expression, while "undeniably
clumsy, does have a specific meaning (x and/or y = x or y or both)." Id.) Here, this would
mean that Hess could have her benefits calculated on the basis of her base salary, or her
draw, or both. In the context of Fleet's transition away from a draw system, the only reasonable interpretation of this provision was that
the benefits would be based on the draw while it was in effect and on the base salary thereafter. As of April 5, Hess was thus contractually
entitled to a benefits package based on her base salary--that is, based on the average of her previous two years' commissions. The fact that Fleet
may have breached the contract (or been slow in implementing its details) by failing to move from the draw system to the base salary system
until June 1 does not change the package of compensation and benefits to which Hess was contractually entitled. Nor could the fact that Fleet
failed to inform Hartford about the date the change-over was to have occurred affect Hess's benefit amount. The Hartford policy states that "[i]f
[Fleet] gives The Hartford any incorrect information, the relevant facts will be determined" to establish the correct benefit amount. Once
informed by Hess's attorney that Hess believed the information Fleet provided Hartford was incorrect, it was incumbent on the examiner to
refer to Hess's employment contract to determine her actual regular monthly pay. Had he done so, he would have seen that Hess became
entitled to the higher level of benefits on April 5, two weeks before her disability. The district court therefore did not err when it concluded that
Hartford's failure to consider the contract was arbitrary and capricious.
SME 2010
274
T
Chillz Lab
And/Or Definitions
“And/or” can mean either – defer to general community practice
Words and Phrases 07 (3A W&P, p. 224)
N.D. 1964. “And/or” as used in contract may mean either “and” or “or”,
and interpretation should be one which will best effect purpose of parties
as determined in light of equities of the case.—Hummel v. Kranz, 126
N.W.2d 786—Contracts 159.
“And/or” means or
Words and Phrases 07 (3A W&P, p. 224)
Or. 1942. As used in the constitutional amendment and statue relating to the
creation of public utility districts, the hybrid phrase “and/or” may be
construed as meaning “or”.—Ollilo v. Clatskanie People’s Utility Dist., 132
P.2d 416, 170 Or. 173.
SME 2010
275
T
Chillz Lab
“And” Definitions
And means in addition
Ansell 00 (Mary, “Chapter 28: Conjunctions”, English Grammar: Explanations and
Exercises, http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/durrus/153/gramch28.html)
two similar grammatical constructions; for instance, two words,
two phrases or two clauses. e.g. My friend and I will attend the meeting. Austria is famous
for the beauty of its landscape and the hospitality of its people. The sun rose and the birds
began to sing. In these examples, the coordinate conjunction and is used to join the two
words friend and I, the two phrases the beauty of its landscape and the hospitality of its
people, and the two clauses the sun rose and the birds began to sing. The most commonly
used coordinate conjunctions are and, but and or. In addition, the words nor and yet may be
used as coordinate conjunctions. In the following table, each coordinate conjunction is
followed by its meaning and an example of its use. Note the use of inverted word order in
the clause beginning with nor. Coordinate Conjunctions and: in addition She tried and succeeded.
Coordinate conjunctions are used to join
And means requires both
Words and Phrases 07 (3A W&P, p. 166)
C.A.Fed. 2001. Inclusion of conjunctive “and” in regulation indicated that all three
of the enumerated criteria had to be demonstrated.—Watson v. Department of Navy,
262 F. 3d 1292, certiorari denied 122 S.Ct. 817, 534 U.S. 1083, 151 L.Ed.2d 700.—Admin
Law 412.1.
SME 2010
276
T
Chillz Lab
“Or” ≠ AND
‘Or’ can be one – does not have to be both
Webster’s
96
(Revised
Unabridged
Dictionary,
“Or”,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/or)
1. One of two; the one or the other; -- properly used of two things, but sometimes of a
larger number, for any one.
Exclusive evidence – ‘or’ means only one
Quirk 93 (Randolph, Professor of Linguistics – University of Durham, and Sidney
Greenbaum,
“A
University
Grammar
of
English”,
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm)
OR To suggest that only one possibility can be realized, excluding one or the other : "You
can study hard for this exam or you can fail." To suggest the inclusive combination
of alternatives: "We can broil chicken on the grill tonight, or we can just eat
leftovers. To suggest a refinement of the first clause: "Smith College is the premier
all-women's college in the country, or so it seems to most Smith College alumnae."
To suggest a restatement or "correction" of the first part of the sentence: "There are
no rattlesnakes in this canyon, or so our guide tells us." To suggest a negative
condition: "The New Hampshire state motto is the rather grim "Live free or die."
To suggest a negative alternative without the use of an imperative (see use of and
above): "They must approve his political style or they wouldn't keep electing him
mayor."
“Or” does not mean and
Words and Phrases 7 (3A W&P, p. 167)
Ct.Cl. 1878. The word “or” in a contract will not be construed to mean “and,”
where it connects propositions reasonably in the alternative. Thus, the word in a
contract which binds the contractor to supply so many pounds, more or less,
as may be required for the wants of certain government stations between a certain
time, cannot be construed to mean “and,” and does not entitle the
constractor to furnish all the oats which may be needed at the station.—Merriam
v. U.S., 14 Ct.Cl. 289, affirmed 2 S.Ct. 536, 107 U.S. 437, 17 Otto 437, 27 L.Ed.
531.
And does not mean “or”
Words and Phrases 7 (3A W&P, p. 167)
C.A.5 (Tex.) 1988. The word “and” is to be accepted for its conjunctive
connotation rather than as a word interchangeable with “or” except where
strict grammatical construction would frustrate clear legislative intent.—Bruce v.
First Federal Sav. And Loan Ass’n of Conroe, Inc., 837 F.2d 712—Statut 197.
SME 2010
277
T
Chillz Lab
“Or” Definitions
"Or" represents alternatives
Random House Webster's College Dictionary 1999 (Random House, "or," Random House Inc. p. 928)
1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): to be
or not to be.
"Or" indicates an alternative
Merriam-Webster 2010 (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "or," Merriam Webster Inc., http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or)
used as a function to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea><sink or swim>, the
equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>,
or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>
SME 2010
278
T
Chillz Lab
“Or” = And
“Or” means and
Words and Phrases 07 (3A W&P, p. 167)
C.A.2 (Conn.) 1958. Where words in will are placed in the disjunctive, and intent
of testator is clear, word “or” is often construed as “and”.—Hight v. U.S., 256
F.2d 795.—Wills 466.
SME 2010
279
T
Chillz Lab
**Police Presence*
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
1NC-Police Presence=/=Non-Military Agencies
A. Interpretation—‘Police presence’ is military forces referred to in police roles
Bauschard 10(Stefan, Author of the Topic Paper, April 4, “Introductory Topic Essay”
http://www.planetdebate.com/blogs/view/819)
According to Wikipedia, a “police” force is a “a public force empowered to
enforce the law and provide security through the legitimized use of force.” In
relation to foreign military service, police usually refers to “military police ,” “a
military corps that enforces discipline and guards prisoners “ (Wordnet), but it can also include training
and support of civilian police forces, such as US training of the Iraqi police . The
term “police” was added to the resolution because in some countries, particularly Iraq, many of
the individuals that articles refer to as being part of the US military presence
are really “police.” This term was largely added to enable affirmatives to topically reduce all of the US presence
that could be described as “military,” even if it was technically not military. Although the term was added for that reason, it
is likely that some affirmatives may find specific policing operations and reduce those.
B. Violation—The aff reduces something apart from the military
C. Standards:
a. Predictable Limits—there are thousands of different agencies in the U.S.
that could act internationally in law enforcement, allowing them explodes the
topic by allowing thousands of agencies that are not germane or in context of
the resolution.
b. Ground—The neg loses all ground based off of the reductions in presence
of U.S. combat forces.
D. Voter for fairness and education—evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
280
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
2NC Police Presence=/=Non-Military Agencies-A2: Overlimits
Doesn’t overlimit—many police operations conducted by the DoD
Steele 8(Robert, Founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Center, Strategic Studies
Institute, War and Peace in the Digital Era)
Although the US has not declared war since the World War II, it has been
involved in several dozen war-like circumstances occasioning the death of soldiers and others.
These range from the UN Police Action in Korea (1950+), to Military Assistance in Vietnam (1961–72), to All Necessary
Means under UN Security Council Resolution 678 (UNSCR 678) in Iraq (1991), to the present Iraq liberation (2003+) based
in UNSCR 687, the cease-fire conditions for the 1991 action. Because very few profit from war, it is often bad press to start
one. This may explain few wars but very many police actions , military operations, preemptive strikes and responses to something the enemy did. Also – to use scurrilous logic -- if war is not declared it cannot be
lost, there can be no war crimes, no blame for starting a war (which is against international law), no obligation to obey rules
of war, or rules for treatment of combatants, or rules for the protection of Cultural Property under the Hague Convention
(1899, 1954).
DoD doesn’t overlimit —lead on narcotics
Sprankle 7(Laurie, Lecturer@Penn State, Security and International Relations in the 21st Century: United States’ Continuum of
Counterinsurgency: Anti-Communism to Anti-Terrorism, http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/archive07/sprankle.pdf)
Facing a changing foreign policy paradigm with the disintegration of the Soviet Union by 1990, then President George H. W.
Bush codified U.S. anti narcotic efforts providing a multilateral program focused on the provision of training, equipment, and
economic assistance to foreign nations in the international war on drugs. The “Andean Strategy To Control Cocaine”
implemented by the Bush administration in 1990 represented the most comprehensive program to date. With an operational
budget of $423 million in FY 91, The Andean Strategy offered economic, military, and law enforcement assistance to
the Andean Strategy relied on the use of the U.S.
military to supplement such programs based on the designation by Congress
that the Department of Defense represented the lead agency in the battle
against drugs by 1988. 49 Nevertheless, the State Department in 1990 argued that the Bush counter narcotics
participant nations. 48 At its core,
policy “should not be characterized as a ‘militarized effort, but rather one that seeks to provide legitimate governments with
the tools and assistance to help defend their political sovereignty.” 50
Doesn’t overlimit —DoD uses counterinsurgency efforts too
Schwartz 9(Michael, Specialist in defense acquisition, August 13, “Department of
Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis”,
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/128824.pdf)
According to the Army Field Manual on counterinsurgency, one of the fundamental strategies in
counterinsurgency operations – such as those undertaken by DOD in Iraq and
Afghanistan – is to retain legitimacy by winning the hearts and minds of the
local population. 37 Conversely, the field manual argues that abusing or mistreating the population undermines
counterinsurgency efforts, stating Though firmness by security forces is often necessary to establish a secure environment, a
government that exceeds accepted local norms and abuses its people... generates resistance to its rule. People who have been
maltreated or have had close friends or relatives killed... may strike back at their attackers. Security force abuses... can be
major escalating factors for insurgencies. 38 In accordance with the manual’s assertion that the local population will
ultimately determine the winner of the conflict, abuses and crimes committed by armed private security contractors and
interrogators against local nationals may have undermined U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 39
Doesn’t overlimit —DoD has intelligence systems
Pike 97(John, Director of Globalsecurity.org, July 5, “Department of Defense (DoD)
Intelligence
Information
System(DoDIIS)”,
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/core/dodiis.htm)
The Department of Defense (DOD) Intelligence Information System (DODIIS)
defines the standards for intelligence systems and applications
interoperability. The DODIIS provides, within limits, an integrated strategic to
281
T
SME 2010
282
T
Chillz Lab
tactical user environment for performing identical intelligence functions on
compatible systems.
2NC Police Presence=/=Non-Military Agencies-They
Underlimit
Federal agencies underlimit—there are many of them
Wikipedia
2010(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States,
accessed on 6/24/10)
The federal government of the United States empowers a wide range of law
enforcement agencies to maintain law and public order related to matters affecting the country as a
whole. Federal police possess full federal authority as given to them under United States Code (U.S.C.). Federal Law
Enforcement Officers are authorized to enforce various laws not only at the federal level, but also state, county, and local in
Both types operate at the highest level and are endowed with
police roles, both may maintain a small component of the other (for example,
the FBI Police). The agencies have nationwide jurisdiction for enforcement of
federal law. All federal agencies are limited by the U.S. Code to investigating only matters that are explicitly within
many circumstances.
the power of the federal government. However, federal investigative powers have become very broad in practice, especially
The Department of Justice is the
largest and most pronounced law enforcement agency, and handles most law
enforcement duties at the federal level.[1] It includes the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, among others.
since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in October 2001.
Too many federal agencies—unlimits the topic
New London(http://www.newlondonohio.com/federal.htm, no date, “Federal Law
Enforcement Career Resources”)
Federal Bureau of Investigation The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of all
Federal laws that are not covered in the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies. These investigations may include bank
roberies, kidnapping, treason, civil rights violations, extortions, and the assaulting or killing of any Federal Government
employee. The FBI runs a national crime lab, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and maintains a centralized
system of fingerprint identification. This is probably the most varied and interesting of all criminal justice careers. Drug
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforcesstatutes and laws
relating to the unlawful distribution and use of narcotics such as heroin, opium, marijuana,
Enforcement Administration
cocaine, hallucinogenes, and synthetic (man made) narcotics such as methamphetamines and barbiturates. The main emphasis
is on stopping the the narcotics trade at the source both in the United States and abroad. Agents may work a significant
The U.S. Postal Service
Inspector investigates over 250 different types of illegal activities involving the
mail. These may include mail theft, mail fraud, and illegal drug trafficking or money laundering through the mails. The
amount of their careers undercover.
United States Postal Service Inspector
U.S. Postal Service investigative agency is the oldest Federal Law Enforcement agency still in existence. United States
United States Marshals supervise the security of Federal
Court Proceedings by maintaining order, guarding prisoners, and serving
orders of the courts. They also run the Federal Witness Protection Program, and transport all Federal Prisoners to court
Marshals Service Deputy
proceedings, as well as transport inmates from one Federal Prison to another. Deputy Marshals are well paid and have significant opportunites
for career advancements. Federal Bureau of Prisons The Federal Bureau of Prisons is the fastest growing Federal Agency. Federal Law
Enforcement career opportunities are greater in the Bureau of Prisons than any of the other agencies on this list. The Bureau of Prisons provides
a safe and secure living environment for the inmates that have been sentenced in Federal Court. These are the inmates that were caught and
prosecuted by the other Federal Law Enforcement officers on this page. Career advancement opportunites, a stable work environment, and the
opportunities to transfer to any area of the country are reasons to consider a career with the Bureau of Prisons.For Bureau of Prisons History
visit Alcatraz - The Warden Johnston Years - The Rock in the Age of the Public Enemies: historical documents, photographs, articles, and
biographies about America's Devil's Island. Internal Revenue Service The Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service
investigates tax fraud, and the failure of individuals or companies to file tax returns. A second unit called Internal Security Inspectors
investigate suspected cases of employee misconduct or illegal activities. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau of Alcohol,
ATF) agents investigate and enforce laws that relate to alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms (
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
tobacco, firearms, and explosives. Agents may work undercover and may coordinate raids on firearms an
explosive smugglers. An exciting and potentially dangerous career awaits all new ATF agents. United States Customs
Service The U.S. Customs service is a part of the Department of the Treasury. It's agents collect duties and taxes on goods
and services exported from or imported into the United States, and perform investigations in revenue thefts, cargo thefts, and
2NC Police Presence=/=Non-Military Agencies-They
Underlimit
(CONTINUES)
the smuggling of illegal narcotics. Agents are employed mainly in port cities and cities with international airports, as well as
along the border states located next to Mexico and Canada. Immigration and Naturalization Service The Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS)
enforces our countries immigration and naturalization
laws. They are enforced by Border Patrol Agents and Criminal Investigatiors. They prevent illegal entries into the United States, and
determine the immigration status of persons applying for citizenship. INS agents generally assist the U.S. Customs Service in preventing the
importation of illegal goods and services. United States Secret Service The United States Secret Service is charged with protecting the
President of the United States, the Vice President, their families, former Presidents and their families, and heads of foreign states while in
America. They also provide security for the White House, the Vice President's home, and the Treasury building. They have an investigation
branch that investigates all crimes relating to currency, coin, stamp, government bonds, computer fraud and credit card fraud. EPA
Enforcement it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it!
The FBI has agents abroad
FBI.Gov(Accessed 6/25/10, http://www.fbi.gov/contact/legat/legat.htm)
For more than six decades, the FBI has stationed agents and other personnel overseas to
help protect Americans back home by building relationships with principal law
enforcement, intelligence, and services around the globe and facilitating a prompt and continuous exchange of
information. Today, we have Legal Attaché offices—commonly known as Legats—and smaller sub-offices
in 75 key cities around the globe, providing coverage for more than 200
countries, territories, and islands. Each office is established through mutual agreement with the host country and is
situated in the U.S. embassy or consulate in that nation. Our Legal Attaché program is managed by the Office of
International Operations at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This office keeps in close contact with other federal
agencies, Interpol, foreign police and security officers in Washington, and national and international law enforcement
associations. International liaison and information sharing are conducted in accordance with Executive Orders, laws, treaties,
Attorney General Guidelines, FBI policies, and interagency agreements.
FBI agents investigate bombings and provide humanitarian support—massively
underlimits the topic
FBI.gov(http://www.fbi.gov/contact/legat/accomplishments.htm, accessed 6/25/10)
Through the years FBI agents, analysts, and other personnel overseas have made major
contributions to solving cases, disabling worldwide terrorist and criminal
networks, bringing fugitives to justice, and ensuring the safety of global events .
Here is a small sampling of some of their accomplishments: Legat Beijing coordinated the FBI’s role in the 2008 Summer
Olympic Games. Legat Tbilisi was intimately involved during the investigation into the attempted assassination of President
2005. In the wake of the tsunami of 2004, the Office of
International Operations played a crucial role in facilitating FBI involvement
throughout Southeast Asia, providing various forms of humanitarian and
laboratory support. Legat Madrid provided investigative assistance following
the string of bombings in 2004 on mass transit systems in Spain. Legat Jakarta
collaborated with Indonesian law enforcement partners during the investigation of the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002. The
Office of International Operations and Legat Nairobi coordinated the
deployment of FBI personnel in the aftermath of the 1998 U.S. Embassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
George W. Bush during a speech in
Allowing non-military agencies underlimits—justifies enforcement of treaties with
Japan, like this
283
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
U.S.FishandWildLifeServicesNo Date(http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/treaty.html)
Migratory Bird Treaty with Japan(Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their Environment; 25
UST 3329; TIAS 7990) as amended -- This 1972 Convention is designed to provide for the protection of
species of birds which are common to both countries, or which migrate between them
284
T
SME 2010
285
T
Chillz Lab
Police Presence Definitions
Police presence is a counter-insurgency training force
The Washington Post 2008 (Michael Abramowitz, Staff writer, “Terrorism Fades as
Issue in 2008 Campaign; But both Obama and McCain Use National Security to Frame
Larger Issues” September 11, 2008)
McCain has proposed some similar policies, calling for a "deployable police
presence" to train foreign police to counter Islamic extremists. He calls for a
new civil-military agency patterned after the World War II-era Office of
Strategic Services to infiltrate terrorist networks, among other tasks. He has
also said it was a "mistake" to dismantle the U.S. Information Agency in 1998
and fold its functions into the State Department. "We need to re-create an
independent agency with the sole purpose of getting America's message to the
world -- a critical element in combating Islamic extremism," McCain said last
summer in New Hampshire.
Police Presence indicates training and filling in for regional forces
Dobbins 2003 (James F. special envoy for Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan.
The current Director for International Security and Defense Policy at RAND “America’s
RoleinNation-building:FromGermanytoIraq)
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a714052619
A more recent innovation has been dispatching US and international police to
supplement the efforts of military forces to provide security for local inhabitants.
These initiatives have differed greatly in scope and scale. Some have principally
consisted of training programmes for local law enforcement officers; others have
been major operations that have included deploying hundreds or thousands of
armed international police to monitor, train, mentor, and even substitute for
indigenous forces until the creation of a proficient domestic police force. Figure 3
shows numbers of foreign police per thousand inhabitants over time for the four
cases that featured significant deployments of international police.
Police presence is aided by military forces
Global Security.org 2005 (Appendix C: The Infantry Battalion in Low-Intensity
Conflict)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-20/Appc.htm
Police are a permanent government presence throughout the country. They are
a valuable source of information. They also prevent and punish criminal action,
and seek out the insurgent infrastructure. They may be aided by paramilitary
and military organizations. For the police to be effective, they must be sufficiently
protected from insurgent attack. (2) Military forces (host country or US) can help
guarantee police presence in the face of the insurgent threat. The military forces
add strength to the defense, permitting a government presence in larger areas than
the police alone can maintain. More importantly, military forces can provide much
greater security than can police and paramilitary forces. If the enemy attacks,
military forces reinforce friendly outposts. Thus, these forces must be ready to act
and mobile.
SME 2010
286
T
Chillz Lab
Police Presence=Visibile Presence
Police presence is the visible availability of police officers
Fagan & Wilkinson 2k (Jeffrey & Deanna, Nat’l Inst of Justice, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194120.pdf)
In a small proportion of cases the police are involved in controlling, mediating, and
sanctioning participants in violent events. The classification of police presence for
this domain includes any mention of the actual or anticipated presence of police
including seeing a car or officer, hearing sirens, direct confrontations with
police officer, and after the fact investigations. Using this conservative definition
of police presence, respondents report that police were presence in 47.1 % of the
172 valid cases. In the majority of these situations, the police arrive well after the
actors have fled the scene of the violent incident. As shown in Table 5-10, the
police are more likely to be present (typically after the fact) if a weapon is
involved. Of the 81 valid cases for gun events, the police are classified as “present”
at 49 events or 60.5% and 15 or 62.5% of the other weapon events.
Police presence means seeing officers
Ferguson & Mindel 6 (Kristen & Charles, USC, Crime & Delinquency, 46, http://socialwork.usc.edu/~kmfergus/CD_Fear.pdf)
Police presence. The concept of police presence in the neighborhood is defined as
the frequency of occasions in which residents have seen a police officer or
officers in the neighborhood. Police presence in the neighborhood is
operationalized by four indicators, which were selected from the original seven
survey items on the basis of construct validity. CFA produced factor loadings that
ranged from .54 to .69. Responses were scored so that higher values represent
greater police presence in the neighborhood (see Table 1).
More ev…
Asia
Union
9
(Australian
Police
Code,
http://asiaunion.org/code_police/article_0270.htm.)
The first and most important responsibility of police is to maintain a constant and
responsive public presence.
The presence of a responsive police force is the greatest physical deterrent to a
breakdown in law and order and the commitment of crime.
In contrast, a police force that is only intermittently seen because it is hidden in
large police stations or occasional patrols is less visible and therefore can lead to an
increase in street crime and other forms of social disorder.
Constant Strong Police Presence
In contrast, a strong and constant police presence means that police are seen in
public places constantly and throughout neighborhoods on such regular basis that
the commission of a street crime is likely to result in an immediate arrest.
SME 2010
287
T
Chillz Lab
Police Presence=Military Personnel
Police presence is supplemental police officers to provide security for local
populations
Dobbins et al 3(James, Director, International Security and Defense Policy
Center@Rand, John G. McGinn, Keith Crane Seth G. Jones, Rollie Lal, Andrew
Rathmell Rachel Swanger, and Anga Timilsina, RAND Corporation, “Americas Role in
Nation-Building:
From
Germany
to
Iraq”,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1753/MR1753.ch9.pdf)
INTERNATIONAL POLICE PRESENCE OVER TIME A more recent innovation has been dispatching
U.S. and international police to supplement the efforts of military forces to
provide security for local inhabitants. These initiatives have differed greatly in scope and scale. Some
have principally consisted of training programs for local law enforcement officers; others have been major operations that
have included deploying hundreds or thousands of armed international police to monitor, train, mentor, and even substitute
for indigenous forces until the creation of a proficient domestic police force. Figure 9.3 shows numbers of foreign police per
thousand inhabitants over time for the four cases that featured significant deployments of international police.
Police presence is defined as police officers
Korski 8(Daniel, Senior Policy Fellow@The European Council on Foreign Relations,
“Afghanistan:
Europe’s
Forgotten
War”,
http://ecfr.3cdn.net/6f494e9a379a6444df_85m6bt94n.pdf)
As with military-to-population ratios, the international police presence in Afghanistan falls short
of the troop numbers deployed on previous similar missions: only 160 police
officers are slated to join EUPOL in Afghanistan, whereas the EU has 186 police officers in
Bosnia and Herzegovina – down from 500 between 2003 and 2005 – and 1,479 in the UN-run Kosovo mission, a figure set to
increase when the EU takes over the mission in 2008.
SME 2010
288
T
Chillz Lab
Police Presence=Law Enforcement Agencies
Police presence includes Law enforcement representatives, agencies and individuals
working on the war on drugs
Beare 8(Margaret, June 6, Professor of Law@York University, THE HISTORY AND
THE
FUTURE
OF
THE
POLITICS
OF
POLICING,
https://ozone.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/1873/8910/1/273589.pdf)
In several notable cases, the lead (formally or informally) on international enforcement oriented committees or in the various
US police presence that
includes a vast array of law enforcement representatives in foreign countries,
a multitude of separate law enforcement agencies, each with their own reasons
for operating abroad, and the US linking of their “war on drugs” with
“national security” which served to “export” criminal investigatory
techniques. This influence of the US upon Canada is not always merely passively received or resisted but is also often
policing operations is taken by the United States. Ethan Nadelmann describes the global
actively sought by Canadian law enforcement. Canadian police officers attend training courses within the US, belong to
associations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and attend conferences such as the International Asian
Organized Crime Conference, which moves between Canada and the US for their annual meetings. Policing weaponry is
advertised in Canadian police magazines and is displayed at policing conferences within Canada and serves as the basis for
some of the arguments put forth by the police for enhanced fire power, wider diversity of weapons and in some cases even
the appearance of the uniforms.
Police presence is U.S. law enforcement agencies
Fijnaut 93(Cyrille, Professor of Comparative Law@U Tilburg, The Internationalization
of police cooperation in Western Europe, pg. 135-6)
The international law enforcement presence of the U.S. government within and
without Europe is unique in at least three respects. No other government maintains law
enforcement representatives in so many foreign countries. No other
government possesses such a multitude of law enforcement agencies, each with
its own reasons for operating and locating abroad. And no other government has exercised
such a powerful influence during this century on the criminal laws, procedures and investigatory tactics of other countries.
Britain and France may have exercised a more profound influence on the criminal justice systems of the lands they colonized
and ruled during their imperial conquests; and Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany may have succeeded in briefly
the United States is
certainly the first to establish a global police presence as well as the first to play such a major
maintaining supranational police forces more powerful than anything in evidence today; but
role in shaping the criminal justice norms of countries both within and beyond Europe. There has, in short, been an
Americanization of foreign criminal justice systems, the nature and implications of which I will elaborate upon below .
SME 2010
289
T
Chillz Lab
Police Presence=Means People
Police are people
US Military Dictionary (via Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/police)
n. 1. (usually the police) the civil force of a federal or local government,
responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public
order.
2. members of a police force: there are fewer women police than men.
SME 2010
290
T
Chillz Lab
Police Presence-Military Context Specific
Police presence in the military context clearly refers only to specific duties
performed by soldiers
Dictionary.com (via Answers.com, http://www.answers.com/topic/police)
Police: 1. The cleaning of a military base or other military area: Police of the
barracks must be completed before inspection.
2. The soldiers assigned to a specified maintenance duty.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Police Presence-A2: Proximate, Visible, People
Police presence can be proximally distant and include markers, like cars and sirens,
not just officers
Buerger, Cohn, & Petrosino 95 (Michael, Ellen, Anthony, Penn St. Crime & Place,
http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_04/11-Buerger.pdf)
The preceding discussion focuses primarily on the locations at which criminal or
disorderly activity occurs, and in which it can be observed by a police officer. The
original theoretical definitions of hot spots—all addresses within nighttime sight
and sound of each other—center on the patrolling officer and what he or she could
observe while on hot-spots patrol. Yet the concept of "police presence" depends
more upon the ability of the residents of, and visitors to, the area to perceive the
officer. The hot-spots discussions among field staff, and between field staff and
the principal investigators, never addressed directly the abstract concept of
"presence." In retrospect, a tacit assumption can be discerned, that a police officer
(or a visible symbol, such as a marked patrol car) exerted a uniform level of
"presence" or deterrent effect throughout the entire hot spot, regardless of where
in the hot spot the officer was. That assumption extended to whether or not the
officer moved around within the hot spot on foot patrol, or remained stationary in a
parked vehicle.
291
T
SME 2010
292
T
Chillz Lab
Police Presence=DoD Agencies
DoD police forces serve for police presence—provides a fair limt
BBC 3(May 21, “US Department of Defense and Law Enforcement”,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1047827)
Each branch of DoD uses service members as Military Police (MP). MPs maintain order
on military bases. They function just as police officers in the civilian areas. They also help local police with
troops off-base and maintain order in occupied areas. The US Army Military Police and the US
Marine Corps Military Police perform the military police function for their
services. The Air Force refers to them as US Air Force Security Forces. The Navy refers to them as Masters-at-Arms or
the Shore Patrol. In some areas, particularly overseas, service members who are not trained as police will be pressed into that
role. They may be referred to as Unit Police. They are there to augment the military police. For instance, some small camps
might not have a military police presence. The duty for Unit Police might rotate among the Non-Commissioned Officers
Some military
police receive special investigations training and become Military Police
Investigators (MPI). In the Air Force, they're called Security Forces Investigators. They handle misdemeanor crimes.
Felonies are investigated by the appropriate Military Criminal Investigative Organisation (MICO). DoD Police There
are numerous small law enforcement agencies in the DoD. They are also
known as DoD Police. They protect facilities where military police are no longer used. Some examples include
(NCO) to make sure that the service members in the adjoining community are under control.
United States Naval Academy Police Department. Several agencies are more specialised. The National Security Agency
Police protect NSA facilities. The Pentagon Force Protection Agency has absorbed the Defense Protection Agency2. It is
responsible for protecting the Pentagon and DoD assets throughout the National Capital Region.
SME 2010
293
T
Chillz Lab
Police Presence– DoD Overlimits
The DoD has a minimal law-enforcement role—it Overlimits
BBC 3(May 21, “US Department of Defense and Law Enforcement”,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1047827)
The Department of Defense (DoD) has multiple law enforcement agencies. The
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the Air Force1 do not generally involve
themselves in civilian law enforcement. The military is generally responsible for
the defence of the United States of America while law enforcement is left to the
law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and primarily the local level.
However, DoD has a very limited in the role that it can play in law
enforcement.
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Police presence refers to civilian public police forces
Police refers to civilian public forces charged with crime control and maintaining
order
Deflem and Sutphin, 6 – * Associate Professor of Sociology University of South
Carolina AND **grad student in sociology at the University of South Carolina (Mathieu
and Suzanne, "Policing Post-War Iraq: Insurgency, Civilian Police, and the
Reconstruction of Society." Sociological Focus 39(4)265-283.
http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zpoliraq.html
Our analysis of the police situation in Iraq focuses on developments since an end to
major combat operations was announced in the Spring of 2003. Unless explicitly
noted otherwise, the term police in this paper refers to the institution and
function of civilian public police forces that are formally legitimated within the
context of national states with the tasks of crime control and order
maintenance. Importantly, we make no assertion that the police in Iraq has
acquired a degree of popular legitimacy comparable to that of law enforcement
agencies in other nations, especially those with a long history of democratization.
Relatedly, when we use such terms as insurgency and terrorism in this paper, we
imply no essentialist positions but instead rely on a constructionist viewpoint and
therefore precisely rely on the terms that are being used, especially on the part of
the agents of control, to refer to acts of violence that are responded to accordingly
by police agencies and other institutions of social control. Considering the rapidly
evolving and changing nature of the Iraqi situation, also, it is important to note that
this article was completed in August 2006, at a time when discussions on the
insurgency in Iraq were for several months already implying a shift towards civil
war.
294
T
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Police presence is the deployment of US police for security
purposes
Police presence is the deployment of US police to supplement military forces to
provide security
Dobbins et al, 3 – RAND Corporation (James, “America's Role in Nation-Building:
From Germany to Iraq”,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1753/MR1753.ch9.pdf
INTERNATIONAL POLICE PRESENCE OVER TIME
A more recent innovation has been dispatching U.S. and international police to
supplement the efforts of military forces to provide security for local
inhabitants. These initiatives have differed greatly in scope and scale. Some
have principally consisted of training programs for local law enforcement
officers; others have been major operations that have included deploying
hundreds or thousands of armed international police to monitor, train,
mentor, and even substitute for indigenous forces until the creation of a
proficient domestic police force. Figure 9.3 shows numbers of foreign police per
thou- sand inhabitants over time for the four cases that featured significant
deployments
of
international
police.
295
T
SME 2010
296
T
Chillz Lab
Police Action – Military Action Without War
A police action is a military action without a formal declaration of war
Answer.com (Police Action, http://www.answers.com/topic/police-action)
A localized military action undertaken without a formal declaration of war.
A military action without declaration of war
Wordnet 3.0(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=police%20action)
a local military action without declaration of war; against violators of
international peace and order
more evidence
Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action, accessed 6/25/10)
Police action in military/security studies and international relations is a
euphemism for a military action undertaken without a formal declaration of
war.
SME 2010
297
T
Chillz Lab
**In**
SME 2010
298
T
Chillz Lab
1NC-In=Throughout
A. Interpretation—In means throughout.
Words and Phrases 1904(Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases,
Volume 4, pg. 3465)
In the act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to her and
determine all complaints, etc., the word “in” should
such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14 Pac. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.
be construed to mean “throughout”
B. Violation—They only reduce presence in certain areas.
C. Standards:
1. Predictable Limits—There are thousands of areas the U.S. has troops—it
is impossible to predict what areas the aff would remove from, and all the
permutations of these areas exponentially increase the topic.
2. Ground—Removing troops in certain areas allows the aff to spike out of
perception links and DA’s by having more specific evidence about the area
than the neg.
D. Voter for fairness and education—evaluate under competing interpretations—it
forces debate about what the topic should look like, while reasonability is arbitrary.
SME 2010
299
T
Chillz Lab
In=throughout
The word ‘in’ means throughout
Words and Phrases, 8 (Permanent Edition, vol. 20a, p. 207)
Colo. 1887. In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have
jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the
word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds
v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.
SME 2010
300
T
Chillz Lab
In is within
In means within – this is the core meaning
Encarta, 9 (Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2009,
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620
513)
in [ in ] CORE MEANING: a grammatical word indicating that something or
somebody
is
within
or
inside
something
In means within the limits of
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, 06
(http://www.m-w.com/cgibin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=in)
Main Entry: 1in
Pronunciation: 'in, &n, &n
Function: preposition
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German in in, Latin
in, Greek en
1 a -- used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within
limits <in the lake> <wounded in the leg> <in the summer>
In expresses being enclosed or surrounded within.
Compact
Oxford
English
Dictionary,
8
(“in”,
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/inxx?view=uk)
in
preposition 1 expressing the situation of being enclosed or surrounded.
2 expressing motion that results in being within or surrounded by something.
2008,
In means within the bounds of
Oxford English Dictionary, 89 (Second Edition, online accessed via Emory databases)
in, prep.
1. a. Of place or position in space or anything having material extension: Within
the limits or bounds of, within (any place or thing).
In means within bounds
American Heritage, 9 (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/in)
in1
PREPOSITION:
1. a. Within the limits, bounds, or area of: was hit in the face; born in the
spring; a chair in the garden.
b. From the outside to a point within; into: threw the letter in the wastebasket.
In means within an area
Cambridge
Advanced
Learner’s
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/in_1)
in preposition ( INSIDE )
Dictionary,
10
SME 2010
301
T
Chillz Lab
inside or towards the inside of a container, place or area, or surrounded or
closed off by something
In Definitions
In
means
within
the
limits
of
something
Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in, date accessed:
6/25/2010,
AJK)
1 a —used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within
limits <in the lake> <wounded in the leg> <in the summer> b :into 1 <went in
the house>
In
means
within
Yourdictionary.com (http://www.yourdictionary.com/in, date accessed: 6/25/2010,
AJK)
contained or enclosed by; inside; within: in the room, inthe envelope
In
means
within
the
limits
of
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in, date accessed: 6/25/2010,
AJK)
In–preposition: (used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits):walking in
the park.
SME 2010
302
T
Chillz Lab
Presence must be within
Presence must occur within countries
Dilag, 5 - Major (Select), United States Air Force (Bayani, “ACCESS ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN THAILAND AND THE
PHILIPPINES,”
http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2005/Mar/05Mar_Dilag.pdf)
The RAND Corporation undertook a study under the Project AIR FORCE that was
sponsored by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations (AF/XO) that
sought to “...examine the political, operational, logistical, and force protection
issues associated with overseas basing for the Expeditionary Aerospace
Force.”27The RAND report entitled A Global Access Strategy for the U.S. Air
Force explores the “pure” basing and access strategies.28 The study covered
several issues and variables that may affect other countries’ decision to grant or
deny access to the U.S. military. The RAND report distinguished three kinds of
access, viz., (1) permanent presence, (2) mission presence, and (3) limited access.
“Permanent presence” is defined by the authors as, “The presence of U.S.
forces abroad, in bases or facilities that are operated by the United States
either alone or in concert with host countries...”29 American bases in NATO
countries, Japan, Korea, and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are examples of this kind of
basing arrangement. “Mission presence” was described as substantial presence
in countries for the purpose of an ongoing military mission where there may or
may
not
be
treaty
commitments.30
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Country boundaries include a 12 mile territorial sea
Each country has a 12 mile territorial sea that is part of its territory
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 8 (edition 2,
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Territorial+sea
Territorial WatersThe part of the ocean adjacent to the coast of a state that is
considered to be part of the territory of that state and subject to its sovereignty. In
International Law the term territorial waters refers to that part of the ocean immediately
adjacent to the shores of a state and subject to its territorial jurisdiction. The state
possesses both the jurisdictional right to regulate, police, and adjudicate the territorial
waters and the proprietary right to control and exploit natural resources in those waters
and exclude others from them. Territorial waters differ from the high seas, which are
common to all nations and are governed by the principle of freedom of the seas. The high
seas are not subject to appropriation by persons or states but are available to everyone for
navigation, exploitation of resources, and other lawful uses. The legal status of territorial
waters also extends to the seabed and subsoil under them and to the airspace above them.
From the eighteenth to the middle of the twentieth century, international law set the width
of territorial waters at one league (three nautical miles), although the practice was never
wholly uniform. The United States established a three-mile territorial limit in 1793.
International law also established the principle that foreign ships are entitled to innocent
passage through territorial waters By the 1970s, however, more than forty countries had
asserted a twelve-mile limit for their territorial waters. In 1988 President RONALD
REAGAN issued Executive Proclamation 5928, which officially increased the outer limit
of U.S. territorial waters from three to twelve miles (54 Fed. Reg. 777). This limit also
applies to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
Northern Mariana Islands. The Reagan administration claimed the extension of the limit
was primarily motivated by national security concerns, specifically to hinder the
operations of spy vessels from the Soviet Union that plied the U.S. coastline. Another
reason for the extension was the recognition that most countries had moved to a twelvemile limit. In 1982, at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 130
member countries ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which included a
recognition of the twelve-mile limit as a provision of customary international law.
Although the United States voted against the convention, 104 countries had officially
claimed a twelve-mile territorial sea by 1988.
303
T
SME 2010
304
T
Chillz Lab
**Countries**
SME 2010
305
T
Chillz Lab
Japan Definitions
Japan
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan, date accessed: 6/25/2010,
AJK)
Japan is an island country in East Asia. Located in the Pacific Ocean, it lies to the east
of the Sea of Japan, China, North Korea, South Korea and Russia, stretching from
the Sea of Okhotsk in the north to the East China Sea and Taiwan in the south.
The characters that make up Japan's name mean "sun-origin", which is why Japan is
sometimes referred to as the "Land of the Rising Sun". Japan is an archipelago of 6,852
islands.[9] The four largest islands are Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū and Shikoku,
together accounting for 97% of Japan's land area. Most of the islands
are mountainous, many volcanic; for example, Japan’s highest peak, Mount Fuji, is a
volcano. Japan has the world's tenth-largest population, with over 128 million people.
The Greater Tokyo Area, which includes the de facto capital cityof Tokyo and several
surrounding prefectures, is the largest metropolitan area in the world, with over 30
million residents.
Japan is the island chain of parliamentary government with a constitutional
monarchy in Eastern Asia
CIA: The World Factbook 10 (June 3, Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook,
“Japan,”
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html)
Location: Eastern Asia, island chain between the North Pacific Ocean and the Sea of Japan,
east of the Korean Peninsula
Geographic coordinates: 36 00 N, 138 00 E
Government type: a parliamentary government with a constitutional monarchy
Dictionary.com 10 ("Japan," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/japan)
a constitutional monarchy on a chain of islands off the E coast of Asia: main islands,
Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu, and Shikoku. 125,716,637; 141,529 sq. mi. (366,560 sq. km).
Capital: Tokyo. Japanese, Nihon, Nippon.
2.
Sea of, the part of the Pacific Ocean between Japan and mainland Asia.
A country of Asia on an archipelago off the northeast coast of the mainland. Traditionally
settled c. 660 B.C., Japan's written history began in the 5th century A.D. During the feudal
period (12th-19th century) real power was held by the shoguns, whose dominance was finally
ended by the restoration of the emperor Mutsuhito in 1868. Feudalism was abolished, and
the country was opened to Western trade and industrial technology. Expansionist policies
led to Japan's participation in World War II, which ended after atomic bombs were dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 1945). Today the country is highly industrialized and
noted for its advanced technology. Tokyo is the capital and the largest city. Population:
127,000,000.
SME 2010
306
T
Chillz Lab
Iraq Definitions
Iraq
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq, date accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
Iraq (pronounced /iːˈrɑːk/ or /ɪˈræk/, Arabic: ‫ ال عراق‬Al-Irāq), officially the Republic of
Iraq (Arabic: ‫( ال عراق جمهوري ة‬help·info) Jumhūrīyat Al-Irāq, Kurdish: ‫عه ك ؤماری‬
ܸ
‫راق‬, Komara Îraqê,[2] Neo-Aramaic: ‫)ܩܪܥ‬
ܵ is a country in Western Asia spanning most
of the northwestern end of theZagros mountain range, the eastern part of the Syrian
Desert and the northern part of the Arabian Desert.[3] Iraq is bordered
by Jordan to the west, Syria to the northwest, Turkey to the north, Iran to the east,
and Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to the south. Iraq has a narrow section of coastline
measuring 58 km (35 miles) on the northern Persian Gulf. The capital
city, Baghdad (Arabic:‫ داداب‬Baġdād), is in the center-east of the country.
Iraq is a parliamentary democratic country in the Middle East between Iran and
Kuwait
CIA: The World Factbook 10 (May 27, Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook,
“Iraq,” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html)
Location: Middle East, bordering the Persian Gulf, between Iran and Kuwait
Geographic coordinates: 33 00 N, 44 00 E
Government type: parliamentary democracy
Dictionary.com 10 (“Iraq,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iraq)
a republic in SW Asia, N of Saudi Arabia and W of Iran, centering in the Tigris-Euphrates
basin of Mesopotamia. 22,219,289; 172,000 sq. mi. (445,480 sq. km). Capital: Baghdad.
Cite This Source
Link To iraq
I·raq (ĭ-rāk', ĭ-räk')
(click for larger image in new window)
A country of southwest Asia. Site of a number of ancient Mesopotamian civilizations,
including Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, and Babylonia, the region fell to Cyrus the Great of Persia
(6th century B.C.), Alexander the Great (4th century B.C.), Arabs (7th century), and later to
the Ottoman Turks (16th century). It was established as an independent kingdom in 1921
and became a republic after the assassination (1958) of Faisal II. Baghdad is the capital and
largest city. Population: 27,500,000.
Word Origin & History
Iraq
country name (1920) is from Arabic name attested since 6c. for the region known in Gk. as
Mesopotamia; often said to be from Arabic `araqa, covering notions such as "perspiring,
deeply rooted, well-watered," which may reflect the impression the lush river-land made on
desert Arabs. But the name may be from, or infl. by, Sumerian Uruk (Biblical Erech), the
ancient prominent city in what is now southern Iraq (from Sumerian uru "city").
Cultural Dictionary
SME 2010
307
T
Chillz Lab
Republic in the Middle East, bordered by the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to the
south; Jordan and Syria to the west; Turkey to the north; and Iran to the east. Its capital and
largest city is Baghdad.
Afghanistan Definitions
Afghanistan
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan, date accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a landlocked country in South-Central
Asia.[5] It is variously described as being located within South Asia,[1][6] Central
Asia,[7][8] and sometimes Western Asia (or the Middle East).[9] It is bordered
by Pakistan in
the
south
and
east,Iran in
the
west, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the north, and China in the far
northeast.
Afghanistan refers to the Islamic republic in Southern Asia between Pakistan and
Iran
CIA: The World Factbook 10 (May 27, Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook,
“Afghanistan,”
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/af.html)
Location: Southern Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran
Geographic coordinates:33 00 N, 65 00 E
Government type: Islamic republic
Dictionary.com 10 ("Afghanistan," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/afghanistan)
a republic in central Asia, NW of India and E of Iran. 23,738,085; 250,000 sq. mi. (647,500
sq. km). Capital: Kabul.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source
|
Link To afghanistan
Abused Women Afghanistan
Helping abused, exploited & trafficked Afghan Women & Children
www.hagarusa.org
Digby Delgado
has the solution!
Sponsored Results
www.digbysuncommonreason.com
Af·ghan·i·stan (āf-gān'ĭ-stān')
(click for larger image in new window)
A landlocked country of southwest-central Asia. Since ancient times the region has been
crisscrossed by invaders, including Persians, Macedonians, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols.
Afghan tribes united in the 18th century under a single leadership, but a fully independent
state did not emerge until 1919. Kabul is the capital and the largest city. Population:
31,900,000.
SME 2010
308
T
Chillz Lab
Kuwait Definitions
Kuwait
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait, date accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
The State
of
Kuwait (Arabic: ‫بول ة‬
‫الوويا‬, dawlat
al-kuwayt)
is
a
sovereign Arab emirate situated in the northeast of the Arabian Peninsula inWestern
Asia. It is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the south and Iraq to the north and lies on
the northwestern shore of the Persian Gulf. The name Kuwait is derived from
the Arabic "akwat", the plural of "kout", meaning fortress built near water.[5] The
emirate covers an area of 20,000 square kilometres (6,880 sq mi) and has a population of
about 3.4 million.
Kuwait is the constitutional emirate between Iraq and Saudi Arabi
CIA: The World Factbook 10 (May 27, Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook,
“Kuwait,” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ku.html)
Location: Middle East, bordering the Persian Gulf, between Iraq and Saudi Arabia
Geographic coordinates: 29 30 N, 45 45 E
Government type: constitutional emirate
Dictionary.com 10 ("Kuwait," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kuwait)
a sovereign monarchy in NE Arabia, on the NW coast of the Persian Gulf: formerly a
British protectorate. 2,076,805; ab. 8000 sq. mi. (20,720 sq. km).
a seaport in and the capital of this monarchy. 800,000.
A country of the northeast Arabian Peninsula at the head of the Persian Gulf. Settled by
Arab tribes in the early 18th century, it became a British protectorate in 1897 and an
independent kingdom in 1961. Iraq invaded and occupied the country in 1990, sparking the
Persian Gulf War (1991), which ended with Iraqi troops being driven out by a coalition of
Arab and Western forces. With its major oil reserves, discovered in 1938, it has one of the
highest per capita incomes in the world. The city of Kuwait is its capital. Population:
2,510,000.
2.
also Kuwait City The capital of Kuwait, in the east-central part of the country on the
Persian Gulf. It was heavily damaged during the Persian Gulf War. Population: 32,400.
Ku·wait'i (-wā'tē) adj. & n.
Cultural Dictionary
Kuwait [(koo-wayt)]
Independent kingdom on the northeastern part of the Arabian Peninsula, at the head of the
Persian Gulf, bordered by Iraq to the north and west and Saudi Arabia to the south.
SME 2010
309
T
Chillz Lab
Turkey Definitions
Turkey
Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey, date accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye), known officially as the Republic of Turkey ( Türkiye
Cumhuriyeti (help·info)),
is
a Eurasian country that
stretches
across
the Anatolian peninsula
in Western
Asia and Thrace in
the Balkan region
of southeastern Europe. Turkey is bordered by eight countries: Bulgaria to the
northwest; Greece to
the
west; Georgia to
the
northeast; Armenia, Azerbaijan (the exclave of Nakhchivan) and Iran to the east;
and Iraq and Syria to the southeast. The Mediterranean Sea and Cyprus are to the
south; the Aegean Sea to the west; and the Black Sea is to the north.
Turkey is the republican parliamentary democratic country in Southeastern Europe
and Southwestern Asia
CIA: The World Factbook 10 (June 7, Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook,
“Turkey,” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html)
Location: Southeastern Europe and Southwestern Asia (that portion of Turkey west of the
Bosporus is geographically part of Europe), bordering the Black Sea, between Bulgaria and
Georgia, and bordering the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, between Greece and
Syria
Geographic coordinates: 39 00 N, 35 00 E
Government type: republican parliamentary democracy
Dictionary.com 10 ("Turkey," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/turkey)
a republic in W Asia and SE Europe. 63,528,225; 296,184 sq. mi. (767,120 sq. km). (286,928
sq. mi. (743,145 sq. km) in Asia; 9257 sq. mi. (23,975 sq. km) in Europe). Capital: Ankara.
Compare Ottoman Empire.
pro-Turkey, adjective
(click for larger image in new window)
A country of southwest Asia and southeast Europe between the Mediterranean and the
Black seas. The region was dominated by many ancient civilizations and peoples, among
them the Hittites (1800 B.C.), the Greeks (8th century B.C.), and the Persians (6th century
B.C.), and in A.D. 395 it became part of the Byzantine Empire. The area was conquered by
the Ottoman Turks between the 13th and 15th centuries and remained the core of the
Ottoman Empire for more than 600 years. Its modern history dates to the rise of the Young
Turks (after 1908) and the collapse of the empire in 1918. Under the leadership of Kemal
Atatürk, a republic was proclaimed in 1923. Ankara is the capital and Istanbul the largest
city. Population: 71,200,000.
Cultural Dictionary
Turkey definition
Republic straddling southeastern Europe and the Middle East, bordered by the Black Sea to
the north, Georgia and Armenia to the northeast, Iran to the east, Iraq and Syria to the
southeast, the Mediterranean Sea and the Aegean Sea to the southwest, and Greece and
Bulgaria to the northwest. Ninety-seven percent of the country is in Asia. Ankara is its
capital, but Istanbul is its largest city and former imperial capital.
SME 2010
310
T
Chillz Lab
South Korea Definitions
South
Korea
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea, date accessed: 6/25/2010, AJK)
South
Korea,
officially
the Republic
of
Korea (ROK)
̚
(Korean: 대한민국, pronounced [tɛːhanminɡuk] ( listen)), is a country in East Asia,
located on the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. It is neighbored by China to
the west, Japan to the east, and North Korea to the north. Its capital is Seoul. South
Korea lies in a temperate climate region with a predominantly mountainous terrain. Its
territory covers a total area of 100,032 square kilometers and has a population of over 50
million.[5]
South Korea refers to the republic located in the southern half of the Korean
Peninsula in Eastern Asia
CIA: The World Factbook 10 (June 3, Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook,
“Korea,
South,”
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/ks.html)
Location: Eastern Asia, southern half of the Korean Peninsula bordering the Sea of Japan
and the Yellow Sea
Geographic coordinates: 37 00 N, 127 30 E
Government type: republic
Dictionary.com 10 ("South Korea," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/south+korea)
South Korea
a country in E Asia: formed 1948 after the division of the former country of Korea at 38° N.
45,948,811; 36,600 sq. mi. (94,795 sq. km). Capital: Seoul.Compare Korea.
Use south korea in a Sentence
See images of south korea
Search south korea on the Web
Official name, Republic of Korea.
—Related forms
South Korean, adjective, noun
Link To south korea
South Korea
(click for larger image in new window)
A country of eastern Asia at the southern end of the Korean peninsula. A united kingdom
since the seventh century A.D., Korea was occupied by Japan (1910-1945) and divided into a
northern Soviet zone and a southern American zone after World War II. Soviet resistance to
reunification led to the establishment in 1948 of two separate countries, with the Korean
War (1950-1953) leaving the peninsula divided along much the same line as before. Ruled by
a series of authoritarian military leaders, South Korea developed a prosperous economy on
the strength of trade ties with Japan and the United States. Seoul is the capital and the largest
city. Population: 49,000,000.
South Korean adj. & n.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
South Korea definition
SME 2010
Chillz Lab
Officially the Republic of Korea; located on the peninsula separating the Yellow Sea and
the Sea of Japan, two arms of the Pacific Ocean. Its capital and largest city is Seoul.
311
T