Ban Drones Aff

Publish in

Articles & News Stories


Please download to get full document.

View again

of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
ban drones lol
  BANNING DRONES!!!!!! HOORAY!!!!!! Background: 1)   The United States' drone program has been in place since 2004; currently, over 8,000 drones are in operation. 2)   Drone strikes are primarily conducted in Pakistan and Yemen and are used to target the leaders of non-state militant groups without sending in physical troops. 3)   Predator drone use has been declared illegal by the United Nations and challenged by countries like Brazil, Venezuela, and China. 4)   You can probably fill in your own background for drones. :) Plan text: The USFG will ban the use of drones by the military.   or, if you can get away with it depending on the resolution: The USFG will ban the use of predator drones by the military.    Advantage One: Hegemony A. HARMS 1)   Drones have become the face of U.S. foreign policy and undermine our soft power: a.   drones are perceived as violating international law by key allies like Brazil and China; this makes our alliances with these countries more tenuous b.   alliances are key to maintaining U.S. soft power as they are extensions of U.S. influence 2)   Lack of transparency/oversight has made every attack conceivably attributed to the U.S.: a.   Council on Foreign Relations 2013: Yemenis are likely to blame every strike on the United States b.   No Congressional committee has ever called a hearing on drone use 3)   Credibility is necessary to maintain hegemonic standing; without credibility, foreign policy objectives become more difficult for the U.S. to accomplish a.   FP effectiveness went down as a result of decreased credibility from the war in Iraq; it fundamentally changed the way that the Bush administration had to engage with other countries 4)   Drone strikes make foreign aid programs less effective: a.   USAID officials say foreign aid programs in Yemen and Somalia are overshadowed by use of drone strikes (CFR 2013) b.   Foreign aid is key to U.S. heg B. LINK 1)   The U.S. bans the use of drones and stops using them in other countries. C. INTERNAL LINKS 1)   U.S. credibility goes up 2)   Foreign aid effectiveness goes up 3)   No longer any need for transparency because drones aren't happening lol 4)   Soft power goes up and stabilizes because we aren't killing civilians anymore (at least not with drones) 5)   U.S. hegemony goes up D. IMPACTS I'm just copying this card because I can. U.S. hegemony prevents extinction  –  laundry list of reasons Thayer 6  (Bradley A. is an associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, “In Defense of Primacy,” November/December 2006, Issue 86, National Interest, p.32, EBSCOHost, Accessed Date: 5-7-13 y2k) A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power--the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United  States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of imperial overstretch. In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment.(FN1) ¶  Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. ¶  But retrenchment  , in any of its guises, must be avoided.   If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy . ¶  There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this?    America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power capabilities.  The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states  or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. ¶  So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action--but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. ¶  A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of   the U.S. homeland and  American global interests . These interests include ensuring  that critical resources like oil flow around the world , that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish   and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected.  Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. ¶  In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy . This is because threats will exist no matter what   role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington  cannot call a time out , and it cannot hide from threats.   Whether they are   terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be   confronted.  Simply by declaring that the United States is going home , thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats . ¶  And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. ¶  Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because  America, at present, commands the global commons --the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies . As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased .(FN2) This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. ¶  A remarkable fact about international politics today--   in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display --is that   countries want to align themselves with the United States . Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but   because doing so allows them to use the power of the United   States for their own purposes -- their own protection, or to gain greater influence . ¶  Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change  from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies . ¶   U.S. primacy --and the bandwagoning effect-- has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions . Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents.  American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter . The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. ¶  You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the Gang of Five : China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. ¶  Only the Gang of Five may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. ¶  China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. ¶  The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the Gang of Five cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. ¶  THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. ¶   Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power . Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons:  Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly . As country and western great Ral Donner sang: You don't know what you've got (until you lose it). ¶  Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies,  American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world . During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists , most notably France and West Germany. Today,  American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned --between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars . ¶  Second,  American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism . Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.(FN3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced . This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership . And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. ¶  Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. ¶  Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40
Related Search

Previous Document

78 Upshur Dr Open House

Next Document

Ieee Comsol 2013

We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks