A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
2AC Block……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
N/U: Recruitment Low ............................................................................................................................. 7
N/U: Funding High Now ......................................................................................................................... 11
N/U: Economy Will Rebound ................................................................................................................ 14
N/U: Unemployment Will Decrease ...................................................................................................... 16
Econ Crisis Key ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Hegemony Sustainable............................................................................................................................ 21
Heg Sustainable-Navy............................................................................................................................. 22
Hegemony Unsustainable ....................................................................................................................... 24
Readiness Collapse Inevitable – DADT ................................................................................................ 25
Readiness Collapse Inevitable- Overstretch ......................................................................................... 27
Overstretch Inevitable ............................................................................................................................ 28
Heg Bad .................................................................................................................................................... 29
Impacts Inevitable- Healthcare ............................................................................................................. 33
Recruitment Reduces Technology ......................................................................................................... 35
Large Military Not Necessary ................................................................................................................ 40
Military=Heterosexism ........................................................................................................................... 44
Military=Patriarchy................................................................................................................................ 45
Military=Racism ..................................................................................................................................... 47
1
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
2AC Block
1. Stimulus spent over 300 billion dollars on expanding social services
AP) Associated Press, June 4, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31110642//
Remember the "shovel-ready" projects lined up for all that stimulus money? It turns out social spending, more than
construction, is hitting pay dirt in the huge federal effort to turn the economy around.
The public face of the stimulus package has been the worker in a hard hat, getting back on the job to rebuild the
nation's infrastructure.
Earlier this spring, for example, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared before the cameras at a job site
along a freeway east of San Francisco. He declared that the stimulus-financed project would provide paychecks for
235 construction workers who otherwise would have to "stand in the unemployment line."
The reality of how the vast majority of the stimulus money will be spent is quite different, and that raises questions
about how much help the Recovery Act backed by President Barack Obama will be to the economy in the long run.
Most of the roughly $300 billion coming directly to the states is being funneled through existing government
programs for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps and other social services.
"We all talked about 'shovel-ready' since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in
fact, that's not the case," said Chris Whatley, the Washington director of the Council of State Governments, a trade
group for state governments. He estimates states will get three times more money for education than for
transportation.
Government programs benefit
Two-thirds of recovery money that flows directly to states will go toward health care.
By comparison, about 15 percent of the money is for transportation, including airports, highways and rail projects,
according to Federal Funds Information for States, a service of the National Governors Association and the National
Conference of State Legislatures.
Overall, two-thirds of the stimulus program will go toward tax cuts, relief for state budgets and direct payments
to the unemployed and others hurt by the recession, part of the administration's desire to provide immediate
fiscal relief. Much smaller pieces of the pie will be allocated for weatherization, affordable housing and other
projects designed to create jobs.
John Husing, a Southern California economist, said keeping teachers and police officers employed should help
prevent the recession from getting worse. But he said the stimulus package would have improved communities' ability
to grow over the long haul if it had dedicated more money to public works.
While billions of dollars eventually will flow to infrastructure projects, Democrats who crafted the package say
they directed most of it to existing government programs such as Medicaid and education to prevent state
economies from slipping even more. One goal was to help fill state budget gaps, keeping teachers and others
employed while strengthening the social safety net.
2. No Brink as to how much social service spending must increase or how many recruits are
necessary to maintain a dominant military
2
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
3. The current economic crisis is the root cause of increased recruitment
Stephanie Gaskell, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, Monday, May 11th 2009 http://counterrecruitment.blogspot.com/2009/05/economic-crisis-drives-people-to.html
So many people are flocking to the military during the current economic meltdown that Uncle Sam's recruiters
are turning applicants away. "The people that we're picking are actually the cream of the crop," said 1st Sgt. Charles
Bunyon, a New York National Guard recruiter based in the city. "It's more difficult to get in." It's a far cry from the
critical shortage the armed forces faced four years ago, when the unemployment rate was 4.6% - a bit more than
half of what it is now. Back then, Bunyon was offering hefty bonuses to get a soldier to sign up. He was also
willing to accept medical waivers and overlook a minor criminal history in order to fill his ranks. More soldiers are
also opting to stay in the service longer rather than look for private sector jobs. "People coming back from Iraq
and Afghanistan, they're saying 'Well, maybe I'll stay in because the economy is so bad,'" Bunyon said. "We're not
losing as many as we thought." In fact, Bunyon said he's got about 60 more soldiers than his budget allows. For some
New Yorkers, the prospect of steady income is trumping the inherent risks of the military - including deployment
to Iraq or Afghanistan. "I'm fine with that," said Pvt. Kevin Franqui, 22, of the Bronx. "It's a stress on the family, but
you get hazard pay, no taxes, separation pay. It's a lot of stuff. It adds up." A New York National Guardsman,
Franqui said he's switching to the active duty Army because there are no other jobs out there. "I got a 9-monthold," he said. "I'm recently married. It's not just about me anymore." Amid the economic recession, the Army, Navy,
Air Force and Marine Corps are at - or over - their recruitment goals. "The economic downturn certainly has
affected the recruiting situation, no doubt about it," said Dr. Curtis Gilroy, the Pentagon's director of accession
policy. Not long ago, it wasn't unusual to have 12 or 15 people to fill 10 slots, he said. "Now we've got 50 or 75."
With so many applicants, recruiters are able to "look more closely at who they enlist," he said. "We have the highest
quality force today than we've had in a long time," he said.
4. Their link isn’t predictive of what would happen if social services were increased, just that the
military offers them in the status quo.
5. Their internal link says that highly trained soldiers are key, not that a substantial increase in
troops is essential
6. No I/L as to how many troops will be lost because of plan compared to how many are necessary
3
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
7. New Technology makes large militaries less important
Max Boot, scholar at Council of Foreign Relations (think tank), columnist of “Los Angeles Times”,
2006
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-paradox-of-military-technology
The falling size and cost of electronics has made it possible to decrease the number of people needed to operate major
weapons systems or, in some instances, eliminated the need for human operators altogether. Maintaining the engines
aboard a ship used to require dozens of sailors to work for extended periods in noisy, grimy, cramped quarters. The new
DD(X) destroyer will have an engine room controlled entirely by remote sensors and cameras. Or, to take another
example, consider the evolution of the long-range bomber from the B-29, which had a crew of 11, to the B-2 which can
hit many more targets but has a crew of just two, who spend much of their time supervising the autopilot functions.
The greatest advances in robotics have been made in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), with the U.S. in the lead,
Israel following close behind, and at least 40 other countries trying to catch up. By the time of the Iraq War in 2003, the
U.S. had fielded six major UAVs: the Air Force’s Predator and Global Hawk, the Army’s Hunter and Shadow, and the
Marines’ Pioneer and Dragon Eye. These ranged in size from the 27,000-pound Global Hawk (comparable to a Lear jet) to
the five-pound Dragon Eye (more like a model airplane). What they had in common was that they were all designed as
surveillance systems. But in a pattern that echoes the history of manned flight, UAVs such as the Predator were soon
put to work attacking enemy positions.
8. Empirically Denied: During the Iraq war the US faced major troop shortages without losing its
worldwide dominance
4
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
9. Primacy is sustainable regardless of troop strength – US is dominant in all sectors
Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth 08 Associate Professors in the Department of Government
@ Dartmouth College (World Out of Balance, p. 27-31)
“Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing,” historian Paul Kennedy observes: “I have returned to all of
the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the
Great Powers, and no other nation comes close.” Though assessments of U.S. power have changed since those words were
written in 2002, they remain true. Even when capabilities are understood broadly to include economic, technological,
and other wellsprings of national power, they are concentrated in the United States to a degree never before
experienced in the history of the modern system of states and thus never contemplated by balance-of-power theorists.
The United spends more on defense that all the other major military powers combined, and most of those powers are its allies. Its
massive investments in the human, institutional, and technological requisites of military power, cumulated over many decades,
make any effort to match U.S. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. Military research and
development (R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investment that give the United States a dramatic qualitative
edge in military capabilities. As table 2.1 shows, in 2004 U.S. military R&D expenditures were more than six times greater than
those of Germany, Japan, France, and Britain combined. By some estimates over half the military R&D expenditures in the
world are American. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30 years, for example, the United
States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military R&D. These vast commitments have
created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major powers that is unique after the seventeenth century.
While other powers could contest U.S. forces near their homelands, especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence
is credible, the United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally.
This capacity arises from “command of the commons” – that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and
space. As Barry Posen puts it, Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U.S global power position. It
allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power, including its own economic and military might as well as
the economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries, by
restricting their access to economic, military, and political assistance….Command of the commons provides the United States
with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore power has ever had. Posen’s study of
American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national
power. It is the combination of military and economic potential that sets the United States apart from its predecessors at the top
of the international system. Previous leading states were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on
land, never both. The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War, for example, shared the world with
other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was
outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both France and Russia. Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was
dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks to
geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. The United States’ share of world
GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of any leading state in modern history, with the sole exception of its own
position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy). The size of the U.S economy
means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005, far less than the nearly 10
percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 1950-70, and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the
past. As Kennedy sums up, “Being Number One at great cost is one thing; being the world’s single superpower on the
cheap is astonishing.”
5
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
10. Attempts at unipolarity break down the global system and create fighting
Charles A. Kupchan, an associate professor of government in the School of Foreign Service
and Government Department of Georgetown University, and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 2003, “The Rise of Europe, America’s Changing Internationalism, and the End of U.S.
Primacy.”
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/taps/00323195/v118n2/s3.pdf?expires=121513205
7&id=44952765&titleid=4375&accname=Dartmouth+College&checksum=249AFE5300C9788DAB70
ECAC2C496BE4
Combine the rise of Europe and Asia with the decline of liberal internationalism in the United States and it becomes clear
that America’s unipolar moment is not long for this world. At the same time that alternative centers of power are taking
shape, the United States is drawing away from multilateral institutions in favor of a unilateralism that risks
estranging those power centers, raising the chances that their ascent will lead to a new era of geopolitical rivalry. As
unipolarity gives way to multipolarity, the strategic competition now held in abeyance by U.S. primacy will return—
and with a vengeance if America’s unilateralist impulse prevails. No longer steadied by U.S. hegemony, processes of
globalization and democratization are likely to falter, as are the international institutions currently dependent upon
Washington’s leadership to function effectively. Geopolitical fault lines will reemerge among centers of power in North
America, Europe, and East Asia. The central challenge for U.S. grand strategy will be managing and taming the
dangers arising from these new fault lines. The United States cannot and should not resist the end of unipolarity and
the return of a world of multiple centers of power. To do so would only risk alienating and risking conflict with a
rising Europe and an ascendant Asia. And it would likely stoke an isolationist backlash in the United States by
pursuing a level of foreign ambition for which there would be insufficient political support. Asking that the United
States prepare for and manage its exit from global primacy, however, is a tall order. Great powers have considerable
difficulty accepting their mortality; few in history have willfully made room for rising challengers and adjusted their grand
strategies accordingly
11. The
U.S military maintains the ideological structure of patriarchy.
Chems Edine Bouchehma 3/2/08 (“Women in the US military” http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSAIN-EXILE/colloques/pdfPatri/ch-8.pdf)
When I can mention here is that women are enlisting into the arm by necessity. (to earn a wage in order to satisfy their family
needs, education, healthcare, housing….and later on a retirement pension.). I can take your attention that in the U.S army
actually in Iraq, half of the active duty women are black. Even though women’s serve as soldiers, I can precise that the
U.S military is a misogynist, hates women, homophobic institution that relies on patriarchal ideologies and relations
to function. The U.S military indoctrinate the hierarchical values, it trains men to devalue, objectify and demean traits
traditionally associated with women. It molds men into gender role of violent masculinity defined in opposition to
femininity. By violent masculinity I mean a mode of operating that glorifies violence as a solution to tension and
competition. So the U.S military teaches soldiers to maintain ideological structure of patriarchy.
6
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
N/U: Recruitment Low
The military is failing to meet recruitment goals
Gary Evans, MD June 2008 “The Pentagon’s Child Recruiting Strategy”
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/recruiting-children.pdf.
Despite recent reports of an increasing rate of suicides among US troops, and despite news reports
of "stop-loss" troop recycling and declining troop moral, the Pentagon's recent recruiting and
retention report for 20077 implies success. The facts underlying the statistics offered,
however, tell a different story: "The number of wavers granted to Army recruits with
criminal backgrounds [125,000] has grown about 65 percent in the past three years...,"8 and
the percentage of minimally qualified recruits has quadrupled since 2002.9 Representative
Martin T. Meechen, Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight: "The data is crystal clear; our armed forces are under incredible strain, and the only
way that they can fill their recent quotas is by lowering their standards."8 Recruitment
Funding Pentagon spending on recruitment has increased dramatically over the past few
years, approaching $4 billion by 2003.10 As of 2006, there were over 22,000 recruiters
nationwide,11 charged with signing up between 180,000 and 200,000 new active duty recruits,10, 11
and approximately 120,000 new reservists per year.11 In 2000, the US House of Representatives
determined that $6400 was being spent to sign up each marine,12 and by 2005, the military spent
approximately $16,000 in total promotional costs to enlist each new recruit.11, 13 Despite the
enormous sums spent attempting to maintain an all volunteer military during these times of
growing anti-war sentiment, the armed forces have been unable to meet new recruit sign-up
quotas. There is always a way, however, and here the balance sheets have been righted by
dropping ballast, also known as “standards,” and by implementing military contract fineprint: Executive Order #12728, dated 8/22/90 referring US Code, Title 10, section 12305 and
Title 3, section 301, better known as “Stop Loss,” which allows troops to be returned to
battlefields again by delaying their removal from active duty indefinitely. In this way, military
statisticians have forced the claim that recruitment quotas are being fulfilled.14
7
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Despite the current economic downturn, there are still recruiting shortages.
Michael Carden, staff writer for Faxts News, December 2008 “Recruiting Still Challenging Despite Job Market,
Official Says”, 12/06/08 http://www.faxts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1227:michael-jcarden-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=99
Although military recruiting is less difficult in a waning economy and low job market, attracting recruits
remains an ongoing challenge, a Defense Department official said here today during an interview with the Pentagon
Channel.
"Military recruiting is always a challenge, regardless of what the unemployment rate is," Curt Gilroy, accession
policy director for the Defense Department, said.
Unemployment in the United States rose to 6.7 percent in November and is projected to continue its increase in 2009,
the Labor Department reported last month. For the military, however, high unemployment typically means more
recruits and higher retention rates.
"When the economy is lacking and unemployment rises, like we're experiencing today, jobs are scarcer and
military recruiting is less challenging," Gilroy explained. "But it's still a tough job for our recruiters."
In spite of the unemployment rate or the state of the economy, the services still need to recruit 185,000 men and
women each year in the active-duty forces and another 65,000 for the reserves just to replenish the force, he
noted.
Recruiters have one of the toughest jobs in the military, he said. About 15,500 of them work in recruiting stations
across the country, educating young men and women on benefits, pay and training opportunities in the military, Gilroy
said.
Military recruiters have the most significant impact in the whether the services reach their monthly and annual
goals, even with a difficult economy, he said.
"Regardless of what unemployment is, we need to recruit about 250,000 young men and women each year to
replenish the force," Gilroy said. "We talk about the military being an all-volunteer military, but it's really an
all-recruited military."
8
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
The Military is suffering big problems in recruitment and retention
Bill Maxwell, columnist for the Washington times, “Army Needs Rebuilding” 10/26/08
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/26/army-needs-rebuilding/
Five years later, a crude reality has emerged: Our all-volunteer service is straining under the weight of forces few
in Afghanistan.
Because the military is all-volunteer, the biggest problems are recruitment and keeping personnel in the ranks
for the duration of their enlistments. To meet recruitment goals and to keep troop levels adequate during this
era of the so-called war on terror, the military, especially the active Army and the Reserves, has been forced to
lower its standards for enlistees.
9
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Must increase army manpower.
Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress Sean E. Duggan, Center for American Progress,
2007. [Political Science & Politics (40:3), An All-Volunteer Army? Recruitment and its Problems,
p. 467-71]
Addressing the Army's glaring manpower and equipment problems will be a daunting task. Its difficulties in
recruiting and maintaining the nation's Army at existing levels will be exacerbated by the recent decision to
add over 92,000 service men and women to the Army and Marines. While the war in Iraq has demonstrated the
necessity for these additional ground forces, even a cursory understanding of the hardships plaguing the Army
outlined above indicates the difficulty of raising such numbers on an all-volunteer basis. Still, reinstituting the
draft does not seem to be an option supported by the military leadership or the American people. Therefore, the
Department of Defense must make the difficult decisions necessary to ensure the strength and quality of its
Army. One decision must be to emphasize manpower over hardware; people not hardware must be our highest
priority. That could mean transferring resources from the Navy and Air Force to the Army—an argument it is difficult
for the Army to make.
10
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
N/U: Funding High Now
Stimulus included funding for a laundry list of social services
Suzanne Perry, News Writer for “The Chronicles of Philanthropy” January 29, 2009,
http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/6954/house-stimulus-legislation-would-bolster-social-servicesspending
The economic-stimulus package approved last night by the House of Representatives would provide new money to
an array of health and social-services programs, offering some relief to charities that are facing rising demand and
shrinking revenues as the economic crisis deepens.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 would introduce about $819-billion in spending and tax cuts
designed to create from 3 million to 4 million jobs. The package would provide money for clean energy, public
schools, health technology, and road and bridge projects.
But it would also spend $87-billion to increase the federal share of Medicaid, the health program for poor people,
through the end of 2010, which could head off some state budget cuts that would affect nonprofit medical centers.
It also proposes $2.1-billion for Head Start and Early Head Start, the early-education programs; $1.5-billion to
help community health centers renovate their clinics and provide care to more uninsured patients; $200-million for
the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which is governed by a board of social-services charities; and $100million for the Compassion Capital Fund, which provides grants to religious and other charities to provide social
services.
In an effort to help states that are facing massive shortfalls as tax revenues plummet, the bill also seeks $2-billion for
Child Care and Development Block Grants, to offer child-care services to low-income families; $1-billion for
Community Service Block Grants, to provide social services to low-income people; and $1-billion for Community
Development Block Grants, to pay for housing and antipoverty projects. Charities get many of the contracts to
operate those programs.
It would also offer $200-million to AmeriCorps, the national-service program, and $50-million to the National
Endowment for the Arts to provide grants to struggling arts groups.
11
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Stimulus spent over 300 billion dollars on expanding social services
AP) Associated Press, June 4, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31110642//
Remember the "shovel-ready" projects lined up for all that stimulus money? It turns out social spending, more than
construction, is hitting pay dirt in the huge federal effort to turn the economy around.
The public face of the stimulus package has been the worker in a hard hat, getting back on the job to rebuild the
nation's infrastructure.
Earlier this spring, for example, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared before the cameras at a job site
along a freeway east of San Francisco. He declared that the stimulus-financed project would provide paychecks for
235 construction workers who otherwise would have to "stand in the unemployment line."
The reality of how the vast majority of the stimulus money will be spent is quite different, and that raises questions
about how much help the Recovery Act backed by President Barack Obama will be to the economy in the long run.
Most of the roughly $300 billion coming directly to the states is being funneled through existing government
programs for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps and other social services.
"We all talked about 'shovel-ready' since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in
fact, that's not the case," said Chris Whatley, the Washington director of the Council of State Governments, a trade
group for state governments. He estimates states will get three times more money for education than for
transportation.
Government programs benefit
Two-thirds of recovery money that flows directly to states will go toward health care.
By comparison, about 15 percent of the money is for transportation, including airports, highways and rail projects,
according to Federal Funds Information for States, a service of the National Governors Association and the National
Conference of State Legislatures.
Overall, two-thirds of the stimulus program will go toward tax cuts, relief for state budgets and direct payments
to the unemployed and others hurt by the recession, part of the administration's desire to provide immediate
fiscal relief. Much smaller pieces of the pie will be allocated for weatherization, affordable housing and other
projects designed to create jobs.
John Husing, a Southern California economist, said keeping teachers and police officers employed should help
prevent the recession from getting worse. But he said the stimulus package would have improved communities' ability
to grow over the long haul if it had dedicated more money to public works.
While billions of dollars eventually will flow to infrastructure projects, Democrats who crafted the package say
they directed most of it to existing government programs such as Medicaid and education to prevent state
economies from slipping even more. One goal was to help fill state budget gaps, keeping teachers and others
employed while strengthening the social safety net.
12
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
36 billion dollars have been allocated to help states fund current programs
Input, the authority on government business. May 28, 2009,
http://issueswire.com/releases/Economic_Stimulus_Guide/Social_Services/prweb2467934.htm
INPUT, the leading authority on government business, has analyzed the The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) of 2009 which allocates $36 billion to social services, aiming to replenish depleted state and local
budgets. The funds will address reductions in state and local government public welfare by extending
unemployment benefits, providing workforce training, addressing the needs of seniors and funding programs
for child and youth nutrition and education.
According to INPUT, the bulk of federal funds for social services will flow to the states and municipalities. State
agencies have the infrastructure in place to spend the funds, but local agencies may struggle and will need more
resources, training, and staff.
In the report, Economic Stimulus State & Local Vertical Report: Social Services, INPUT makes recommendations to
government contractors on how they can leverage stimulus dollars.
* Nine states will get more than $5B in social services spending. They include: Texas, California, New York,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
* Three New England states received $250M or less. They include Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire
* Public welfare programs will be stabilized through this funding, which essentially provides a one-time
infusion of funding to existing operating programs rather than supporting new programs
* States are under great pressure to commit the funds for these programs in order to support families, and
increase consumer spending that can help boost state economies
* Opportunities can be found in professional services, training, staffing, information management systems
* The ARRA funds allocated to social services boost operational spending on: Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP); WIC; Unemployment Insurance
* Because it reduces the pressure on states to address social services budget shortfalls, the funding could delay
necessary state budget reform
* This funding doesn't reform welfare services - a future task for the Obama Administration
* States will likely use ARRA money for professional development and skills training
* There will be greater transparency and public tracking of social services stimulus funds
13
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
N/U: Economy Will Rebound
Economic recovery inevitable, recruitment will fall
Balli Press Release, July 5, 2009 http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/balli-steel-forecastseconomic-recovery-in-five-phases-106823.php
LONDON, ENGLAND, July 05, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Balli Steel, one of the world's largest privately owned
independent commodity traders, has forecast that the global economic recovery will sequentially occur in five
phases, with increased demand for steel in each sector acting as a barometer or indicator of such recovery. Balli
Steel highlights that global annualised steel production this year is forecast to be 1.1 billion tonnes, down on last
year's record 1.3 billion tonnes, but significantly higher than the 800 million tonnes recorded in 2000. Balli considers
the steel markets of North America, Europe and the Gulf Co-operation Countries (GCC) the hardest hit by, not only
the credit crisis, but by overstocking and speculation on future prices. Balli expects the market in the GCC economies
to see a gradual improvement while North America and Europe will experience continued problems. Forecasts
indicate that Japan and South Korea will also continue to face economic challenges since their industries are more
dependent on Western Europe and North America. Vahid Alaghband, Group Chairman of Balli Steel, said: "The
credit crunch and global economic downturn has had a 'Tsunami Effect' covering all key economic sectors: steel and
other commodities, property, automotive, capital goods and finance. At present steel producers are operating only at
around 50-60% of their capacity. We consider the implementation of government driven stimulus packages,
which will see significant public sector investment in civil engineering and infrastructure projects, will procure
the first phase of the global economic recovery." Balli Steel considers that the second phase will be characterised
by a gradual recovery of the housing market that is expected to begin in Q4 2009, and which will be led by key cities
such as London, New York, Singapore and Hong Kong. Vahid Alaghband observed: "With prices down by up to
40% in certain markets, overnight interest rates at the near zero level, and yields at up to 10%, property has become a
good long term investment again. With supply at a record low we expect the market to grow steadily through to
beginning 2010 and well into 2014. The return to the market of competitive mortgages will prove a further boost."
Phase three of the recovery will be characterised by increased demand for products that rely on unsecured
loans and consumer-credit. Balli Steel calculates that the retail, white goods and automotive industry will begin to
see a return to recovery to begin around Q2 2010. Balli also expects a recovery of the global shipbuilding industry,
providing a major boost to steel traders, in the first quarter of 2011, marking the return to more normal international
trading patterns and leading the fourth phase of the global recovery. The fifth phase will be a return to more
normal investment in capital goods by producers as they gain confidence in the state of the world economy. "We
are by no means out of the woods yet and there is a lot of pain ahead of us in 2009 and 2010. But in the last few weeks
as I speak to business counterparts the general consensus appears to be that we are no longer in a state of
uncontrolled free-fall and we are at or close to the bottom in a number of markets," said Vahid Alaghband. About
Balli: Balli Holdings, is a large private, multi-national corporation, headquartered in London, but with offices in
Dubai and other key business hubs around the world. Balli was established in 1982 and operates a number of
affiliated companies specialising in commodity trading, industrial, real estate and private equity with operations in
over 20 countries. Together with its affiliated companies, Balli employs over 2,000 people worldwide.
14
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
The economy is on the rebound
Shobhana Chandra and Alex Tanzi Economic Correspondents, July 10, 2009,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a_Xb00lMEnNM
July 10 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy will expand faster than previously forecast in the second half of this
year and in 2010 as a revival in consumer spending signals an end to the recession, a Bloomberg News survey
showed. Growth will average 1.5 percent in the July-to-December period, compared with last month’s 1.2 percent
projection, according to the median of 57 forecasts in the survey taken from July 2 to July 8. The jobless rate will
exceed 10 percent early next year and average 9.8 percent for 2010.
Signs of stability in the housing market, improving consumer confidence and smaller declines in auto sales are
reinforcing forecasts for gains in consumer purchases. While the recovery is likely to be tempered by job cuts and
shrinking household wealth, most economists said a second stimulus package won’t be needed.
“We are on the cusp of stabilization,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Securities Inc. in Stamford,
Connecticut. “The right things are happening. They’re not happening fast enough to make everyone comfortable
just yet, but we’re certainly headed in the right direction.”
Federal Reserve officials will begin to lift the benchmark interest rate in the third quarter of next year and take it to 1
percent in the final three months, the survey showed. A month ago, economists said the Fed would hold the rate near
zero until the fourth quarter of 2010.
The economy probably shrank at a 1.8 percent rate from April to June, the latest survey showed, less than economists
forecast last month. The U.S. will return to growth in the current quarter and expand 2.1 percent next year.
Survey participants also raised their projections for consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the
economy. Purchases will rise 1 percent this quarter after contracting in the prior three months, they said.
Growth in spending will accelerate to 1.8 percent by the first quarter of 2010.
“While the recession will be over soon, the recovery, at least in the first year, will be fairly lackluster,” said Nariman
Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. “For consumers, the biggest headwind
is unemployment, and here, unfortunately, the news will get worse in the next few months.”
15
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
N/U: Unemployment Will Decrease
Stimulus means job growth inevitable.
CQ News, July 5, 2009 http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003158539
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. acknowledged Sunday that the administration made a mistake in assessing the
depth and gravity of the nation’s economic crisis but predicted stepped-up job creation as more money in the
economic stimulus package rolls out. “...the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited
... but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “No one
anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having
distributed the bulk of the money.” He conceded that the current unemployment rate, 9.5 percent, is “much too
high,” and “what we have to do, is we have to, as this [stimulus] rolls out, put more pace on the ball. The second
hundred days, you’re going to see a lot more jobs created. And the reason you are is now all of these contracts
for the over several thousand highway projects that have approved.”
Unemployment is beginning to decrease
Shobhana Chandra and Bob Willis, Economic Correspondents, June 4, 2009,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aU_z.gP96rBI
June 4 (Bloomberg) -- Fewer American workers filed claims for jobless benefits last week, signaling that the
worst phase of the employment slump has passed. Initial applications for unemployment insurance fell by 4,000
to 621,000 in the week ended May 30, in line with forecasts, figures from the Labor Department showed today in
Washington. Another Labor report showed worker productivity rose more in the first quarter than previously
estimated. Greater efficiency is contributing to an improvement in profits that will likely lead to fewer job cuts in
coming months, analysts said. Companies such as United Technologies Corp. are among those that have slashed
payrolls to control labor costs and boost earnings, a step that may help get the economy out of the worst recession
in half a century. “Employers are far advanced in the pace of job cuts,” said John Herrmann, president of Herrmann
Forecasting in Summit, New Jersey. Firings “should slow materially” in coming months, he said. The claims report
also showed the number of people collecting unemployment insurance fell to 6.74 million in the week ended May
23 from 6.75 million the prior week. It was the first decrease in almost five months, breaking a string of 17
consecutive records.
16
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Econ Crisis Key
The current economic crisis is the root cause of increased recruitment
Stephanie Gaskell, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER, Monday, May 11th 2009 http://counterrecruitment.blogspot.com/2009/05/economic-crisis-drives-people-to.html
So many people are flocking to the military during the current economic meltdown that Uncle Sam's recruiters
are turning applicants away. "The people that we're picking are actually the cream of the crop," said 1st Sgt. Charles
Bunyon, a New York National Guard recruiter based in the city. "It's more difficult to get in." It's a far cry from the
critical shortage the armed forces faced four years ago, when the unemployment rate was 4.6% - a bit more than
half of what it is now. Back then, Bunyon was offering hefty bonuses to get a soldier to sign up. He was also
willing to accept medical waivers and overlook a minor criminal history in order to fill his ranks. More soldiers are
also opting to stay in the service longer rather than look for private sector jobs. "People coming back from Iraq
and Afghanistan, they're saying 'Well, maybe I'll stay in because the economy is so bad,'" Bunyon said. "We're not
losing as many as we thought." In fact, Bunyon said he's got about 60 more soldiers than his budget allows. For some
New Yorkers, the prospect of steady income is trumping the inherent risks of the military - including deployment
to Iraq or Afghanistan. "I'm fine with that," said Pvt. Kevin Franqui, 22, of the Bronx. "It's a stress on the family, but
you get hazard pay, no taxes, separation pay. It's a lot of stuff. It adds up." A NewYork National Guardsman,
Franqui said he's switching to the active duty Army because there are no other jobs out there. "I got a 9-monthold," he said. "I'm recently married. It's not just about me anymore." Amid the economic recession, the Army, Navy,
Air Force and Marine Corps are at - or over - their recruitment goals. "The economic downturn certainly has
affected the recruiting situation, no doubt about it," said Dr. Curtis Gilroy, the Pentagon's director of accession
policy. Not long ago, it wasn't unusual to have 12 or 15 people to fill 10 slots, he said. "Now we've got 50 or 75."
With so many applicants, recruiters are able to "look more closely at who they enlist," he said. "We have the highest
quality force today than we've had in a long time," he said.
17
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Recruitment increasing due to a lack of jobs, not military benefits
AP (Associated Press) October 14, 2008, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5swRcYiBjMMl2fcKQknIC6DbNPQ
The US economic crisis could well make life easier for US military recruiters, who have struggled in recent years to
meet their services' enlistment goals in a time of war.
"We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society," said David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel
and readiness. "That is a situation where more people are willing to give us a chance."
The army and marines, in particular, have had to mount extraordinary efforts in recent years to attract fresh recruits
at a time when many prospective candidates were put off by an unpopular war in Iraq in which more than 4,000 troops have
lost their lives.
Despite the challenges, the military recruited more than 300,000 men and women in the fiscal year ending October 1, meeting
or exceeding targets set by the individual services.
In all, 185,000 people signed up for active duty, and 140,000 for the reserves, according to the Pentagon.
"This is probably the strongest recruiting year we've had overall, taking all elements into account, since fiscal year
2004," Chu told reporters Friday.
"So what difficult economic times give us, I think, is an opening to make our case to people who we might not otherwise
have. And if we make our case, I think we can be successful," he said.
Pentagon officials say the improved recruiting environment is due not only to the worsening economy. Subsiding violence in
Iraq and shortened combat tours from 15 to 12 months have also helped.
Shortened tours "could have been a factor. Also the fact that the (media) coverage of casualties has declined," said Douglas
Smith, a spokesman for the US Army's Recruiting Command said.
18
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
The root cause of changes in recruitment is the economic crisis
David Morgan, October 10 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4998WU20081010
The financial crisis could yield a bumper crop of U.S. military recruits if the recent plunge in stocks translates into job
losses and an even weaker economy, defense officials said on Friday.
"We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society," said David Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel
and readiness.
"That is a situation where more people are willing to give us a chance. I think that's the big difference: people are willing to
listen to us."
Chu was speaking to Pentagon reporters after announcing that all four branches of the U.S. armed forces -- Army, Navy,
Marines and Air Force -- met their respective recruiting goals for the federal fiscal year that ended on September 30.
All told, 185,000 men and women entered active-duty military service, the highest number since 2003, according to Pentagon
statistics. Another 140,000 signed up for duty in the National Guard and reserve.
19
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Unemployment has caused the recruiting surge, not a lack of social services
Dan Gleister, Los Angeles Jornalist for The Guardian, January 19, 2009,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/19/military-recruitment-rises-with-economic-downturn
With the economy stagnant and the job market shrinking, more Americans are turning to a stable source of
employment: the military.
Figures released by the US military show that in the last fiscal year all branches of the services exceeded their recruitment
targets for the first time since 2004. The first three months of the new fiscal year - from October to December - saw the
trend continuing, with the army exceeding its targets for each month.
In the year to the end of September, 185,00 men and women entered active military service, the highest number since 2003.
The US military, and particularly the army, has suffered a recruitment crisis since 2004, when casualty figures in Iraq
increased dramatically.
"When the economy slackens and unemployment rises and jobs become more scarce in civilian society, recruiting is less
challenging," Curtis Gilroy, director of accession policy for the department of defence, told the New York Times.
20
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Hegemony Sustainable
Primacy is sustainable regardless of troop strength – US is dominant in all sectors
Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth 08 Associate Professors in the Department of Government
@ Dartmouth College (World Out of Balance, p. 27-31)
“Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing,” historian Paul Kennedy observes: “I have
returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I
compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close.” Though assessments of U.S.
power have changed since those words were written in 2002, they remain true. Even when capabilities are
understood broadly to include economic, technological, and other wellsprings of national power, they are
concentrated in the United States to a degree never before experienced in the history of the modern system of
states and thus never contemplated by balance-of-power theorists. The United spends more on defense that all the
other major military powers combined, and most of those powers are its allies. Its massive investments in the human,
institutional, and technological requisites of military power, cumulated over many decades, make any effort to match
U.S. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. Military research and development
(R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investment that give the United States a dramatic qualitative edge
in military capabilities. As table 2.1 shows, in 2004 U.S. military R&D expenditures were more than six times greater
than those of Germany, Japan, France, and Britain combined. By some estimates over half the military R&D
expenditures in the world are American. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30
years, for example, the United States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military
R&D. These vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major
powers that is unique after the seventeenth century. While other powers could contest U.S. forces near their
homelands, especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible, the United States is and will long
remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally. This capacity arises from
“command of the commons” – that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and space. As Barry
Posen puts it, Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U.S global power position. It allows
the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power, including its own economic and military might as well
as the economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its
adversaries, by restricting their access to economic, military, and political assistance….Command of the commons
provides the United States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore
power has ever had. Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical
importance of the economic foundations of national power. It is the combination of military and economic potential
that sets the United States apart from its predecessors at the top of the international system. Previous leading states
were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on land, never both. The British Empire in its
heyday and the United States during the Cold War, for example, shared the world with other powers that matched or
exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was outspent, outmanned,
and outgunned by both France and Russia. Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant
economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks
to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. The United States’
share of world GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of any leading state in modern history, with the sole
exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major
economy). The size of the U.S economy means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent
of its GDP in 2005, far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 195070, and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. As Kennedy sums up, “Being Number One at
great cost is one thing; being the world’s single superpower on the cheap is astonishing.”
21
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Heg Sustainable-Navy
US hegemony is sustainable-----US navy is only powerful navy.
Max Boot, scholar at Council of Foreign Relations (think tank), columnist of “Los Angeles Times”,
2006 http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-paradox-of-military-technology
Navies remain divided, as they have been since the dawn of the second industrial age, into aircraft carriers, submarines, and
surface ships. The major difference is that blue-water naval competition has disappeared after more than 500 years. No one
even tries to challenge the U.S. Navy anymore on the high seas. Virtually every other navy in the world is little more
than a coastal patrol force.
The U.S. has 12 aircraft carriers, nine of them Nimitz-class, nuclear-powered supercarriers that can carry more than 70
high-performance aircraft such as the F/A-18 Super Hornet. A tenth supercarrier is in the works. No one else has a single
one. France has the world’s only other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, but it is half the size of the
Nimitz. Russia has one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, that rarely leaves port, and it has sold another one, the
Admiral Gorshkov, to India. Britain has three small Invincible-class aircraft carriers that are used only for helicopters and
vertical-takeoff Harrier jets. France, Italy, Spain, Japan, and South Korea have similar helicopter carriers in the works. These
ships are comparable to the U.S. Navy’s 12 amphibious assault ships, which transport helicopters, jump jets, and Marines.
Whenever they leave port, U.S. capital ships are surrounded by surface and submarine escorts. Twenty-four
Ticonderoga-class cruisers and 45 (and counting) Arleigh Burke-class destroyers come equipped with Aegis phased-array
radar which can track up to 900 targets in a 300-mile radius. These surface combatants can also operate on their own or in
conjunction with smaller vessels such as frigates and minesweepers.
In World War II, ships that didn’t carry aircraft were limited to firing torpedoes or heavy guns with a range of less than 30
miles. Starting in the 1960s some submarines were equipped with intercontinental range ballistic missiles, but their targeting
was so imprecise that it made no sense to equip them with conventional warheads. Ballistic-missile subs became a mainstay
of nuclear deterrence. The development of accurate cruise missiles starting in the 1970s allowed submarines and surface
combatants to hit land targets hundreds of miles away with conventional ordnance. Improvements in torpedo design,
including the development of rocket-propelled supercavitating torpedoes, also allow submarines to do more damage in their
traditional anti-ship role.
The U.S. has the world’s largest fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines (54) and nuclear-powered ballistic-missile
subs (16). Russia comes in second with 37 attack submarines and 14 ballistic missile subs. Britain has 15 nuclear-powered
submarines, followed by France with 10, and China with six. Not only are U.S. submarines more numerous, they are also
more advanced. The most sophisticated are three 1990s-vintage Seawolfs described by one defense analyst as “the
fastest, quietest, and most heavily armed undersea vessels ever built.”
Because of the growing power of each of its vessels and the lack of competitors, the U.S. Navy has consolidated its high
seas hegemony even while its fleet has shrunk from almost 500 ships in the 1980s to fewer than 300 in the early years
of the twenty-first century. The potency of U.S. naval vessels is increased by linking together sensors and weapons
systems with a tactical computer network known as FORCEnet.
22
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Status Quo solves---------US Navy tech is keep being updated.
Max Boot, scholar at Council of Foreign Relations (think tank), columnist of “Los Angeles Times”,
2006 http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-paradox-of-military-technology
To maintain its dominance, the U.S. Navy regularly updates the electronics and weapons aboard
its warships even as the hulls and propulsion systems remain unchanged. It also plans to build a
variety of unmanned vessels along with a CVN-21 aircraft carrier to replace the Nimitz-class, a
Zumwalt-class DD(X) destroyer to replace Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates and Spruance-class
destroyers, a CG(X) cruiser to replace the Ticonderoga-class cruisers, and a smaller and speedier
Littoral Combat Ship with no direct parallel in today’s fleet that would focus on clearing mines,
hunting submarines, and fighting terrorists in coastal waters. All of these new vessels will have
improved defenses and information-processing tools as well as “plug and play” capacity that will
allow them to be quickly reconfigured for different missions. They will also incorporate composite
materials, stealthier designs, and electric propulsion to make them harder to detect, though an
aircraft carrier with a 4.5-acre flight deck can never exactly hide.
23
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Hegemony Unsustainable
Hegemonic dominance is impossible to sustain even with a stronger military
U.S. National Intelligence Council, C. Thomas Fingar, Chairman, U.S. National Intelligence Council, “Global
Trends 2025” November 2008 http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
The international system—as constructed following the Second World War—will be almost unrecognizable by 2025
owing to the rise of emerging powers, a globalizing economy, an historic transfer of relative wealth and economic
power from West to East, and the growing influence of nonstate actors. By 2025, the international system will be a
global multipolar one with gaps in national power continuing to narrow between developed and developing
countries. Concurrent with the shift in power among nation-states, the relative power of various nonstate
actors—including businesses, tribes, religious organizations, and criminal networks—is increasing. The players are
changing, but so too are the scope and breadth of transnational issues important for continued global prosperity. Aging
populations in the developed world; growing energy, food, and water constraints; and worries about climate change
will limit and diminish what will still be an historically unprecedented age of prosperity. Historically, emerging
multipolar systems have been more unstable than bipolar or unipolar ones. Despite the recent financial volatility—
which could end up accelerating many ongoing trends—we do not believe that we are headed toward a complete
breakdown of the international system, as occurred in 1914-1918 when an earlier phase of globalization came to a
halt. However, the next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks. Strategic rivalries are most likely
to revolve around trade, investments, and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th
century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion, and military rivalries. This is a story with no clear outcome,
as illustrated by a series of vignettes we use to map out divergent futures. Although the United States is likely to
remain the single most powerful actor, the United States’ relative strength—even in the military realm—will
decline and US leverage will become more constrained. At the same time, the extent to which other actors—both
state and nonstate—will be willing or able to shoulder increased burdens is unclear. Policymakers and publics will
have to cope with a growing demand for multilateral cooperation when the international system will be stressed by the
incomplete transition from the old to a still-forming new order.
24
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Readiness Collapse Inevitable – DADT
DADT makes readiness collapse inevitable.
Michelle Garcia July 06, 2009 Veteran Takes the Lead on DADT Bill
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid96041.asp
U.S. representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran who earned a Bronze Star, has become the lead sponsor of a
bill that would lift the ban on openly gay personnel serving in the military, confirming earlier reports. "It is vital to
our national security," Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said to The Morning Call newspaper. "We have troops
that are fighting in two wars and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve." Ellen
Taucher, who is leaving Congress to take a position with the Obama administration, was the leading sponsor of the
bill when it was reintroduced to Congress earlier this year. The legislation currently has 150 cosponsors in the House.
President Obama and members of his administration have indicated that they are interested in repealing the ban
through Congress and not by executive order. Murphy, 35, is a former prosecutor, West Point professor, and captain
in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. In a 2008 hearing on "don't ask, don't tell," Murphy went toe-to-toe with Elaine
Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, which is fighting to keep the ban in place. "You're
basically asserting that straight men and women in our military aren't professional enough to serve openly with
gay troops while completing their military missions," he said. "You know, as a former Army officer, I can tell you I
think that's an insult to me and to many of the soldiers. … 24 countries…allow [gay] military personnel to serve
openly without any detrimental impact on unit cohesion." A Gallup poll in May shows that more than two thirds of
Americans -- 69% -- favor lifting the ban; 26% remain opposed.
25
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
DADT kills readiness and security.
Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Saturday, July 4, 2009
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=63577
WASHINGTON — Rep. Patrick Murphy wants to repeal "don’t ask, don’t tell" as soon as possible, with or without
the president’s help. "I don’t work for the president," the Pennsylvania Democrat said in an interview with Stars and
Stripes. "We don’t need to wait." This week Murphy, a former Army captain who served in Iraq, will take over as lead
sponsor of the House bill to repeal the 16-year-old law banning homosexuals from serving openly in the military. His
office will unveil a new public push on the issue Wednesday: Face-to-face visits with every member of the House on
the issue, a Web site listing facts and myths about the rule, and a goal of passing the legislation this year. The White
House last week reiterated its goal of overturning the law, and Obama spoke on the issue at a reception with gay
advocacy groups. “I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and
women who continue to be discharged under this policy,” Obama said. “But what I hope is that these cases
underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it is
essential for our national security.” Gay rights advocates point out that Obama still has yet to show real
progress on his campaign promise to change the law. Since the start of his presidency 277 troops have been
discharged under the law, and about 13,000 have been discharged since 1994. Liberal think tank Center for American
Progress released a road map for repeal last month, calling for a simultaneous executive order stopping the law and
legislative action in an effort to move the issue ahead. “The longer you wait on this issue, the longer it takes to
seize momentum,” said Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the center. “Congress can take the lead on this. It was
Congress over opposition from the military that dropped the ban on women flying combat aircraft and serving on
combat ships.” Korb and some advocacy groups have argued that Obama need not wait for Congress, and could
simply overturn the law on his own with a wartime executive order allowing gays to serve openly. But both the White
House and congressional leaders have stated that changes must come from the legislative branch, and officials from
the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network have argued that such an order could be vulnerable to legal challenges.
Opponents of repealing the “don’t ask” law are girding for a fight. “If they go ahead with this, there are going to be
protests, there are going to be lawsuits, and this is going to be taken to court,” said the Rev. Billy Baugham, executive
director of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers. Baugham said he believes any change in
the “don’t ask” law will face an immediate legal challenge. His group is lobbying lawmakers to leave the law alone,
but he said he would not rule out lawsuits to block servicemembers from serving openly. “This is a matter of
readiness, and it’s going to break down the relationship between soldiers who are forced into close quarters,” he said.
“ ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is fine at this point, and for that to be destroyed is criminal and outrageous. Murphy is
unconcerned about those challenges. He believes Congress can still repeal the law this year, and thinks his experience
in the ranks will help convince some reluctant lawmakers to support the change. “People ask why does an IrishCatholic guy who’s straight and married care so much about [overturning] ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ” he said. “And I tell
them it’s because this is something I believe in. It’s a failed policy that hurts national security. “We all knew
people who we served with who were gay, and it didn’t affect their job,” he said. “It didn’t affect me personally. But
they were discriminated against, and that shouldn’t be.”
26
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Readiness Collapse Inevitable- Overstretch
Internal failures and overstretching will cause US decline
David C. Hendrickson 2005 (Robert J. Fox Distinguished Service Prof. at Colorado College, World
Policy Journal, Summer, http://worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj05-2/hendrickson.html)
A variant of the realist argument is the historical/structural perspective on the rise and fall of great powers. On the
basis of its logic, some scholars argue that overspending, overstretching, and internal failures will eventually
cause the United States' decline.13 Although the historical records of past great powers (e.g., Spain and
Portugal) attest to the strength of this argument, one must be cautious of its application to the United States for
three reasons. First, no previous empire had the benefit of capitalism in its highly developed form as the United
States enjoys today. Second, several past empires and major powers managed to persevere, albeit in a weakened form,
contrary to the expectations of perspectives that focus on automatic structural change. For instance, depending on the
Western or Eastern manifestation, the Roman Empire lasted from 500 to 1,100 years. The Ottoman Empire survived
for more than 400 years; the Mughal Empire in India more than 300; and the British Empire more than 250. Without
World War II, the British Empire would probably have lasted even longer.
US hegemony has caused overstretching and a weak nation- Iraq proves
Fareed Zakaria, June 2008, Editor of Newsweek International, “The Future of American Power.”
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303-p10/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-americanpower.html.
Fast-forward to today. Another superpower, militarily unbeatable, wins an easy victory in Afghanistan and then takes on
what it is sure will be another simple battle, this one against Saddam Hussein's isolated regime in Iraq. The result: a quick
initial military victory followed by a long, arduous struggle, filled with political and military blunders and met with intense
international opposition. The analogy is obvious; the United States is Britain, the Iraq war is the Boer War -- and, by
extension, the United States' future looks bleak. And indeed, regardless of the outcome in Iraq, the costs have been
massive. The United States has been overextended and distracted, its army stressed, its image sullied. Rogue states
such as Iran and Venezuela and great powers such as China and Russia are taking advantage of Washington's
inattention and bad fortunes. The familiar theme of imperial decline is playing itself out one more time. History is
happening again.
27
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Overstretch Inevitable
Troops are being deployed to Afghanistan to ensure security and stop the Taliban
Dan De Luce, Journalist for the AFP, June 11, 2009,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hYdwZ2zvvT7S2YLJVqkbTYGTU9NA
Thousands of US reinforcements for southern Afghanistan should be in place in time for presidential elections in
August, a NATO commander said on Wednesday. "We're pretty confident" that the additional soldiers and Marines will
be on the ground and ready before the August 20 vote, Major General Mart de Kruif, the Dutch commander for the southern
region, told reporters. President Barack Obama has approved the deployment of more than 21,000 US troops as part of
a bid to reverse the course of the war against Islamist insurgents challenging the Kabul government.
Continues
De Kruif said the extra troops would mean stepped up military operations in the south, a bastion for the Taliban and
the opium trade that helps finance the insurgency.
Continues
The US force in Afghanistan is due to double to about 68,000 by the end of the year, while 33,000 other foreign troops
are now stationed there
Troops may remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for up to a decade
The Associated Press (AP), May 27 2009, http://newsok.com/article/3372808
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an
agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer
said Tuesday.
Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon
must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars.
He spoke to a dozen journalists and policy analysts from Washington-based think-tanks. He said his planning envisions
combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and
terrorism in the Middle East.
continues
The United States currently has about 139,000 troops in Iraq and 52,000 in Afghanistan.
Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war quickly and refocusing U.S. resources on what he called the more important fight
in Afghanistan.
The US will maintain deployments to support it’s allies around the world. As the world’s premier
military power the US will continue to intervene to make sure that se lanes stay open and trade
continues. Also, the US will deploy troops to ensure that vulnerable pro-west nations like Israel are
protected.
28
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Heg Bad
US hegemony troubles other nations
Barry R. Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science and director of the security studies
program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 2007, “The Case For Restraint.”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=331&MId=16
The activist U.S. grand strategy currently preferred by the national security establishment in both parties thus has a
classically tragic quality about it. Enabled by its great power, and fearful of the negative energies and possibilities
engendered by globalization, the United States has tried to get its arms around the problem: It has essentially sought
more control. But the very act of seeking more control injects negative energy into global politics as quickly as it finds
enemies to vanquish. It prompts states to balance against U.S. power however they can, and it prompts peoples to
imagine that the United States is the source of all their troubles.
This unrest leads to anti-Americanism
Barry R. Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science and director of the security studies
program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 2007, “The Case For Restraint.”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=331&MId=16
American activism also interacts with globalization to provoke negative reactions to the United States. Insofar as the
U.S. economy is the largest and most dynamic in the world, the forces associated with globalization—trade, global supply
chains, investment, travel and communications—are often associated with the United States by those experiencing the
downside consequences. Not only does an activist foreign and security policy make the United States the most obvious
unkind face of globalization, political entrepreneurs in the developing world will find it expedient to attribute the difficulties
experienced by their target populations to the actions of the United States. When U.S. activism turns to direct military
intervention in the affairs of other countries, local political leaders can rely on the most elemental of forces: nationalism.
Increased opportunities for travel and communications have enabled transnational groups, particularly al-Qaeda, to
organize against the United States. They can mobilize people politically without one-to-one contact. Given populations
of hundreds of millions, these organizations do not need a high conversion rate to sustain themselves. They need only
produce sympathy on a large enough scale to provide an environment from which relatively modest material and
human resources can be collected.
Al-Qaeda and other similar, but less ambitious, groups have also professionalized the training of their soldiers and
terrorist operatives. They learn from one another, adapt to local circumstances, and profit from the more general
availability of weaponry. The ease of international travel and trade allows human and material resources to be shifted
rapidly from place to place. This turns U.S. interventions into opportunities for transnational anti-system groups like
al-Qaeda to assist local resistance movements and to harness the power of nationalism and politicized religion to their
more diffuse but still distinctly anti-American agenda.
29
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Anti-Americanism breeds hate and terrorism
Barry R. Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science and director of the security studies
program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 2007, “The Case For Restraint.”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=331&MId=16
Whatever else it may achieve, U.S. activism is bound to discomfit other states. The great preponderance of U.S. power
makes direct opposition to the United States difficult and dangerous, but other states are doing what they can to put
themselves in a better position. Some fear U.S. freedom of action, worry about the possibility of being drawn into
policies inimical to their interests, and so wish to distance themselves from the United States—even as they free-ride
within the broader U.S. security umbrella. The European Union has gradually strengthened its military capabilities so that it
can get along without the United States if it must. Others fear that U.S. policies will harm their interests indirectly, and
look for ways to concert their power, as Russia and China have done in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Still
others expect U.S. attentions to be directed straight at them, and so they seek to improve their abilities to deter U.S.
military action or fight the United States directly if they must. North Korea and Iran pursue nuclear weapons for
those purposes. Iran also has developed a conventional capability to inflict costs on U.S. forces in the Gulf and has been
implicated in inflicting such costs in Iraq. To the extent that the United States continues its current activist policy path,
these reactions will continue and will slowly increase the costs of future U.S. activism. They will also reduce the
propensity of others to share these costs.
30
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Hegemony fails- intimidates others into powering up
Christopher Layne, Associate Professor of International Studies at the University of Miami, Winter
2002, “CHINA’S ROLE IN AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY:PARTNER, REGIONAL POWER,
OR GREAT POWER RIVAL?” http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:85cBF6dLf8J:www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited%2520Volumes/RegionalFinal%2520chapters/Chapter5Layne.p
df+christopher+layne+%22poster+child+for+offensive+realism%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&cli
ent=safari
Another factor driving the process of great-power emergence is the tendency of states to ‘balance’ against others that are too
strong or too threatening. Balancing is the term theorists use to describe a commonsensical aspect of states’ behavior. When
a state feels threatened because another is too powerful, it will try to offset the other’s strength (either by building up
its own military capabilities and/or by acquiring allies). The reason states balance is to correct a skewed distribution
of relative power in the international system.
The pressure to balance is especially strong in a unipolar system such as that which came into existence with the Soviet
Union’s collapse. Historical experience leads to the expectation that America’s present hegemony should generate the
rise of countervailing power in the form of new great powers. By definition, the distribution of relative power in a
unipolar system is extremely unbalanced. Consequently, in a unipolar system, the structural pressures on potential
great powers (like China) to increase their relative capabilities and become great powers should be overwhelming. If
they do not acquire great- power capabilities, they may be exploited by the hegemon.
31
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Continued unipolarity will lead to global instability
Charles A. Kupchan, an associate professor of government in the School of Foreign Service
and Government Department of Georgetown University, and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 2003, “The Rise of Europe, America’s Changing Internationalism, and the End of U.S.
Primacy.”
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/taps/00323195/v118n2/s3.pdf?expires=121513205
7&id=44952765&titleid=4375&accname=Dartmouth+College&checksum=249AFE5300C9788DAB70
ECAC2C496BE4
Combine the rise of Europe and Asia with the decline of liberal internationalism in the United States and it becomes clear
that America’s unipolar moment is not long for this world. At the same time that alternative centers of power are taking
shape, the United States is drawing away from multilateral institutions in favor of a unilateralism that risks estranging
those power centers, raising the chances that their ascent will lead to a new era of geopolitical rivalry. As unipolarity
gives way to multipolarity, the strategic competition now held in abeyance by U.S. primacy will return—and with a
vengeance if America’s unilateralist impulse prevails. No longer steadied by U.S. hegemony, processes of globalization
and democratization are likely to falter, as are the international institutions currently dependent upon Washington’s
leadership to function effectively. Geopolitical fault lines will reemerge among centers of power in North America,
Europe, and East Asia. The central challenge for U.S. grand strategy will be managing and taming the dangers arising
from these new fault lines. The United States cannot and should not resist the end of unipolarity and the return of a
world of multiple centers of power. To do so would only risk alienating and risking conflict with a rising Europe and
an ascendant Asia. And it would likely stoke an isolationist backlash in the United States by pursuing a level of foreign
ambition for which there would be insufficient political support. Asking that the United States prepare for and manage its
exit from global primacy, however, is a tall order. Great powers have considerable difficulty accepting their mortality; few in
history have willfully made room for rising challengers and adjusted their grand strategies accordingly.
32
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Impacts Inevitable- Healthcare
Health care will pass
National Journal, 7-1-09, http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20090630_7955.php
Certainly, the White House feels a sense of urgency. Last week, after Obama pledged that he would "absolutely"
pass reforms this year, Dianne Sawyer asked, "If you don't, is it over for four years?" Obama bristled. "We're gonna
get it done, so I won't engage in hypotheticals in which we don't." Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle,
Obama's original choice to lead the push on reform, told NationalJournal.com in April that a bill must be passed this
year if it is to happen at all. But those who observe the current push for health care reform and see déjà vu all over
again for a young Democratic president may be overlooking some important inconsistencies in the parallel.
Lawmakers are still trying to find common ground on the shape of the legislation, but polls show public support
remains squarely behind health care reform, and there are now 60 Democrats in the Senate, many of whom
campaigned on passing it. No matter the bill's final language, the bottom line is unchanged: Congress will almost
certainly pass some sort of bill, and Obama will almost certainly sign it.
Dems will unite to pass health care
Ramsey Baghdadi, managing editor of "The RPM Report", a publication devoted to prescription drug
regulation, In Vivo, 6-22-09, http://invivoblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/health-care-reform-too-big-tofail.html
The first, 79, is the margin Democrats enjoy in the House. The second, 59+1, is the number of Democrats (we'll count
independents who vote with Democrats) plus Al Franken, who could be seated as the junior Senator of Minnesota at
anytime, in the Senate. The sum of the equation gives Democrats the filibuster-proof 60 votes they desperately
need to move forward. That's not the same "60" we mean by the last number. That 60 is Obama's approval rating;
60% of all Americans approve of the job he's doing, according to an average of polls from Real Clear Politics. Now,
there is the strong argument that Democrats themselves don't all agree on health care reform and certainly
wouldn't vote in lockstep along party lines to pass sweeping legislation that impacts one-sixth of the economy.
Presently, that's absolutely the case and was reinforced by comments on the Sunday morning talk shows. However,
we bet that health care reform--particularly universal coverage--is so important in defining the future of the
Democratic Party that they will have no other choice than to come together. If they don't, Obama will make that
case to them in the final stage of the legislative process. And if those three numbers (79, 59+1, and 60) aren't enough,
there's always a fourth number, 51. That's the simple majority it would take to pass reform as part of the
budget reconciliation process in the Senate, with healthy margins assured in the House. Democrats themselves point
to 51 as a course of last resort. But the only way to get to 60 votes in the Senate may be to make sure you have 51-a threat of inevitability that would persuade conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans to sign on to a
sweeping health reform bill. We believe the 51-vote strategy is one of last resort, but one Democrats will resort to if
necessary if the choice is between that and no health care reform. Put simply, Democrats have placed too much of the
Party's future in the health reform basket to abandon it now.
33
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Obama adamant about passing health care- drug companies and AARP support prove
New York Times, 6/22/2009, “Obama reverts to campaign motto for health care agenda.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/obama-reverts-to-campaign-motto-for-health-careagenda/?ref=business
President Obama dusted off a campaign slogan on Monday, sharply dismissing those who have expressed
skepticism that the nation’s health care system will be overhauled by Congress this year.
“Yes we can,” Mr. Obama said. “We are going to get this done.”
In an appearance in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, Mr. Obama praised an agreement
reached last week by drug companies to help close a cap in Medicare’s prescription drug coverage. He said the
pharmaceutical industry’s pledge to spend $80 billion over the next decade to reduce the cost of drugs would pay for a
portion of his health care plan.
“This is a significant breakthrough on the road to health care reform,” Mr. Obama said, “one that will make a
difference in the lives of many older Americans.”
The president said the move will help solve the “doughnut hole,” the gap in coverage that requires people to
pay the full cost of prescriptions after they surpass $2,700 before the catastrophic coverage of $6,100 kicks in.
“It’s a reform that will make prescription drugs more affordable for millions of seniors and restore a measure
of fairness,” Mr. Obama said.
The brief remarks by the president were intended to highlight that AARP, a politically important group of 40
million Americans, endorsed the plan. Before the president spoke, Barry Rand, the chief executive of AARP,
vowed to support the health care overhaul moving through Congress.
34
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Recruitment Reduces Technology
Increasing the size of the military trades off with new technology.
Pat Towell, Coordinator Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget May 8, 2009 (“Defense: FY2010
Authorization and Appropriations” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40567.pdf)
Increasing generational cost growth in major weapons programs: It is generally expected that new generations of weapons
will be more expensive than the systems they replace as weapons technology advances. The rate of generational cost
growth, however, is becoming a matter of increasing concern within the Defense Department. New stealthy aircraft,
multi-mission ships, advanced space systems, and networked missiles, guns, and vehicles appear to be getting more
expensive than their predecessors at a greater rate than in the past. Unless budgets increase more rapidly than costs,
trade-offs between the costs of new weapons and the size of the force may be required.
35
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Tech key, not Recruits
Man power is not important in the military
Jack Spencer is Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby
Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. August 1, 2003
(“Reducing Stress on an Overstretched Force”
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/em895.cfm)
While U.S. forces are not adequate to sustain the current rate of deployment, simply adding manpower is not
necessarily the answer. Clearly, the U.S. needs more capabilities. However, while adding manpower may seem like
the quickest way to fill the capabilities gap, it is not the best way to solve the problem. People are expensive The
most effective weapons in the U.S. armed forces are soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. They are also,
understandably, the most expensive. Only about a third of the defense budget is spent on developing and buying
weapons. Most of the rest goes to personnel and operational costs. Maintaining personnel beyond the number
needed to fulfill U.S. national security requirements takes resources away from important efforts such as
modernization and transformation. The result can be inappropriate deployments A perceived excess of manpower
tempts political leaders to deploy forces on operations that have little or nothing to do with U.S. national security.
After the Cold War, this perception arguably contributed to heavy U.S. involvement in peacekeeping efforts in places
like Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans. It is not the only measure of capability Although manpower end-strength is
important, it does not by itself determine capabilities. For example, a force trained and equipped for the Cold
War, regardless of size, would be inappropriate for the war on terrorism. Similarly, a military unit using old
technology may not be as capable as a unit half its size using new technology. Structuring the force to reflect
modern national security requirements accurately is more important than investing resources in outdated and wasteful
organizations.
36
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
US supremacy is defined by its advanced technology.
Max Boot, scholar at Council of Foreign Relations (think tank), columnist of “Los Angeles Times”,
2006
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-paradox-of-military-technology
The greatest advances in robotics have been made in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), with the U.S. in the lead,
Israel following close behind, and at least 40 other countries trying to catch up. By the time of the Iraq War in 2003, the
U.S. had fielded six major UAVs: the Air Force’s Predator and Global Hawk, the Army’s Hunter and Shadow, and the
Marines’ Pioneer and Dragon Eye. These ranged in size from the 27,000-pound Global Hawk (comparable to a Lear jet) to
the five-pound Dragon Eye (more like a model airplane). What they had in common was that they were all designed as
surveillance systems. But in a pattern that echoes the history of manned flight, UAVs such as the Predator were soon
put to work attacking enemy positions.
Soon to be deployed are drones built especially for combat—Boeing’s X-45 and Northrop Grumman’s X-47. In Matthew
Brzezinski’s fanciful description, the former is “flat as a pancake, with jagged 34-foot batwings, no tail and a triangular,
bulbous nose” that give it the appearance of “a set piece from the television program Battlestar Galactica,” while the latter is
a “a sleek kite-shaped craft with internal weapons bays for stealth and curved air intakes like the gills of a stingray.” Both are
designed to be almost invisible to radar and to perform especially dangerous missions like suppressing enemy air defenses.
The major difference is that the X-45 is supposed to take off from land like the F-15, while the X-47 is to operate off aircraft
carriers like the F-18. Also in development is the Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft which is designed to perform the
functions of an attack helicopter like the Apache. An unmanned helicopter, known as Fire Scout, is already being bought
by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Unlike the Predator, most of these new UAVs do not require constant control by a
human operator; newer UAVs can be programmed to fly themselves and even drop munitions without direct human
intervention.
Further into the future may be projects such as a nuclear-powered UAV that could fly at 70,000 feet and stay on
station for months or even years at a time; a UAV “tender” that could serve as a mother ship for launching and
recovering smaller UAVs; UAV tankers that could refuel other UAVs in flight; and vertical-takeoff UAV cargo-carriers
that could supply troops in a combat zone. Many of these UAVs could use smart munitions with their own targetrecognition systems, thus introducing another layer of robotics into the process. An existing example is the Low-Cost
Autonomous Attack System, a 100-pound bomb with fins and a small turbojet engine that allow it to loiter over an area for
up to 30 minutes, using a laser-radar sensor to search for high-priority targets based on programmed algorithms. Once it picks
out a target, it can configure its multi-mode warhead into the most appropriate form—fragmentation explosives for
unprotected soldiers or an armor-piercing projectile for tanks—prior to impact.
The most revolutionary UAVs are the smallest. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is
working on aerial vehicles the size of an insect or a hummingbird that could hover undetected and perch on a
telephone pole or a window ledge. Some models have no wings at all; others use flapping, bird-style wings. They are
designed to be cheap enough that they could saturate a battlefield with sensors.
37
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
The military is shifting towards drones for many essential combat operations
Peter W. Singer, Director, 21st Century Defense Initiative, Brookings, June
27,2009, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0627_drones_singer.aspx
Technologies that were once science fiction are today very much reality: the US military alone fields
7,000 unmanned drones in the air, like the Predators that fire missiles into Pakistan – and roughly another 12,000 on the
ground, like the Packbots that hunt for roadside bombs in Iraq.
One US Air Force general has predicted that conflicts in the near future will involve “tens of thousands” of robots –
and not the robots of today. The current Packbots and Predators are just the first generation of battlefield robots; they are like
the Model T Ford or the Wright brothers’ Flyer when compared to the prototypes already under development. Much as the
earliest designs for the automobile and the aeroplane spread rapidly around the globe, so too is the revolution in military
robotics. 44 countries are building robot systems today, including the UK, France, Russia, China, Israel, Iran and the UAE
Since the start of last year, US drones have hit more targets in Pakistan – over 50 – than Nato’s manned bombers did
during the opening round of the war in Kosovo a decade ago. By one measure, these strikes could be considered incredibly
effective: reports indicate that the US has killed 14 top al Qa’eda or Taliban leaders without losing a single one of its
own soldiers in the process. Imagine, by contrast, if thousands of US troops had been sent into the rugged terrain
of Pakistan’s north-west frontier on the same mission – they would have suffered great casualties, killed fewer militant
leaders, and killed or displaced many more civilians in turn.
38
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
The military is beginning to use robots to replace soldiers
Scott McQuarrie, representing the EZWatch Pro brand, November 8, 2008,
http://www.google.com/search?q=American+military+small+tech+mobile&hl=en&start=20&sa=N
Bill Smart is an assistant professor of computer science and engineering at Washington University in St. Louis, MO.
With his Ph.D. student Doug Few, he is working on the next generation of military robotics. The U.S. military has
apparently set the year 2020 as the goal for having 30% of the Army composed of robotic forces.
Neither the researchers nor the military envisions squadrons of combat-ready "clones and drones" a la Star Wars or
Isaac Asimov. Rather, Professor Smart explains, they are talking about "self-driving trucks," bomb-sniffers and
other support systems that are more accurately referred to as "autonomous systems rather than robots."
Rosie the Robot Maid A number of different technologies converge in the design and development of robotic military
systems. Night-vision "eyes," ultrasensitive microphone "ears" and other sensors picking up sound, heat signatures
and even smells transmit back to an operator in a remote location. With a computer, a screen or two, and a joystick,
the soldier at the controls has a high-tech scout, bomb squad, cargo carrier and intelligence gatherer all in one.
When he thinks of "the future of robots," says Ph.D. candidate Few, it is always about "the Jetsons. George Jetson
never sat down at a computer to task Rosie to clean the house. Somehow they had this local exchange of information.
So what we've been working on is how we can use the local environment rather than a computer as a tasking medium
to the robot."
The Packbot from iRobot Corporation is a far cry from Rosie the Robot Maid, in onboard intelligence and dexterity,
but is already seeing duty in both Afghanistan and Iraq, delivering materiel and transporting gear in hazardous
terrain. As the technology continues to progress, more robots are being deployed earlier in situations considered,
at least initially, too dangerous for humans. "When I stood there and looked at [a battle-damaged Packbot], I realized
that if that robot hadn't been there, it would have been some kid," Few says. Civilian applications Police departments
are quick to press into service any military technology that they can get their hands on. In fact, the "militarization" of
American law enforcement, which has been gaining steam for at least several decades, has not been an unqualified
success in everyone's eyes.
39
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Large Military Not Necessary
The military must downsize to meet contemporary threats
Charles V. Pena, a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, February 9, 2006,
Science Direct
The defense budget can be reduced and the U.S. military downsized because (1) the nation-state threat
environment is markedly different than it was during the Cold War, and (2) a large military is not necessary to
combat the terrorist threat. In fact, the Islamist terrorist threat is relatively undeterred by the U.S. military
presence abroad, and U.S. forces abroad, particularly those deployed in Muslim countries, may do more to
exacerbate than to diminish the threat. The arduous task of dismantling and degrading the terrorist network
will largely be the task of unprecedented international intelligence and law enforcement cooperation, not the
application of large-scale military force. To the extent the military is involved in the war on terror, it will be
special forces in discrete operations against specific targets rather than large-scale military operations.
40
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Current Threats make a large military useless
Charles V. Pena, a senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, February 9, 2006,
Science Direct
The United States is in a uniquely safe geostrategic position against traditional, nation-state threats. No nearby
foreign power is capable of projecting power to attack the United States, while the U.S. nuclear arsenal is a
powerful deterrent against any countries with long-range nuclear capability. So the United States does not need a
large, conventional military to defend the homeland against nation-states. Today, the major threat to the
homeland comes from transnational networks of Islamist terrorists, and in the war on terror, large-scale military
operations will be the exception rather than the rule. Al Qaeda does not command a military force, and as a
transnational terrorist organization, it does not have physical infrastructure and high-value targets that can be easily
identified and destroyed by military force.
The military's role in the war on terror mainly involves Special Operations Forces in discrete missions against
specific targets, not conventional warfare aimed at overthrowing entire regimes (such as Operation Iraqi Freedom).
The rest of the war to dismantle and degrade Al Qaeda will largely be the task of unprecedented international
intelligence and law enforcement cooperation. Therefore, an increasingly large defense budget—the Department of
Defense projects the budget to grow to more than Image 492 billion by fiscal year 20101—is not necessary either to
fight the war on terror or to protect America from traditional nation-state military threats.
41
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
American Weapon superiority makes large forces unnecessary
Max Boot, scholar at Council of Foreign Relations (think tank), columnist of “Los Angeles Times”,
2006
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-paradox-of-military-technology
Assuming that warplanes can reach their destination, the growing precision of bombs and missiles
has made it possible to take out targets with fewer and smaller munitions than ever before. (The
U.S. Air Force’s latest bomb carries only 50 pounds of explosives.) Weapons are getting smarter all
the time. The U.S. Sensor-Fuzed Weapon, first employed in the current Iraq War, disperses 40
“skeet” anti-armor warheads that use infrared and laser sensors to find and destroy armored
vehicles within a 30-acre area. The Tactical Tomahawk, which entered production in 2004, can loiter
up to three hours while searching for targets and receiving in-flight retargeting instructions.
The U.S. preponderance in smart bombs and missiles helps to compensate for the relatively small
size of its manned bomber force. As of 2005, the U.S. Air Force had only 157 long-range bombers (B52s, B-1s, B-2s), a considerable fall not only from World War II (when the U.S. had 34,780) but also
from the end of the Cold War (360). While few in number, each B-2 can perform the work of thousands
of B-29s by “servicing” 80 “aim points” per sortie.
Tankers such as the KC-10 and KC-135 vastly extend the range and effectiveness of combat aircraft.
Cargo-lifters like the U.S. C-5, C-17, and C-130 and the Russian An-70 and An-225 also perform an
invaluable, if unglamorous, role in projecting military power around the world. The U.S. owns 740
tanker aircraft and 1,200 cargo aircraft—far more than any other country. A lack of such support
aircraft makes it difficult for even the relatively sophisticated European militaries to move their forces
very far.
42
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Advanced Technology becomes easier to use and less crews to operate.
Max Boot, scholar at Council of Foreign Relations (think tank), columnist of “Los Angeles Times”,
2006
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-paradox-of-military-technology
The falling size and cost of electronics has made it possible to decrease the number of people
needed to operate major weapons systems or, in some instances, eliminated the need for human
operators altogether. Maintaining the engines aboard a ship used to require dozens of sailors to work
for extended periods in noisy, grimy, cramped quarters. The new DD(X) destroyer will have an engine
room controlled entirely by remote sensors and cameras. Or, to take another example, consider the
evolution of the long-range bomber from the B-29, which had a crew of 11, to the B-2 which can
hit many more targets but has a crew of just two, who spend much of their time supervising the
autopilot functions.
The greatest advances in robotics have been made in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), with the
U.S. in the lead, Israel following close behind, and at least 40 other countries trying to catch up. By
the time of the Iraq War in 2003, the U.S. had fielded six major UAVs: the Air Force’s Predator and
Global Hawk, the Army’s Hunter and Shadow, and the Marines’ Pioneer and Dragon Eye. These ranged
in size from the 27,000-pound Global Hawk (comparable to a Lear jet) to the five-pound Dragon Eye
(more like a model airplane). What they had in common was that they were all designed as
surveillance systems. But in a pattern that echoes the history of manned flight, UAVs such as the
Predator were soon put to work attacking enemy positions.
43
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Military=Heterosexism
The military is a unique form of heterosexism. The military treats homosexuals as second class citizens.
Brendan Doyle Sun Senior Writer April 24, 2009 (“Military Mistreats Gays, C.U. Alum Claims”
http://cornellsun.com/node/37199)
Direction Action to Stop Heterosexism’s onslaught against oppressive actions toward homosexuals
continued yesterday, as the student group hosted “Future of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’” in Myron Taylor
Hall. Aaron Tax ’98, legal co-director of The Service Members Legal Defense Network, spoke to the
audience about the context and deleterious effects of the infamous 15-year-old measure “Don’t Ask,
Don’t Tell,” which refers to the United States military policy on homosexuals that mandates
immediate discharge from service of anyone who shows signs of homosexuality, a policy Tax
emphasized as antiquated and baseless. Tax, who studied law at George Washington University said,
“It’s much worse than you think,” referencing the unofficial title of his lecture. “These are people
who give up their lives for our country, and they really are treated like second class citizens.“
Making a point: Aaron Tax ’98 talks about the presence of LGBT people in the military in Myron
Taylor yesterday. A slew of statistics and anecdotes regarding the policy were presented. According to
Tax, two Americans per day are discharged from the military over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Ironically, there are 65,000 lesbian, gay or bisexual men and women are currently serving in the
military, none of whom are able to come out to their commanding officers or peers, for fear of
severe repercussions. Tax’s position at the Service Members Legal Defense Network puts him in an
ideal place to help change the law. Founded 15 years ago in response to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the
Network has handled over 9,000 cases, with Tax regaling the audience with numerous synopses of the
most egregious cases. “We had a man who was serving in Iraq. His partner of nine years was killed in a
car crash in the states,” Tax said. “He got a day off to mourn the death of a friend, that’s it.”
44
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Military=Patriarchy
The U.S military maintains the ideological structure of patriarchy.
Chems Edine Bouchehma 3/2/08 (“Women in the US military” http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSAIN-EXILE/colloques/pdfPatri/ch-8.pdf)
When I can mention here is that women are enlisting into the arm by necessity. (to earn a wage in order
to satisfy their family needs, education, healthcare, housing….and later on a retirement pension.). I can
take your attention that in the U.S army actually in Iraq, half of the active duty women are black.
Even though women’s serve as soldiers, I can precise that the U.S military is a misogynist, hates
women, homophobic institution that relies on patriarchal ideologies and relations to function. The
U.S military indoctrinate the hierarchical values, it trains men to devalue, objectify and demean
traits traditionally associated with women. It molds men into gender role of violent masculinity
defined in opposition to femininity. By violent masculinity I mean a mode of operating that glorifies
violence as a solution to tension and competition. So the U.S military teaches soldiers to maintain
ideological structure of patriarchy.
45
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
The military is patriarchal
Brian Martin, More than 38 years in the aviation profession as Aircraft Commander, Chief Pilot, Flight
Operations Manager and he is a crazy feminist this is the revised 1990 version.(“Uprooting War”
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90uw/uw10.html)
Modern military forces are overwhelmingly composed of men. Furthermore, sexism is a common
part of military training and military life. Soldiers are trained to be violent, competitive, tough, and
'masculine.' They are trained to reject feminine characteristics of supportiveness, cooperativeness,
tenderness and physical softness. Often military training is accompanied by explicit verbal abuse of
women and the portrayal of women only as sex objects. The masculine ethos of military life has
much in common with the oppressive treatment of women in both military and civilian life,
including rape, batterings, prostitution and poor working conditions. In direct person-to-person
violence, it is primarily men who are the perpetrators. Another connection between modern patriarchy
and war is the service provided by women to men in both military and civilian life. Cynthia Enloe in her
book Does Khaki Become You? has analysed a range of areas in which women serve the military: as
prostitutes, as military wives, as nurses, as soldiers, and as workers in arms industries. In each of these
cases women are placed in a subordinate position where they are easily exploited. The service of
women to men is carried out in civilian life in a similar fashion, and in very similar categories: as
prostitutes, as wives, as workers in the 'helping professions,' and as workers in occupations which are
poorly paid, low-skilled and lacking security and career prospects. Also quite revealing is the gender
division of labour in the military. This is clearest in the category of 'combat soldiers,' from which
women are often excluded in theory. In fact, the actual role of women in combat has varied considerably
in different countries and at different times, as Enloe has ably documented. When the need is urgent,
women are used at the front lines in positions that at other times would be called combat positions.
But when this happens, the definition is 'combat' is changed so that women are not seen to be
involved. So while what women do in the military varies considerably, one thing remains constant: the
gender-based distinction between 'combat' and 'non-combat.' This suggests that military interests have
a strong ideological concern to maintain 'combat,' the place where direct violence is seen to take
place, as an exclusively male preserve.
46
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Military=Racism
Military recruitment= poverty draft
William J Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy.
He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. He is the author of Hindenburg: Icon
of German Militarism (Potomac Press, 2005), among other works Feb 18, 2009 (“An American 'foreign
legion' emerges” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KB18Ak04.html)
Instead of collective patriotic sacrifice, however, it's clear that the military will now be running the
equivalent of a poverty and recession "draft" to fill the "all-volunteer" military. Those without
jobs or down on their luck in terrible times will have the singular honor of fighting our future
wars. Who would deny that drawing such recruits from dead-end situations in the hinterlands or central
cities is strikingly Foreign Legion-esque?
47
A2 Recruitment D/A
DDW 2009
Benischeck/Porter/Kim
Military recruitment is racist
Erica Zurawski and Anh Pham (both writers for fightbacknews.org) Summer 2004 (“End Racism in
Military Recruitment” http://www.fightbacknews.org/2004/03summer/militaryrecruit.htm)
Even more disturbing is that young people of color are not only more likely to serve in the
military, they are also more likely to die in active duty. Currently, 10% of the 132,000 U.S. soldiers
stationed in Iraq are of Latin American origin, yet Latinos account for over 20% of U.S. casualties in
Iraq. Why are people of color so disproportionately represented in the military? Carlos Montes, a
member of Latinos Against the War, addresses the push to recruit Latinos into the military as
racism. “Instead of recruiting Latinos for war, why don’t they target them for college
recruitment? Why don’t they target them for high-tech jobs? Or why don’t they target them for
admission into the Ivy League Schools? I’ve never heard of any campaign organized by governmental
agencies to recruit Hispanics other than for the military,” Montes asserts. Poor youth, especially
young people of color, are being recruited based on lies and are being used to fight the wars of the
rich. They are sent to kill other poor people in order to protect the U.S. empire. They often lose
their lives. Meanwhile, at home, jobs are lost, families are kicked off welfare and into desperate
poverty and more people of color are victims of police brutality.
48