115 SS Military Case Neg

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008
Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
***MILITARY NEG***
***MILITARY NEG***.......................................................................................................................................................1
_______________________________________..................................................................................................................3
***T***................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
TUNITED STATES...........................................................................................................................................................4
A2 WE MEET....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
EXTQUID PRO QUO.......................................................................................................................................................6
IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................................7
A2 OVERLIMIT................................................................................................................................................................... 8
___________________________________________________..........................................................................................9
***PRIVATE SECTOR/STATES CP***..............................................................................................................................9
PRIVATE SECTOR CP.......................................................................................................................................................10
EXTWE SOLVE .........................................................................................................................................................11
A2 READINESS T/............................................................................................................................................................ 12
A2 MORE EXPENSIVE.....................................................................................................................................................13
SOLVENCYHEG............................................................................................................................................................14
SOLVENCYAIR FORCE...............................................................................................................................................15
SOLVENCYHYDROGEN..............................................................................................................................................16
PRIVATE SECTOR KEY....................................................................................................................................................17
AFFPERM......................................................................................................................................................................18
_____________________________________....................................................................................................................19
***HEG DA***..................................................................................................................................................................19
*HEG 1NC*........................................................................................................................................................................20
*HEG 1NC*........................................................................................................................................................................21
OIL->INTERVENTION.....................................................................................................................................................22
UNILAT->HEG...................................................................................................................................................................23
UNIPOLARITY GOODTERROR..................................................................................................................................24
UNILAT GOODSPECIFIC SITUATION........................................................................................................................25
A2 ALLIANCES!!.............................................................................................................................................................. 26
A2 ALLIANCES.................................................................................................................................................................27
A2 ALLIANCES.................................................................................................................................................................28
A2 ANTIAMERICANISM.................................................................................................................................................29
MULTILAT BAD................................................................................................................................................................30
MULTILAT BAD................................................................................................................................................................31
MULTILAT BAD................................................................................................................................................................32
A2 OIL BAD.......................................................................................................................................................................33
*2AC INTERVENTION DA 1/2*.......................................................................................................................................34
*2AC INTERVENTION DA 2/2*.......................................................................................................................................35
EXTBACKLASH/ALLIES.............................................................................................................................................36
A2 KILLS HEG.................................................................................................................................................................. 37
A2 KILLS HEG.................................................................................................................................................................. 38
UNILAT FAILSCLIMATE CHANGE............................................................................................................................39
UNILAT BADSOFT POWER.........................................................................................................................................40
OIL KILLS HEG.................................................................................................................................................................41
OIL KILLS HEG.................................................................................................................................................................42
OIL KILLS IRAQ...............................................................................................................................................................43
OIL=/=DRIVER.................................................................................................................................................................. 44
_____________________________________________________....................................................................................45
***HYDROGEN AFFS***................................................................................................................................................45
*TALTERNATIVE ENERGY*.......................................................................................................................................46
EXTRENEWABLE.........................................................................................................................................................47
EXTH NOT RENEWABLE............................................................................................................................................48
1

Military Neg
Emma
Serrano/Strange
*SOLAR CP*......................................................................................................................................................................49
LINKSEMICONDUCTOR DA.......................................................................................................................................50
PTIXHYDROGEN POPULAR.......................................................................................................................................51
*HYDROGEN FRONTLINE 1/3*.....................................................................................................................................52
EXTSHOOT THE TANKS.............................................................................................................................................55
EXTNO TIMEFRAME...................................................................................................................................................56
__________________________________________..........................................................................................................57
***SOLAR AFFS***.........................................................................................................................................................57
*SOLAR SPACE CP*.........................................................................................................................................................58
*BATTERY CP*.................................................................................................................................................................59
FIREFLY SOLVES............................................................................................................................................................. 60
FIREFLY BEST..................................................................................................................................................................61
SOLAR BADECON.......................................................................................................................................................62
*SEMICONDUCTORS 1NC*............................................................................................................................................63
*SEMICONDUCTORS 1NC*............................................................................................................................................64
TURNS CASE.................................................................................................................................................................... 65
LINK EXT.......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
A2 NO SPILLOVER...........................................................................................................................................................67
A2 BUT WERE NANOTECH...........................................................................................................................................68
*SOLAR SOLVENCY FRONTLINE 1/4*.........................................................................................................................69
EXT 1READINESS........................................................................................................................................................73
EXT 3SQUO SOLVES....................................................................................................................................................74
EXT 5SOLAR SUCKS...................................................................................................................................................75
EXT 6GRID.................................................................................................................................................................... 76
EXT 7OIL.......................................................................................................................................................................77
EXT 8MILITARY VEHICLES.......................................................................................................................................78
EXT 9FUND DIVERSION.............................................................................................................................................79
*IRAQ FRONTLINE 1/2*..................................................................................................................................................80
*IRAQ FRONTLINE 2/2*..................................................................................................................................................81
EXTOIL CORRUPTION................................................................................................................................................82
*PTIX LINKS*................................................................................................................................................................... 83
PTIXPLAN BIPART$.................................................................................................................................................84
PTIXUNPOP W/ DEMS$/IRAQ.................................................................................................................................85
PTIXUNPOP W/ EVERYONEIRAQ..........................................................................................................................86
PTIXA2 PUBLIC OPPOSITION IRAQ.........................................................................................................................87
PTIXPLAN POP W/ PUBLICIRAQ...........................................................................................................................88
PTIXPLAN POP W/ PUBLICIRAQ...........................................................................................................................89
PTIXPLAN POPULAR W/ CONGRESSSOLAR......................................................................................................90
PTIXPLAN UNPOP W/ CONGRESSSOLAR............................................................................................................91
PTIXPLAN UNPOPFUNDING FIGHTS...................................................................................................................92
A2 PLAN POPULAR.........................................................................................................................................................93

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
_______________________________________
***T***

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
TUNITED STATES
A. Topical affirmatives must increase alternative energy in the United States.
1. The United States is the 50 states.
Random House 06 (Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/united%20states)
noun a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska
in North America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. 267,954,767; conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq. mi. (7,827,982 sq.
km); with Alaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi. (9,363,166 sq. km). Capital: Washington, D.C. Abbreviation: U.S., US
2. In means within a designated space.
Random House 06 (Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in)
preposition (used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits): walking in the park.
B. The aff increases alternative energy outside the United States with military deploymentthe plan text
specifically designates the external place where the alternative energy will be used.
Thats not topicalincentives must be quid pro quo which means that both change and reward must be
in the United States.
John DeLaHunt, Assistant Director for Environmental Health & Safety Services in Colorado College's Facilities Services
department , July-August 2006
( Journal of Chemical Health and Safety
Volume 13, Issue 4, , Page 42 sciencedirect)
Incentives work on a quid pro quo basis this for that. If you change your behavior, Ill give you a reward. One
could say that coercion is an incentive program do as I say and Ill let you live. However, I define an incentive as getting something you didnt have before in
exchange for new behavior, so that pretty much puts coercion in its own box, one separate from incentives. But fundamental problems plague the incentive approach.
Like coercion, incentives are poor motivators in the long run, for at least two reasons unintended consequences and perverse incentives.
C. Vote negative.
1. LimitsAllowing affs outside the US unlimits the topic by giving the aff infinite locations which explodes
advantage ground and plan mechanisms which the negative cant research or prepare forlimits are key to in
depth clash and education.
2. Extra-Teven if incentives are in the US the resolution doesnt give the aff the right to designate where the
alterative energy goesthats uniquely bad for limits because it explodes the number of potential mechanisms and
destroys topic educationthats an independent voter.

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 WE MEET
1. Extend Random House 06 squaredin means within and the US is a geographically defined area means the alternative
energy must be within the US. An incentive is a quid pro quothats Delahuntmeans that both the incentive and the
alternative energy must be in the United States since both together are definitionally key to comprise the incentive.
<SPECIFIC ANALYSIS HERE >
2. Evaluate the plan text in a vacuumonly way to enforce fair limitsallowing them to spin the effects of the plan to
prove topicality makes it impossible to have a stable interpretation of the resolutionthats the biggest internal to limits
because its the only way to determine research parameters.

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXTQUID PRO QUO

Incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange alternative energy must be part of the
exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive
Geoff Thale is the associate for El Salvador at the Washington Office on Latin America. 1998
(ch 7 Incentives and the Salvadoran Peace Process THE PRICE OF PEACE Edited by David Cortright
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/frame.htm)
The Nature of Incentives

It is useful, in thinking about the effectiveness of various forms of incentives, to define more precisely the kinds of incentives that are being offered and the context in
an incentive is an offer by a sender to provide a good that the recipient desires, if

the recipient engages in some specified behavior. Another more complicated form of incentive exists when the sender government offers a
which they are offered. In its simplest form,
good directly related to the desired outcomewhen, for example, a sender offers to fund postwar reconstruction programs on the condition that the recipient design and
implement such programs. In this case, the recipient government may not desire, or at least not strongly desire, the good being offered, but may engage in the desired
behavior because it is relatively costfree to the recipient. This will greatly influence the strength of the recipients commitment to carry out the desired behavior when
the inevitable problems and complications occur.
Incentives involve an offer and a response within an exchange alternative energy must be part of the
exchange for it to be an alternative energy incentive
Virginia I. Foran and Leonard S. Spector, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 1998
(Ch 2 "The Application of Incentives to Nuclear Proliferation" THE PRICE OF PEACE Edited by David Cortright
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/price/frame.htm)
Finally, an
incentive, with respect to proliferation, is defined as: any benefit or promise of benefits offered by senders to a state thought to be
a state that already has nuclear weapons, in exchange for that states
considering the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons, or to
decision to halt its progress toward proliferation or for its dismantling or elimination of the weapons it already possesses.

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. If the aff can specify where the incentives go it explodes the potential mechanisms and advantageseach aff has 182
different potential locations means the aff can change every round just to say new plan text and destroy neg prep.
Furthermore they get access to relations advantages which a) the neg cant prepare for and b) destroys neg disad ground
because of the relationship between oil exporters nad oil importersthats uniquely key ground on this topic because its
where we get the biggest neg impacts to weigh against the MASSIVE aff advantages.
They allow unlimiting affs like grants to foreign companies or countries or solar panels in a village in Africawe cant
research all potential mechanisms and permutations of foreign incentives. Research education outweighs allif we cant
research the aff we wont have in depth clash, thats the only terminal impact to debate, we can learn about alt energy any
time but only clash gives us the opportunity for analysis. That means if we win they take out research you vote negthey
destroy the terminal educational impact to debatethey have no counterinterp means theyre toast.
2. They take out key international counterplan groundthats uniquely crucial to in-depth clash on this topic because of
the global nature of environmental problems.
3. Extra T is key to limitsthey allow infinite unrelated plan planks like draw the funding from Iraq with an Iraq bad
advantage or emissions capsthis is the biggest internal to topic education because we learn about EVERY ISSUE
BESIDES THE REStopic education outweighs non topic education because each year is a unique education sphere.

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 OVERLIMIT
1. You can have trade/comopetitiveness/modeling ADVANTAGES the problem is when you specify WHERE the
incentives go in your plan text.
2. Limits outweigheven if take out some affs they destroy all specific educationlearning about trade is
IRRELEVANT if we dont have clash.
3. Underlimiting is worsethats impacted above.

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
___________________________________________________
***PRIVATE SECTOR/STATES CP***

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PRIVATE SECTOR CP
Counterplan text: The fifty states of the United States of America should fund relevant private sector companies to
<PLAN TEXT>.
Private sector contracting is most effective and successfulDoD agrees.
Brain J. Leopore, Director Defense Capabilities and Management, 5/18/07, CQ Quarterly GAO Reports, Defense
Budget: Trends in Operation and Maintenance Costs and Support Services Contracting Statement of Brian J. Lepore,
Director Defense Capabilities and Management, Lexis [ev]
DOD`s Reliance on Contractors for Support Services Has Increased since Fiscal Year 2000 for Several Reasons To meet
military requirements during a period of increased operations without an increase in active duty and civilian personnel,
DOD has relied not only on reserve personnel activations but also on increased use of contractor support in areas such as
management and administrative services, information technology services, medical services, and weapon systems and
base operations support. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2005, DOD`s service contract costs in O&M-related areas
increased over $40 billion, or 73 percent. Table 1 highlights the growth in several service contract categories. DOD
officials noted several factors that have contributed to DOD`s increased use of contractor support. First, the GWOT and
other contingencies have significantly increased O&M requirements and DOD has met these requirements without an
increase in active duty and civilian personnel. To do this, DOD relied not only on reserve personnel activations, but also
on increased use of contractor support. Second, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 notes that the longstanding policy of the federal government has been to rely on the private sector for needed commercial services and that
commercial activities should be subject to the forces of competition to ensure that the American people receive maximum
value for their tax dollars.10 The circular notes that a public/private competition--which can involve a lengthy and costly
process--is not required for contractor performance of a new requirement or private sector performance of a segregable
expansion of an existing commercial activity. On the other hand, the circular states that before government personnel may
perform a new requirement or an expansion of an existing commercial activity a public/private competition is required to
determine whether government personnel should perform the work.
10

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXTWE SOLVE
Private contractor sweet
Although there may be some merit in DOD developing more information on the cost-effectiveness of its O&M services
contracts that were not awarded through the A-76 public/private competitive process, at this time we are not
recommending that DOD do this because performing the analyses to determine the estimated in-house costs to perform
this work can be expensive and time consuming; contracting with the private sector may be the only alternative to meet
certain requirements in the short term, especially during times of increased operations; and, as long as DOD uses
competition in its contract solicitations for new and expanded requirements and provides adequate contract oversight, cost
efficiencies could be achieved through normal market forces. DOD made no comments on a draft of this report except for
technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
11

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 READINESS T/
Private sector now.
The Department of Defense (DOD) spent about $210 billion, or 40 percent of the total defense budget, to operate and
maintain the nation`s military forces in fiscal year 2005.1 As a major component of DOD`s funding for readiness,
operation and maintenance (O&M) appropriations fund the training, supply, and equipment maintenance of military units
as well as the administrative and facilities infrastructure of military bases. Over the past several years, DOD has
increasingly used private sector contractors, rather than uniformed or DOD civilian personnel, to provide O&M-related
services in areas such as logistics, weapon systems, and base operations support; information technology services; and
administrative support.
12

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 MORE EXPENSIVE
Data inconclusive and govt studies indicate is cheaper.
Sufficient data are not available to determine whether increased services contracting has caused DOD`s costs to be higher
than they would have been had the contracted activities been performed by uniformed or DOD civilian personnel.
Because existing policy generally does not require a public/private competition for private sector performance of a new
requirement or segregable expansion of an existing commercial activity performed by government personnel, DOD
officials stated that in-house cost estimates have not been prepared for most of the work awarded to contractors as a result
of increased O&M requirements from GWOT and other contingencies. Without this information, an overall determination
cannot be made of the effect of increased services contracting on O&M cost growth. DOD does maintain detailed data
from its competitive sourcing program, commonly referred to as the A-76 program. These data include information on
contracts for work formerly performed in-house that were awarded to the private sector as a result of a public/private cost
competition.4 Our analysis of the military services` reported information on 538 decisions during fiscal years 1995
through 2005 to contract out work formerly performed by uniformed and DOD civilian personnel showed that the
decisions generally resulted in reducing the government`s costs for the work.
Data insufficient.
Data Are Insufficient to Determine Whether Increased Services Contracting Has Exacerbated O&M Cost Growth
Sufficient data are not available to determine whether increased services contracting has caused DOD`s costs to be higher
than they would have been had the contracted activities been performed by uniformed or DOD civilian personnel.
Although overall quantitative information was not available, our analysis of the military services` reported information
from its competitive sourcing program, commonly referred to as the A-76 public/private competition process, and case
studies of O&M-related work contracted out at three installations showed that outsourcing decisions generally resulted in
reducing the government`s costs for the work. However, compared to all O&M-related contracts, the number of A-76
public/private competition contracts is small, the results from this program may not be representative of the results from
all services contracts for new or expanded O&M work, and certain limitations exist with the use of the A-76 data. Further,
a recent DOD study found that the Army`s use of contract security guards at domestic installations cost more than the use
of guards employed by the Army.11
13

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
SOLVENCYHEG
Private sector tech development key to heg.
States News Service 2/22/06 United States Must Commit To Alternative Energy Development Lexis [ev]
First, we need to make sure we're the leader of technology in the world. I don't mean just relative to previous times in
American history. I think this country needs to lead the world and continue to lead the world. And so how do you do that?
One, first, there's a federal commitment to spending research dollars. In my State of the Union, I called on Congress to
double the research in basic sciences at the federal level. This will help places like NREL. It will continue this grand
tradition of the federal government working with the private sector to spend valuable research money in order to make
sure we develop technologies that keep us as a leader.
14

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
SOLVENCYAIR FORCE
Private sector key to air force transitiono/w air force demand.
Gordon Lubold Staff writer for Christian Science Monitor 12/28/07 Air Force to fly on synthetic fuel?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p03s05-usgn.html [ev]
The flight followed a similar demonstration with a B-52 Stratofortress bomber last year. The fuel was then certified for
use in the B-52 this summer. The service hopes to have all its planes certified to run on the fuel within the next five years.
And by 2016, the Air Force hopes to meet half their US demand for fuel using the synthetic blend, first used in the 1920s,
but further developed during World War II. The Air Force would like to increase the amount of synthetic fuel it uses by
that time, but recognizes that the private sector's push to get there will largely determine how fast the Air Force can move
towards its goal or accelerate beyond it. "[T]he market isn't moving fast enough yet for us to move any quicker," says
William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics. The Air Force hopes to
stimulate the private sector to embrace the move toward synthetic fuels, which will help private firms as much as it does
the Air Force, says Mr. Anderson. "We believe that we need domestic sources of aviation fuel to assure the American
taxpayer long term that we can fight tonight and fight tomorrow," said Anderson during a recent roundtable for defense
reporters. "And that requires that a domestic synthetic or alternative aviation fuel market grow in this country."
15

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
SOLVENCYHYDROGEN
Gov support to private sector key to viable hydrogen.
Tim Considine, Ph.D., professor of natural resource economics in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at Penn
State, 6/8/05, Interview in Future Fuel? On the Road to a Hydrogen Economy, The price of power
http://www.rps.psu.edu/hydrogen/price.html [ev]
There is now a cottage hydrogen industry that's feeding off of federal support and most of the major automakers are
conducting research and development on hydrogen fuel cells. These programs will continue. And there's a legitimate case
for research and development. There could be a dramatic breakthrough in fuel cell operation. There have already been
significant reductions in fuel cell operating costs because material scientists have been able to reduce the amount of
platinum used in fuel cell catalysts. There could be other similar materials science based innovations special
membranes to store hydrogen at a higher density, for example.
16

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PRIVATE SECTOR KEY

Private sector key to AE.
States News Service 6/9/08 Private Finance Will Play Key Role In Massive Investment Needed To Shape Transition To
Low-Carbon Global Economy, General Assembly Meeting Told Lexis [ev]
SRGJAN KERIM, President of the General Assembly, said private finance played a key role in the massive investments
needed to shape the transition to a low-carbon global economy. Addressing the threats posed by climate change would be
tremendously expensive. It was estimated that additional global investment and financial flows of over $200 billion would
be necessary just to return emissions to current levels by 2030. Further, public financing would be far from sufficient to
solve the problem. Indeed, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change had estimated that 86 per cent
of the global finance needed to respond to climate change would come from private investment. It was evident, then, that
fostering a closer dialogue between private investors and public decision-makers was important. The current meeting was
aimed at understanding how financial institutions reacted to, and were impacted by, the current and forthcoming climate
regimes.
17

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
AFFPERM
Govt-private sector coop key.
States News Service 6/9/08 Private Finance Will Play Key Role In Massive Investment Needed To Shape Transition To
Low-Carbon Global Economy, General Assembly Meeting Told Lexis [ev]
Mr. CAMERON noted the growing sense that things could be fixed by the market alone through power residing in private
hands. Although the strength of the private sector was impressive, he suggested that Governments should also be called on
to respond in some way, since they had a responsibility to promote the public interest of private citizens, after all. But, it
was equally important that individual States understood the necessity of cooperation with other Governments, because of
the immense and pressing nature of the problem. International policy-making institutions, in turn, must work to organize
that effort. He also noted that there was insufficient capital in Government hands to deal with the problem singlehandedly. Even with assistance from the World Bank or other international monetary funds, public treasuries could not
rival the $57 trillion in private capital that currently existed. If the international community could create instruments to
move that capital in a way that rewarded the private sector for its efforts, much progress could be made. His company,
Climate Change Capital, was an asset management business that dedicated $1.6 billion solely to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, as well as for investing in technology and infrastructure linked to clean power and water. It was focused
equally on conducting a proper evaluation of the financial benefits of environmentally friendly water- and land-use
policies, green buildings and so on, as well as understanding what signals were being picked up by public equity markets
regarding green policies.
18

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
_____________________________________
***HEG DA***
19

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*HEG 1NC*
A. The USespecially the militaryis completely reliant on oil.
Nick Turse Contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus, Associate Editor and Research Director of Tomdispatch.com, 4/24/08
Foreign Policy in Focus, The Military-Petroleum Complex http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5097 [ev]
But Rumsfelds military was more than just an armed occupier sent to lock down the planets oil lands. It was also a
known petrol addict. In his book Blood and Oil, Michael Klare laid out the little-acknowledged facts about the Pentagons
oil obsession: The American military relies more than that of any other nation on oil-powered ships, planes, helicopters,
and armored vehicles to transport troops into battle and rain down weapons on its foes. Although the Pentagon may
boast of its ever-advancing use of computers and other high-tech devices, the fighting machines that form the
backbone of the U.S. military are entirely dependent on petroleum. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, the
Department of Defense could neither rush its forces to distant battlefields nor keep them supplied once deployed there.
And the deployments DoD has rushed its forces to in recent years in Afghanistan and Iraq have sucked up
massive quantities of oil. According to Fuel Line, the official newsletter of the Pentagons fuel-buying component, the
Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), from October 1, 2001, to August 9, 2004, the DESC supplied 1,897,272,714
gallons of jet fuel, alone, for military operations in Afghanistan. Similarly, in less than a year and a half, from March 19,
2003, to August 9, 2004, the DESC provided U.S. forces with 1,109,795,046 gallons of jet fuel for operations in Iraq. In
2005, Lana Hampton of the DoDs Defense Logistics Agency revealed that the militarys aircraft, ships, and ground
vehicles were guzzling 10 to 11 million barrels of fuel each month in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Yet, while the
Pentagon reportedly burns through an astounding 365,000 barrels of oil every day (the equivalent of the entire nation of
Swedens daily consumption), Sohbet Karbuz, an expert on global oil markets, estimates that the number is really closer to
500,000 barrels.
B. Oil dependence guarantees interventionist foreign policy.
Tom Z. Collina Executive Director of 20/20 Vision 10/20/05 Federal News Service Hearing Of The Near Eastern And
South Asian Affairs Subcommittee Of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Lexis [ev]
Simply put, the greater our dependence on oil, the greater the pressure to protect and control that oil. The growing
American dependence on imported oil is the primary driver of U.S. foreign and military policy today, particularly in the
Middle East. This motivates an aggressive military policy now on display in Iraq. To help avoid similar wars in the future
and to encourage a more cooperative, responsible and multilateral foreign policy, the United States must significantly
reduce its oil use. Before the Iraq war started, Tony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said,
and I quote, "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war because Saddam sits at the center of a region
with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves," unquote. Unfortunately, he was right. In fact, the use of military
power to protect the flow of oil has been a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy since 1945. As has been mentioned, it was
that year that President Roosevelt promised King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia that the United States would protect the
kingdom in return for special access to Saudi oil, a promise that governs U.S. foreign policy today. This policy was
formalized by President Carter in 1980, when he announced that the secure flow of oil from the Persian Gulf was , quote,
"in the vital interests of the United States of America," unquote. This doctrine was expanded by President Reagan in 1981
and was used by the first President Bush to justify the first Gulf War and provided a key, if unspoken, rationale for the
second President Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003.
20

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*HEG 1NC*
C. Interventionist policy is key to heg.
Bradley A Thayer associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, The
National Interest Nov/Dec 06 In Defense of Primacy Issue 86, Proquest [ev]
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.
Heg is key to prevent war.
Khalilzad 1995 RAND, Ambassador to Afghanistan (Washington Quarterly, Spring)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or
a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such
a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have
tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the
world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts .
Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the
world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.
leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
21

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
OIL->INTERVENTION
US military action historically driven by oil.
BBC Monitoring Middle East 11/2/07 Iranian Press menu for 02 Aug 07 Lexis [ev]
9. Commentary by Professor Hamid Molana: "The imperialism of oil and energy" (perspective). Writer claims that
America's military interventions in most parts of the world have been with the objective of taking over oil and energy
reserves as proven by the fact that in the first days of the war, the Iraq national museum was attacked and looted but the
Oil Ministry with its valuable maps of oil wells was well guarded. By turning Iraq into a huge oil base, they also hoped to
put pressure on Iran. Writer continues to explore America's many other military attacks such as the war in Somalia, the
former Yugoslavia, and Chechnya and concludes that all were undertaken with a view to acquiring their energy reserves.
(p16; 900 words) [PROCESSING]
Oil demand forces military interventionIraq proves.
The Evening Standard (Palmerston North, New Zealand) 11/30/07 The language of US-Iraq fantasy Lexis [ev]
There were no terrorists in Iraq before the US invasion, nor had there been any contact between Saddam Hussein and the
plotters of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. There were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, either. Indeed, a
number of former US officials have confirmed that the invasion of Iraq was high on the Bush administration's agenda
from the moment it took office, eight months before 9/11. But there is no consensus on WHY it wanted to invade Iraq. As
a rule of thumb, it's best to assume that US leaders are guided by strategic rather than personal considerations. It is also
wise to be suspicious of the simpler oil-related explanations: Saddam Hussein lacked the standing to lead the other oilexporting states in a switch from the dollar to the euro, for example, even if he was toying with such an idea. There is no
need to invade countries in order to get oil from them. There could, however, be a requirement for large, American
military bases in the Gulf if the goal was to stop the region's oil from reaching some other country. Which country?
Oil dependence drives military intervention.
The Providence Journal 10/21/05 Chafee holds hearing on link between U.S. policy, energy costs Lexis [ev]
Collina said, "The growing American dependence on imported oil is the primary driver of U.S. foreign and military policy
today" and "motivates an aggressive military policy now on display in Iraq." Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt met
with the king of Saudi Arabia in 1945, "U.S. foreign policy has been subservient to the nation's energy needs," said Gal
Luft, cochairman of the Set America Free Coalition, a group that seeks to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports.
22

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
UNILAT->HEG
Multilat kills heg and collapses global security.
Charles Krauthammer syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, essayist for Time, The National Interest Winter
2002/2003 The Unipolar Moment Revisited Proquest [ev]
This liberal internationalist vision-- the multilateral handcuffing of American power-is, as Robert Kagan has pointed out,
the dominant view in Europe.9 That is to be expected, given Europe's weakness and America's power. But it is a mistake
to see this as only a European view. The idea of a new international community with self-governing institutions and selfenforcing norms-the vision that requires the domestication of American power-is the view of the Democratic Party in the
United States and of a large part of the American foreign policy establishment. They spent the last decade in power
fashioning precisely those multilateral ties to restrain the American Gulliver and remake him into a tame international
citizen.10 The multilateralist project is to use-- indeed, to use up-current American dominance to create a new
international system in which new norms of legalism and interdependence rule in America's place-in short, a system that
is no longer unipolar. There is much pious talk about a new multilateral world and the promise of the United Nations as
guarantor of a new post-- Cold War order. But this is to mistake cause and effect, the United States and the United
Nations. The United Nations is guarantor of nothing. Except in a formal sense, it can hardly be said to exist. Collective
security? In the Gulf, without the United States leading and prodding, bribing and blackmailing, no one would have
stirred... The world would have written off Kuwait the way the last body pledged to collective security, the League of
Nations, wrote off Abyssinia.
Only aggressive American primacy can access the benefits of hegemony.
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.1 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.
23

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
UNIPOLARITY GOODTERROR
Unilat solves nuclear terror.
Critics find this paradoxical: acting unilaterally but for global ends. Why paradoxical? One can hardly argue that
depriving Saddam (and potentially, terrorists) of WMD is not a global end. Unilateralism may be required to pursue this
end. We may be left isolated in so doing, but we would be acting nevertheless in the name of global interests-larger than
narrow American self-interest and larger, too, than the narrowly perceived self-interest of smaller, weaker powers (even
great powers) that dare not confront the rising danger. What is the essence of that larger interest? Most broadly defined, it
is maintaining a stable, open and functioning unipolar system. Liberal internationalists disdain that goal as too selfish, as it
makes paramount the preservation of both American power and independence. Isolationists reject the goal as too selfless,
for defining American interests too globally and thus too generously.
24

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
UNILAT GOODSPECIFIC SITUATION

Even their hippie scum authors agree that in life or death situations like OIL SUPPLY military unilat is key.
Joseph S Nye dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, The National Interest
Winter 2001/2002 Seven Tests: Between Concern and Unilateralism Proquest [ev]
The Seven Tests OF COURSE, as we have suggested, not all multilateral arrangements are good or are in the U.S.
national interest, and the United States should employ unilateral tactics in certain situations. A presumption in favor of
multilateralism need not be a straightjacket. Almost everyone knows and understands this; as we have said, there are
almost no pure unilateralists or multilateralists among us. But unless we have before us some general guidelines to
determine when unilateralism makes sense and when it does not, we run the risk of oscillating unpredictably between one
inclination and the other, moved this way and that by the vicissitudes of political fortune and the surprises of the world.
Fortunately, it is possible to devise such guidelines. Here are seven tests to consider. First, we should not rule out
unilateral action in cases that involve vital survival interests, though when possible we should seek international support
for such action. The starkest case in the last half century was the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. American leaders felt obliged
to consider the unilateral use of force, but President Kennedy still sought the legitimacy of international opinion expressed
in multilateral forums such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States. The campaign against
terrorists and those who harbor them is a current case in point: we will act unilaterally, but again, coalition support
provides both help and added legitimacy. Second, we should be cautious about multilateral arrangements that interfere
with our ability to produce stable peace in volatile areas. Because of our global military role, the United States sometimes
has interests and vulnerabilities that differ qualitatively from those of smaller states with more limited interests-as with,
for example, the role of landmines in preventing North Korean tanks from crossing the demilitarized zone into South
Korea. The multilateral treaty banning landmines was easy for other countries to sign because it had little or no practical
significance for them-not so, obviously, in the U.S. case.
25

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 ALLIANCES!!
Unilateralism is key to drive alliancesonly by defining the coalition by the mission can we succeed.
The issue is not one of style but of purpose. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave the classic formulation of
unilateralism when he said (regarding the Afghan war and the war on terrorism, but the principle is universal), "the
mission determines the coalition." We take our friends where we find them, but only in order to help us in accomplishing
the mission. The mission comes first, and we decide it. Contrast this with the classic case study of multilateralism at work:
the U.S. decision in February 1991 to conclude the Gulf War. As the Iraqi army was fleeing, the first Bush Administration
had to decide its final goal: the liberation of Kuwait or regime change in Iraq. It stopped at Kuwait. Why? Because, as
Brent Scowcroft has explained, going further would have fractured the coalition, gone against our promises to allies and
violated the UN resolutions under which we were acting. "Had we added occupation of Iraq and removal of Saddam
Hussein to those objectives", wrote Scowcroft in the Washington Post on October 16, 2001,... our Arab allies, refusing to
countenance an invasion of an Arab colleague, would have deserted us." The coalition defined the mission. Who should
define American ends today? This is a question of agency but it leads directly to a fundamental question of policy. If the
coalition-whether NATO, the wider Western alliance, ad hoc outfits such as the Gulf War alliance, the UN, or the
"international community"-defines America's mission, we have one vision of America's role in the world. If, on the other
hand, the mission defines the coalition, we have an entirely different vision.
Unilaterialism does not preclude alliances, it strengthens themonly tangible military force can create coalitions.
The prudent exercise of power allows, indeed calls for, occasional concessions on non-vital issues if only to maintain
psychological good will. Arrogance and gratuitous high-handedness are counterproductive. But we should not delude
ourselves as to what psychological good will buys. Countries will cooperate with us, first, out of their own self-interest
and, second, out of the need and desire to cultivate good relations with the world's superpower. Warm and fuzzy feelings
are a distant third. Take counterterrorism. After the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, Yemen did everything it could to stymie the
American investigation. It lifted not a finger to suppress terrorism. This was under an American administration that was
obsessively accommodating and multilateralist. Today, under the most unilateralist of administrations, Yemen has decided
to assist in the war on terrorism. This was not a result of a sudden attack of good will toward America. It was a result of
the war in Afghanistan, which concentrated the mind of heretofore recalcitrant states like Yemen on the costs of noncooperation with the United States.14 Coalitions are not made by superpowers going begging hat in hand. They are made
by asserting a position and inviting others to join. What "pragmatic" realists often fail to realize is that unilateralism is
the high road to multilateralism. When George Bush senior said of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, "this will not
stand", and made it clear that he was prepared to act alone if necessary, that declaration-and the credibility of
American determination to act unilaterally-in and of itself created a coalition . Hafez al-Asad did not join out of
feelings of good will. He joined because no one wants to be left at the dock when the hegemon is sailing. Unilateralism
does not mean seeking to act alone. One acts in concert with others if possible. Unilateralism simply means that one
does not allow oneself to be hostage to others. No unilateralist would, say, reject Security Council support for an attack
on Iraq. The nontrivial question that separates unilateralism from multilateralism-and that tests the "pragmatic realists"-is
this: What do you do if, at the end of the day, the Security Council refuses to back you? Do you allow yourself to be
dictated to on issues of vital national-- and international-security?
26

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 ALLIANCES
Unilateral actions lead to the best coalitions by encouraging a race to the top.
Third, unilateral tactics sometimes help lead others to compromises that advance multilateral interests. The multilateralism
of free trade and the international gold standard in the 19th century were not achieved by multilateral means but by
Britain's unilaterally opening its markets and maintaining the stability of its currency.30 America's relative openness after
1945 and, more recently, trade legislation that threatened unilateral sanctions if others did not negotiate, helped create
conditions that prodded other countries to move forward with the WTO dispute settlements mechanism. Sometimes the
United States is big enough to set high standards and get away with it-witness our more stringent regulations for financial
markets. Such actions can lead to a "race to the top" in creating higher international standards. The key, however, is that
the unilateral action be designed to promote a global public good.
27

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 ALLIANCES
Aggressive military stance is key to allies.
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
purposestheir 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.
28

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 ANTIAMERICANISM
Multilat cant solve anti-Americanismwe need to be as strong as possible to deter threats.
A THIRD critique comes from what might be called pragmatic realists, who see the new unilateralism I have outlined as
hubristic, and whose objections are practical. They are prepared to engage in a pragmatic multilateralism. They value
great power concert. They seek Security Council support not because it confers any moral authority, but because it spreads
risk. In their view, a single hegemon risks far more violent resentment than would a power that consistently acts as primus
inter pares, sharing rule-making functions with others.12 I have my doubts. The United States made an extraordinary
effort in the Gulf War to get UN support, share decisionmaking, assemble a coalition and, as we have seen, deny itself the
fruits of victory in order to honor coalition goals. Did that diminish the anti-American feeling in the region? Did it garner
support for subsequent Iraq policy dictated by the original acquiescence to the coalition? The attacks of September 11
were planned during the Clinton Administration, an administration that made a fetish of consultation and did its utmost to
subordinate American hegemony and smother unipolarity. The resentments were hardly assuaged. Why? Because the
extremist rage against the United States is engendered by the very structure of the international system, not by the details
of our management of it.
29

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
MULTILAT BAD
Multipolarity is an impossible utopian solution that guarantees catastrophic warseven if unipolarity has issues is
it COMPARATIVELY more peaceful.
Realism and the New Unilateralism THE BASIC division between the two major foreign policy schools in America
centers on the question of what is, and what should be, the fundamental basis of international relations: paper or power.
Liberal internationalism envisions a world order that, like domestic society, is governed by laws and not men. Realists see
this vision as hopelessly utopian. The history of paper treaties-from the prewar Kellogg-Briand Pact and Munich to the
post-Cold War Oslo accords and the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea-is a history of naivete and cynicism, a
combination both toxic and volatile that invariably ends badly. Trade agreements with Canada are one thing. Pieces of
parchment to which existential enemies affix a signature are quite another. They are worse than worthless because they
give a false sense of security and breed complacency For the realist, the ultimate determinant of the most basic elements
of international life-security, stability and peace-is power. Which is why a realist would hardly forfeit the current
unipolarity for the vain promise of goo-goo one-worldism. Nor, however, should a realist want to forfeit unipolarity for
the familiarity of traditional multipolarity. Multipolarity is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Europe practiced
multipolarity for centuries and found it so unstable and bloody, culminating in 1914 in the catastrophic collapse of
delicately balanced alliance systems, that Europe sought its permanent abolition in political and economic union. Having
abjured multipolarity for the region, it is odd in the extreme to then prefer multi-- polarity for the world. Less can be said
about the destiny of unipolarity. It is too new. Yet we do have the history of the last decade, our only modern experience
with unipolarity, and it was a decade of unusual stability among all major powers. It would be foolish to project from just
a ten-year experience, but that experience does call into question the basis for the claims that unipolarity is intrinsically
unstable or impossible to sustain in a mass democracy.
30

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
MULTILAT BAD
Putting global consensus over strategic American policy only harms the secure international system.
Pragmatic realists also value international support in the interest of sharing burdens, on the theory that sharing decisionmaking enlists others in our own hegemonic enterprise and makes things less costly. If you are too vigorous in asserting
yourself in the short-term, they argue, you are likely to injure yourself in the long-term when you encounter problems that
require the full cooperation of other partners, such as counter-terrorism. As Brooks and Wohlforth put it, "Straining
relationships now will lead only to a more challenging policy environment later on."13 If the concern about the new
unilateralism is that American assertiveness be judiciously rationed, and that one needs to think long-term, it is hard to
disagree. One does not go it alone or dictate terms on every issue. On some issues such as membership in and support of
the WTO, where the long-term benefit both to the American national interest and global interests is demonstrable, one
willingly constricts sovereignty. Trade agreements are easy calls, however, free trade being perhaps the only
mathematically provable political good. Others require great skepticism. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, would have
harmed the American economy while doing nothing for the global environment. (Increased emissions from China, India
and Third World countries exempt from its provisions would have more than made up for American cuts.) Kyoto failed on
its merits, but was nonetheless pushed because the rest of the world supported it. The same case was made for the
chemical and biological weapons treaties-sure, they are useless or worse, but why not give in there in order to build good
will for future needs? But appeasing multilateralism does not assuage it; appeasement merely legitimizes it. Repeated
acquiescence to provisions that America deems injurious reinforces the notion that legitimacy derives from international
consensus, thus undermining America's future freedom of action-and thus contradicting the pragmatic realists' own goals.
31

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
MULTILAT BAD
Unilat is key to global security.
The form of realism that I am arguing for-call it the new unilateralism-is clear in its determination to self-consciously and
confidently deploy American power in pursuit of those global ends. Note: global ends. There is a form of unilateralism
that is devoted only to narrow American self-interest and it has a name, too: It is called isolationism. Critics of the new
unilateralism often confuse it with isolationism because both are prepared to unashamedly exercise American power. But
isolationists oppose America acting as a unipolar power not because they disagree with the unilateral means, but because
they deem the ends far too broad. Isolationists would abandon the larger world and use American power exclusively for
the narrowest of American interests: manning Fortress America by defending the American homeland and putting up
barriers to trade and immigration. The new unilateralism defines American interests far beyond narrow self-defense. In
particular, it identifies two other major interests, both global: extending the peace by advancing democracy and preserving
the peace by acting as balancer of last resort. Britain was the balancer in Europe, joining the weaker coalition against the
stronger to create equilibrium. America's unique global power allows it to be the balancer in every region. We balanced
Iraq by supporting its weaker neighbors in the Gulf War. We balance China by supporting the ring of smaller states at its
periphery (from South Korea to Taiwan, even to Vietnam). Our role in the Balkans was essentially to create a
microbalance: to support the weaker Bosnian Muslims against their more dominant neighbors, and subsequently to
support the weaker Albanian Kosovars against the Serbs. Of course, both of these tasks often advance American national
interests as well. The promotion of democracy multiplies the number of nations likely to be friendly to the United States,
and regional equilibria produce stability that benefits a commercial republic like the United States. America's (intended)
exertions on behalf of pre-emptive non-proliferation, too, are clearly in the interest of both the United States and the
international system as a whole.
32

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 OIL BAD
1. Intervention for oil solves supply shortages AND is key to maintaining an aggressive foreign policythats
Collinaeven if oil is detrimental to missions its critical to MAKE SURE those missions exist in the first place
weaning our military off oil does very little if our military is then a glorified domestic police force.
2. Their authors agreeno way to solve military addiction in short term means they collapse heg.
Couple this with the fact that, on Rumsfelds watch, the Environmental Protection Agency granted the DoD a national
security exemption on trucks that failed to meet current emissions standards; that the army canceled plans to introduce
hybrid-diesel humvees (the current military model gets just four miles per gallon in city driving and an equally dismal
eight miles per gallon on the highway); and that it similarly dropped plans to retrofit the fuel-guzzling Abrams tank with a
more efficient diesel engine (the current model, in service in Iraq, gets less than a mile per gallon), while the air force
deep-sixed plans for the possible replacement of aging surveillance, cargo and tanker aircraft engines and youre
looking at a Pentagon patently incapable of altering its addiction-addled ways in any near future.
<SEE OIL FILES>
33

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*2AC INTERVENTION DA 1/2*

1. No linkour plan doesnt ENTIRELY reduce US oil needs <insert sweet explanation here>.
2. Global concerns make unilat woefully insufficient.
Bill Richardson Governor of New Mexico, Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 08 A New Realism Proquest [ev]
In the twenty-first century, globalization in all its forms is eroding the significance of national boundaries. Many of the
greatest challenges that we face -- from jihadism to nuclear proliferation to global warming -- are not faced only by us.
Urgent problems that once were national are now global, and dangers that once came only from states now come also
from societies -- not from hostile governments but from hostile individuals or impersonal social trends, such as the
consumption of fossil fuels. American foreign policy must be able to cope effectively with these realities. We must reject
both isolationist fantasies of retreat from global engagement and neoconservative fantasies of transforming other countries
through the unilateral application of American military power. Our policy also must go beyond the balance-of-power
realism of the last century. In this new, interdependent world, we need a New Realism -- one driven by an understanding
that to defend our national interests, we must, more than ever, find common ground with others, so that we can lead them
toward our common purposes.
3. Unilateral military intervention guarantees failure and loss of allies.
Bob Schieffer Face of the Nation Host 4/30/08 CBS News Transcripts United States' political and military power
Lexis [ev]
Finally today, I like the speech that John McCain made on foreign policy last week. I liked it because he stated the
obvious. To quote: "In a world where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot
lead by virtue of its power alone." He went on to say that when international actions are required we will try to persuade
our friends we are right, but we in turn must also be willing to be persuaded by them. For sure, our own history shows that
when we have worked with others, those who shared our values and sometimes those who didn't, we have worked
wonders: winning World War II, rebuilding Europe, the triumph of Western values over communism. The list is long and
something for which we can all be proud. It is when we have trusted American power alone, especially when we have
tried to use military power to solve political problems, that we have been less successful. During the buildup to the
invasion of Iraq, I remember some in government telling me the American military was so good we didn't need any help,
that bringing in others would just slow us down. To be sure, when we let others know we needed not help, we got none.
But when it all went bad we got plenty of advice on where we went wrong.
4. Military intervention kills American power.
The Star-Ledger (Newark, New Jersey) 4/19/08 Bush's Iraq invasion leaves a heavy load for next U.S. leader Lexis [ev]
U.S. credibility also has been undermined, at home and abroad, by the administration's false claims about Saddam
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda prior to the Iraq war. Several recent blue-ribbon panels
recommended that the next president make major changes in how the United States deals with the world. He or she, they
said, should rely more on "soft" or "smart" power, such as diplomacy, promoting U.S. values and rebuilding alliances; use
persuasion rather than coercion to achieve goals when possible; and invest more in non-military tools such as public
diplomacy and foreign aid. More provocatively, they advocate replacing the "war on terrorism" - which has colored
virtually every aspect of Bush's foreign policy - as the focus of American security strategy. Instead, they say, the United
States should be the leader in advancing peace, liberty and prosperity worldwide. "Since 9/11, the United States has been
exporting fear and anger rather than the more traditional values of hope and optimism. Suspicions of American power
have run deep," Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state under Bush, and Joseph Nye, a Pentagon official under
President Clinton, wrote in a December report published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "At the core
of the problem is that America has made the war on terrorism the central component of its global engagement," they
wrote.
34

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*2AC INTERVENTION DA 2/2*

5. Only multilaterialism can MINIMIZE anti-Americanism and offer us true protection in a globalized age.
But things are more complicated than such responses acknowledged. It is true that America is resented by some just because it is so
powerful and wealthy. But it is also true that American behavior affects the extent of resentment and the ways in which it is expressed.
Candidate Bush was right, and so was Teddy Roosevelt. As we all know, at the beginning of the last century, as America rose to world
power, Roosevelt advised that we should speak softly but carry a big stick. Now that we have the stick, we need to pay more attention
to the first part of his admonition-and we need not only to speak more softly, but also to listen more carefully, for we do not hold a
monopoly on either truth or virtue. That is why the United States should aim to work with other nations on global problems in a
multilateral manner whenever possible. It is plainly in our national interest to do so, most of the time. The recent bipartisan
commission on U.S. national security, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, was right to conclude that
"emerging powers-either singly or in coalitionwill increasingly constrain U.S. options regionally and limit its strategic influence. As a
result we will remain limited in our ability to impose our will, and we will be vulnerable to an increasing range of threats." Borders
will become more porous, rapid advances in information and biotechnologies will create new vulnerabilities, the United States will
become "increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on the American homeland, and the U.S. military superiority will not entirely protect
us."22 This means we must develop multilateral institutions that constrain others and provide a framework for cooperation. In the
Commission's words, "America cannot secure and advance its own interests in isolation."23
6. Only a multilateral approach can prevent nuclear terrorthe Marines cant hunt down every Jihadist but by
improving Americas image we can suck away public support.
Most urgently, we need to focus on the real security threats from which Iraq has so dangerously diverted our attention. This means
doing the hard work to build strong coalitions to infiltrate and destroy terrorist networks, to stop nuclear proliferation, and to keep
nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. In the twenty-first century, a nuclear threat will come not from a missile but from a
suitcase or a cargo hull. In such a world, nuclear security will not be achieved with missile defense or a new generation of nuclear
weapons. It will come through tough, patient, determined diplomacy to secure fissile material worldwide. Nuclear terrorism is the
most serious security threat we face: nothing will stop suicidal jihadists from using a nuclear bomb if they get their hands on one.
Some good things are already being done to improve global nuclear security. The nuclear agreement with India, if the Indian
Parliament approves it, will help bring a great democracy, a natural ally of the United States, into the global nuclear regime. The
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has reduced the danger from Russian loose nukes. Its budget should be increased
and its timetable accelerated. The Proliferation Security Initiative is also an effective program. But the ease with which A. Q. Khan
was able to obtain and distribute nuclear technology demonstrates that the danger from loosely guarded nuclear materials is global and
will require a comprehensive, global solution.
Terrorism risks extinction

Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 8/28/03 (Washington Times)
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international
community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of
civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant
rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001,
Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's
commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous
acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time
of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why
are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised
by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to
terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality,
weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their
historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional
threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of
Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional
and global security concerns.
35

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXTBACKLASH/ALLIES
Aggressive unilateralism guarantees backlash.
But Americans are not immune to hubris, nor do we have all the answers to the problems of the world. In Robert W.
Tucker's view, "new unilateralism" advocacy is dangerous even if its premises happen to be true: "For if we were truly
acting in the interests of others as well as our own, we would presumably accord to others a substantive role and, by doing
so, end up embracing some form of multilateralism. Others, after all, must be supposed to know their interests better than
we can know them."8 As one sympathetic European correctly observed, "from the law of the seas to the Kyoto Protocol,
from the biodiversity convention, from the extraterritorial application of the trade embargo against Cuba or Iran, from the
brusque calls for reform of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to the International Criminal Court;
American unilateralism appears as an omnipresent syndrome pervading world politics."9 When Congress legislated heavy
penalties on foreign companies that did business with countries that the United States does not like, the Canadian foreign
minister complained, "this is bullying, but in America, you call it `global leadership."'10
Only multilat can regain allies and rebuild alliances.
To be effective in the coming decades, America must set the following priorities. First and foremost, we must rebuild our
alliances. We cannot lead other nations toward solutions to shared problems if they do not trust our leadership. We need to
restore respect and appreciation for our allies -- and for the democratic values that unite us -- if we are to work with them
to solve global problems. We must restore our commitment to international law and to multilateral cooperation. This
means respecting both the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and joining the International Criminal Court
(ICC). It means expanding the United Nations Security Council to include Germany, India, Japan, a country from Latin
America, and a country from Africa as permanent members. We must be impeccable in our own respect for human rights.
We should reward countries that live up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as we negotiate, constructively but
firmly, with those who do not. And when genocide or other grave human rights violations begin, the United States should
lead the world to stop them. History teaches that if the United States does not take the lead on ending genocide, no one
else will. The norm of absolute territorial sovereignty is moot when national governments partner with those who rape,
torture, and kill masses of people. The United States should lead the world toward acceptance of a greater norm of respect
for basic human rights -- and toward enforcing that norm through international institutions and multilateral measures.
36

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 KILLS HEG
Multilat kills unipolarity but increases hegby agreeing to international law we become unthreatening and are
able to shape the international system to serve our long term interests.
But again, that does not mean-or at any rate should not mean-that multilateralism is always appropriate. Multilateralism
can be used as a strategy by smaller states to tie the United States down like Gulliver among the Lilliputians. It is not
surprising that France prefers a multipolar and multilateral world.24 Nor is it difficult to understand why less developed
countries see multilateralism as being in their interests, because it gives them some leverage on the United States.
Multilateralism does involve costs, but it is still generally in the American interest because in the larger picture such costs
are outweighed by the benefits. As Joshua Muravchik put it: "By resting our actions on a legal basis (and accepting the
correlative constraints), we can make the continued exercise of our disproportionate power easier for others to accept."25
International rules bind the United States and limit its freedom of action in the short term, but they serve U.S. interests by
binding others as well. The upshot of all this is that the United States should use its power now to shape institutions that
will serve its longterm national interest in promoting international order. Action to shape multilateralism now is a good
investment for the future. Problems may arise; as John Ikenberry has observed, "worried states are making small
adjustments, creating alternatives to alliance with the United States. These small steps may not look important today, but
eventually the ground will shift and the U.S.-led postwar order will fragment and disappear."26 But these tendencies are
countered by the very openness of the American system. The pluralistic and regularized way in which foreign policy is
made reduces surprises. Opportunities for foreigners to raise their voices and influence the American political and
governmental system are not only plentiful, but constitute an important incentive for alliance.27 Ever since Athens
transformed the Delian League into an empire, smaller allies have been torn between entrapment and anxieties over
abandonment. The fact that American allies can effectively voice their concerns helps to explain why U.S. alliances have
persisted so long after Cold War threats receded. The other element of the American order that reduces worry about power
asymmetries is U.S. membership in a web of multilateral institutions ranging from the UN to NATO. Some call it an
institutional bargain. The price for the United States was a reduction in Washington's policy autonomy, in that institutional
rules and joint decision-making reduced U.S. unilateralist capacities. But what Washington got in return was worth the
price. America's partners also had their autonomy constrained, but were able to operate in a world in which U.S. power
was more restrained and reliable.28 Seen as a sort of a constitutional bargain, the multilateralism of American preeminence is a key to its longevity because it reduces the incentives for constructing alliances against us. And to the
extent that the European Union is the major potential challenger in terms of capacity, the idea of a loose constitutional
framework between the United States and the societies with which we share the most values makes even more sense.
37

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 KILLS HEG
Soft power key to heg.
America is a great nation that knows how to defend itself. But its greatness is built on foundations more solid than selfabsorption. We defend ourselves best when we lead others, and the key to our history of effective leadership has been our
willingness to seek and find common ground, to blend our interests with the interests of others. Truman and Eisenhower
understood that defending Europe and America from the Soviets required a strong military, but they also understood that
we could not lead our allies if they did not wish to follow. These and subsequent American presidents knew the
importance of moral leadership. While our remarkable military and prosperous economy gave us the power to lead, our
commitment to human dignity -- including our willingness to struggle against our own prejudices -- inspired others to
follow. If America is to lead again, we need to remember this history and to rebuild our overextended military, revive our
alliances, and restore our reputation as a nation that respects international law, human rights, and civil liberties. Today, we
are at the beginning of a new era of unprecedented global opportunities and global threats. New challenges demand that
we chart a new strategic course. To do so, we must reject easy ideological recipes and examine carefully the assumptions
that guided us in the twentieth century. We must assess what it means to be America in the world of today -- a world of
rapid economic and technological change, grave and worsening energy and environmental risks, and the simultaneous
emergence of new world powers and asymmetric security challenges.
38

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
UNILAT FAILSCLIMATE CHANGE

Unilateral action cannot solve climate change.
Fifth, multilateralism is essential on intrinsically cooperative issues that cannot be managed by the United States
without the help of other countries. Climate change is a perfect example. Global warming will be costly to us, but it
cannot be prevented by the United States alone cutting emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and particulates. The
United States is the largest source of such warming agents, but three quarters of the sources originate outside our
borders. Without cooperation, the problem is beyond our control. The same is true of a long list of items: the spread
of infectious diseases, the stability of global financial markets, the international trading system, the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, narcotics trafficking, international crime syndicates, and transnational terrorism. All these
problems have major effects on Americans, and their control ranks as an important national interest, but one that cannot be
achieved except by multilateral means.
39

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
UNILAT BADSOFT POWER

Unilat kills soft powerthats key in the new global age.
Seventh, in choosing between multilateral and unilateral tactics, we must consider the effects of the decision on our soft or
attractive power. If we continue to define U.S. power too heavily in military terms, we may neglect investments in other
instruments. Soft power is becoming increasingly important in a global information age, but soft power is fragile, and can
be destroyed by excessive unilateralism and arrogance. In balancing whether to use multilateral or unilateral tactics, or to
adhere or refuse to go along with particular multilateral initiatives, we have to consider how we explain it to others and
what the effects will be on our soft power.
40

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
OIL KILLS HEG

Oil costs drain the military budget and trade off w/ key equipment.
With such unconstrained consumption, recent U.S. wars have been a boon for big oil and have seen the Pentagon rise
from the rank of hopeless addict to superjunkie. Prior to George Bushs Global War on Terror, the U.S. military admitted
to guzzling 4.62 billion gallons of oil per year. With the Pentagons post-9/11 wars and occupations, annual oil
consumption has grown to an almost unfathomable 5.46 billion gallons, according to the Pentagons possibly low-ball
statistics. As a result, the DoD had some of the planets biggest petroleum dealers, and masters of the corporate universe,
on its payroll. In 2005, alone, the Pentagon paid out more than $1.5 billion to BP PLC the company formerly known as
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (on whose behalf the CIA and its British counterpart covertly overthrew the Iranian
government back in 1953) and then British Petroleum. In 2005, the Pentagon also paid out over $1 billion to N. V.
Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij -- also known as the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (and best
known in the United States for its Shell brand gasoline) and in excess of $1 billion to oil titan ExxonMobil. In 2005,
ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Petroleum, and BP ranked sixth, seventh, and eighth on the Forbes magazines list of the
worlds five hundred largest corporations in terms of revenue. The next year, they bumped their way up to first, third, and
fourth, respectively. They also ranked 29th, 30th, and 31st on the DoDs 2006 list of top contractors, collectively raking in
over $3.5 billion from the Pentagon. The big three petrogiants are, however, only the tip of a massive, oily iceberg. Also
on the Pentagons 2006 list were such oil services, energy, and petroleum conglomerates as:
Ranking
Company name
Total take from the DoD (in dollars)
6
Halliburton
6,059,726,743
34
Kuwait Petroleum
1,011,270,194
45
Valero Energy
661,171,541
55
Refinery Associates of Texas
576,557,185
66
Abu Dhabi National Oil
494,286,000
70
Bahrain Petroleum
477,535,378
83
CS Caltex
356,313,452
94
Tesoro Petroleum
310,564,052
Its almost impossible to catalog all the companies with at least some ties to the oil game that are doing business with the
Department of Defense, but if just the most obvious names on DoDs payroll are any indication, the U.S. military is
mainlining petroleum from a remarkable assortment of places. For instance, in 2005 alone, the Pentagon payroll listed 145
companies (from A & M Oil to Wyandotte Tribal petroleum). These 145 companies -- far from constituting a complete
list of energy-related firms on the DoD dole took in more than 8 billion taxpayer dollars in 2005. To put that figure
in perspective, that was more than the army paid out in the same year to the military-corporate powerhouses Lockheed
Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Electric, and the Bechtel Corporation, combined. Or over $2.7 billion more
than it spent in 2005 on bombs, grenades, guided missiles, guided missile launchers, unmanned aerial vehicles, bulk
explosives, all guns, rockets, rocket launchers, and helicopters.
41

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
OIL KILLS HEG

Oil dependency kills military budget and strategy.
Christian Science Monitor 9/7/06 In the Iraqi war zone, US Army calls for 'green' power
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0907/p01s04-usmi.html [ev]
A bigger picture of the need for renewables was sketched out in a key 2004 Pentagon study titled "Winning the Oil
Endgame," by the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank in Snowmass, Colo. It found a number of areas where
efficiency would boost combat effectiveness, including: More than 50 percent of fuel used by the Army on the battlefield
is consumed by combat support units, not frontline troops. Until recently, the Army spent about $200 million a year
annually on fuel, but paid $3.2 billion each year on 20,000 active and 40,000 reserve personnel to transport it. That was
before $70-per-barrel oil. This spring, the Defense Energy Support Center reported the US military used about 128 million
barrels of fuel last year, costing about $8 billion, compared with about 145 million barrels in 2004 that cost $7 billion. "At
the tip of the spear is where the need to avoid the cost of fuel logistics is most acute," says Amory Lovins, cofounder of
the Rocky Mountain Institute, who led the 2004 study. "If you don't need divisions of people hauling fuel, you can realign
your force structure to be more effective as well as less vulnerable."
42

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
OIL KILLS IRAQ

Oil makes victory in Iraq impossible.
An analysis in Zilmer's memo puts the "true cost" for fuel for a 10-kilowatt diesel generator at $36,000 a year - about four
times the amount needed to purchase the fuel itself initially. The rest of the cost is due mainly to transportation. On that
basis, a SkyBuilt system could cut costs by 75 percent and pay for itself for three to five years, the memo estimates. But
another cost is time. Even though the Army's REF is moving on it, there is still no firm date for a request for proposal to
be made public, the REF spokesman acknowledges. Zilmer's memo, however, warns that without renewable power to
replace fuel, victory could be forfeited. "Without this solution, personnel loss rates are likely to continue at their current
rate," the memo says. "Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success."
43

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
OIL=/=DRIVER
The US intervenes to promote American values and sustain global power, not to gain oilCentral Asia
proves.
BBC, 5/12/02. U.S. WON'T "ABANDON" CENTRAL ASIA...CENTRAL ASIANS, BE WARNED! BBC Monitoring Central Asia Unit.
http://www.tenc.net/news/bbc1219.htm
I don't think the supposed quest for oil (1) is useful for understanding US policy. If the US Establishment needed oil then,
as Mr. Castro has argued, they could buy it. Or they could buy the oil wells. Or the local oil companies. There really is
nobody interested in standing in the way of the US having a reasonable supply of oil.
Rather, the US establishment, and the Empire of which it is a leading part - perhaps we should call it the New World
Empire - is very much interested in protecting its current hegemonic position in the world from possible future challenges
coming from Eurasia - namely, from the still-nuclear-armed former Soviet Union.
Hence the drive into Central Asia.

In her Senate testimony, Undersecretary Jones made it clear she wishes to transform the Central Asian Republics into US
protectorates. She didn't say it outright, of course, but she used easily decipherable code:
44

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
_____________________________________________________
***HYDROGEN AFFS***
45

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*TALTERNATIVE ENERGY*
A. Alternative energy must be renewable.
B. Hydrogen is not a renewable energyenergy carriers are distinct in the energy literature.
Christian Science Monitor 7.23.08 Where would Americas renewable energy come from?
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/07/23/where-would-americas-renewable-energy-come-from/ .[ev]
Further down the road, hydrogen shows great potential. Now, despite frequent news reports to the contrary, hydrogen is
not a source of renewable energy (except for some heavy isotopes used in nuclear power), but it is a carrier that can be
used to store energy. Its the most abundant element in the universe, but it is almost always found as a compound, such as
water. Separating hydrogen atoms from these compounds requires energy at least as much energy as youre going to get
from the resulting hydrogen.
C. Vote negativeallowing hydrogen fuel cells unlimits the topic by giving the aff unpredictable mechanisms that
store energy or burn fossil fuels in a different waylimits are key to research parameters and topic education.
46

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXTRENEWABLE
Alternatives are renewable.
47

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXTH NOT RENEWABLE

Hydrogen is an energy source, not a renewable energy.
48

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*SOLAR CP*
BQ Text: The United States Federal Government should provide incentives to the U.S. military for the
development and production of hydrogen fuel cells for the U.S. military. The United States federal government
should explicitly mandate that the U.S. military not use solar energy to fuel hydrogen.
SS Text:The United States federal government should substantially increase funding for the Department of Defense
in order to develop and acquire hybrid electric vehicles and fully equip the military with SkyBuilt Renewable
Energy Trailers. The United States federal government should explicitly mandate that the U.S. military not use
solar energy to fuel hydrogen.
Counterplan is competitivenormal means for hydrogen is wind and solar.
Basem Wasef, Popular Mechanics, 7/10/08, 14 Big Questions on Hydrogen, Hybrids and More for VWs Alt-Fuel Chief
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4272679.html
What are some of the tradeoffs with hydrogen in general? Right now, the easiest way and most industrially accessible way
(to make hydrogen) is steam reformation of natural gas. That means you get energy from steam, the byproduct of natural
gass reaction to it, and so there are issues with the current means of getting hydrogen. Long term, though, of course you
can get hydrogen from electrolysis of water, probably the way that would make the most sense. Then you could actually
electrolyze the water onsite, in the home possibly, with solar panels or wind. Thats a totally green solution. If you want to
go mid-term between that solution and where were at now, you would go with a micro steam reformer in your garage. Its
a shoebox size device sitting on your wall, uses natural gas which is already piped into the home, and you could directly
put [hydrogen] into the car. So lets say in a 5-7 hour timeframe you could go from zero or low fuel to full fuel overnight.
49

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
LINKSEMICONDUCTOR DA
Hydrogen production requires semiconductors.
David Pacchioli, Research Penn State, 6/8/05 Future Fuel? On the Road to a Hydrogen Economy, Energy Unbound
http://www.rps.psu.edu/hydrogen/unbound.html [ev]
The catch is that electrolysis requires electricity. Lots of it. And if that electricity is being produced in the conventional
fashionfrom fossil fuelsthen again we're just running in place in terms of producing clean energy. Light-scattering
layer We do, of course, have a renewable source for all the electricity we could possibly want: It mounts the sky every
morning. Yet whilethere has been considerable progress in solar technology over the last twenty years, researchers still
haven't figured out how to harness the sun's power cost-efficiently. It's easy to see how improving solar cells is a critical
step towards an affordable hydrogen economy.What we need," says Tom Mallouk, "is good cheap materials that do what a
solar cell already does pretty well." Mallouk is Dupont professor of materials chemistry and physics, and director of Penn
State's Center for Nanoscale Science. As he explains it, today's best solar cells are reasonably efficient, converting
sunlight to electricity at a rate of about 25 percent. But those cells are made of single-crystal silicon, the same stuff that
goes into computer chips. It's a good photovoltaic material, but it's expensive to grow.
50

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXHYDROGEN POPULAR
Hydrogen pop.
A: I'm focusing on transportation, because that seems to be where the big push for hydrogen is. One of my main
motivations is that scientists, engineers, and politicians see the great promise of hydrogen as a clean fuel, no pollution.
That's the nirvana that everyone's looking for. Politically, it's very attractive. A lot of areas in the country have real air
quality problems. Something has to be done. Hydrogen may be a solution. It's just going to take a while.
51

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*HYDROGEN FRONTLINE 1/3*

1. Hydrogen is inefficient.
2. Hydrogen is a scientific myth.

Sharon Astyk, writer and subsistence farmer, 7/21/08, Excerpt from A Nation of Farmers: Defeating the Food Crisis on
American Soil (New Society Publishers 2009), http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=3199 [ev]
Hydrogen is a technology that has been just around the corner for the last 3 decades, and which shows no signs of
getting any closer. It is not, in fact, an energy source at all, but a medium for storing energy, and an inefficient one as well
- it is four times less efficient to use electricity to generate hydrogen than it is to just use the electricity directly [xv]
3. Status quo solvesR&D now.
Department of the Navy 4/9/08 A--Research And Development For Novel Materials For Solid Hydrogen Storage
https://www.fbo.gov/index?
print_preview=1&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fcc8283aadf7e15690235d2c7cec3682&tab=core&tabmode=list&cck=
1&au=&ck= [ev]
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (NSWC Crane) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) are conducting
research and development (R&D) efforts essential to identifying novel materials and processes that can provide potential
breakthroughs in hydrogen storage and accelerate the adoption of these technologies by the military. On-board hydrogen
storage is considered to be one of the most technically challenging barriers for the successful widespread
commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies and subsequent reduction in U.S. petroleum imports. NSWC
and DLA are coordinating hydrogen storage development efforts with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energys hydrogen storage activities and the National Hydrogen Storage Project. As the
research and development progresses on solid-state and other advanced approaches for hydrogen storage, inter-agency
efforts are coordinated to enable rapid prototype development and d! emonstration for a variety of relevant applications.
Many DOD applications require hydrogen storage and generation systems to be situated in confined spaces or battlefield
environments (dust, broad temperature range, sea salt atmosphere, etc.). The overarching objectives of this program are to
significantly increase the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) associated with advanced hydrogen storage approaches (including
solid-state hydrogen storage materials and systems) and the integration of advanced hydrogen storage systems into vehicles. Specific
areas of interest include, but are not limited to: The design, fabrication and demonstration of sub-scale prototype systems utilizing
advanced hydrogen storage approaches for Defense applications (proposer shall specify application). The advanced approaches may
include, but are not limited to adsorbents (including the development and use of near-room temperature based doped sorbents), metal
hydrides, chemical hydrides (liquids or solids) and advanced physical storage (e.g., cryo-compressed systems or novel concepts
beyond conventional high pressure or cryogenic hydrogen tanks). Storage systems should include all system components necessary for
charge and discharge operation including thermal management, reactant flow control, humidification, etc., and that have the following
characteristics:o Storage capacity in the range from 0.1kg to less than 1kg of hydrogen (proposer shall specify)o Maximum storage
pressure of less than 350 atmospheres to be consistent with current 5,000 psi compressed gas infrastructure, preferably less than 200
atmospheres to avoid the requirement for 5,000 psi tank systemso Moderate temperature of discharge (less than 150C)o Discharge rate
adequate to power fuel cell stack with between 0.5KW and 5KW peak power (proposer shall specify)o Reversible approaches are
preferred that allow rapid charging and discharging of hydrogen storage tanks with minimal waste disposal requirements.
52

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange

4. No hydrogen for 30 years.
Erwin 06 Editor for National Defense Industrial Association (Sandra I, National Defense Magazine, Energy Conservation
Plans Overlook Military Realities, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/September/DefenseWatch.htm)ev
Subsequent to Rumsfelds 2005 snowflake, a number of military and civilian Pentagon officials have been eager to
publicize various science projects aimed at energy conservation, such as research into synthetic fuels, biofuels, hydrogen
fuel cells, wind farms and solar power, to name a few. But while these efforts have paid off on the public-relations front,
they are not expected to translate into any real energy savings, at least for the foreseeable future. In the short term, there
is very little that politicians or anyone can do about the militarys dependence on fuel for transportation, says Herman
Franssen, an energy consultant and researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. New technologies in
synthetic fuels and fuel cells will take decades to produce realistic alternatives that can migrate to military vehicles,
airplanes and non-nuclear powered ships. For at least the next 20 to 30 years, says Franssen, oil will still be the most
important fuel.
5. No solvencyplan doesnt establish the infrastructure necessary to fuel tanks means the aff just dumps a bunch
of useless hardware on the military.
6. What if they shoot the tanks? Hydrogen will blow up and kill all our soldiers.
53

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange

7. Hydrogen increases oil dependence.
A: Right now, producing hydrogen is expensive and energy intensive. It takes about six gallons of gasoline to make and
compress a little over two pounds of hydrogen, which carries about the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline.
The biggest producer of hydrogen is the oil industry. Coal and natural gas are alternative ways to fuel hydrogen
production, but at some point we're going to have to go nuclear. We'll run out of oil and natural gas.
54

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXTSHOOT THE TANKS

Hydrogen is extremely flammabledangerous storage conditions guarantee disaster.
55

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXTNO TIMEFRAME
No hydrogen cars till 2030.
56

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
__________________________________________
***SOLAR AFFS***
57

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*SOLAR SPACE CP*

GT Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its financial incentives to the
Department of Defense for solar technology development and deployment. The federal government should prohibit
funding for space-based solar power.
KO Counterplan Text: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase funding for the Department
of Defense for the development of photovoltaic technologies for military application. The federal government should
prohibit funding for space-based solar power.
The net benefit is space militarization.
A. Funding the DoD for solar energy guarantees SBSP investmentDoD thinks the program is key and ensures
program success.
B. <INSERT SBSP=BAD SHIT>
58

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*BATTERY CP*
Text: the United States federal government should purchase heat-resistant batteries from Firefly Energy Inc to give
to the Department of Defense of distribution and use.
Only Firefly batteries solve readinessthey dont melt and are rechargeable.
Bob Tita Staff Writer 4/5/07 Crains Chicago Business Firefly Energy sets sights on supplying U.S. military;
Firm developing batteries that can take heat in Iraq Lexis [ev]
A Peoria company says it can make a battery for U.S. military vehicles that will hold up in Iraq's brutal heat. Firefly
Energy Inc., which split off from Caterpillar Inc. in 2003, says it's working on a prototype that can handle the 120degree temperatures of the Mideast. The company is using $5 million awarded by the Department of Defense over the past
two years to make about a dozen of the batteries by February 2008. High temperatures accelerate deterioration of leadacid batteries used in tanks, trucks and other vehicles. That's causing batteries used in Iraq to wear out in as little as six
months, compared with four years in more temperate climates. ``They desperately need these higher-performance
batteries,'' says Mil Ovan, Firefly co-founder and senior vice-president. He says the military is particularly interested in
better batteries for a surveillance system that allows soldiers to monitor an enemy's movements from inside tanks. The
Army is looking for batteries that can power the system for up to 72 hours without recharging, which requires turning on
the engine. The U.S. military spends about $900 million a year on batteries, and the Army alone spends about $75 million
a year on truck and tank batteries, a 2004 study from Dallas-based consulting firm Frost & Sullivan found.
59

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
FIREFLY SOLVES
Firefly batteries solve oil and casualties.
Business Wire 11/27/07 Energy Earns Continued R&D Funding for itsMicrocell Battery in Fiscal Year 2008 U.S.
Defense Bill Lexis [ev]
By mid 2008, Firefly Energy is slated to begin shipping prototypes of the 3D battery for testing by the U.S. Army for key
applications including its "Silent Watch" program. Using the batteries, electronic reconnaissance can be conducted from
military ground vehicles while noisy engines are off, thus helping avoid detection by the enemy while saving fuel. The
goal of the program is to provide consistent power for four to 72 hours.
60

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
FIREFLY BEST
Congress and military officials agree that Firefly is the most cost-effective, efficient, and reliable battery.
Business Wire 11/27/07 Energy Earns Continued R&D Funding for itsMicrocell Battery in Fiscal Year 2008 U.S.
Defense Bill Lexis [ev]
Ed Williams, chief executive officer of Firefly Energy, said the opportunity for the Firefly technology to be part of the
2008 defense appropriations bill is an honor and a strong recognition by the US Army and legislators of the technical
progress made by the Firefly engineering team. "Firefly Energy's 3D advanced battery technology clearly holds strong
potential for military applications and is responding to the critical need to find safer, more reliable and more efficient
ways to power current and future weapons systems," Williams said. "This continued funding supports our direction and
strategy to be a leading provider of technology solutions for advanced battery needs of U.S. military equipment." Highperformance battery is a key need of military. Mil Ovan, senior vice president and a co-founder of Firefly Energy, says
that in contrast to a conventional lead acid battery containing heavy lead metal plates as the electrodes, "The Army will
soon experience the benefits of using a lighter weight carbon foam lead acid battery that lasts longer, sheds heat more
effectively, and can be recharged faster than a conventional battery. This new funding clearly indicates that the military
wants to obtain, test and utilize our carbon foam-based battery as quickly as possible". One of two key legislative
proponents of the appropriation, U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL), said the company "is poised to deliver a battery product
that will help address long-standing battery performance issues in military vehicles. My district is proud of what Firefly
Energy is doing to help enhance the mission of our sons and daughters who are serving their country overseas." Sen. Dick
Durbin (D-IL), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, fought to help Firefly secure the appropriation. He
said that in addition to the military benefits, Firefly Energy earned the appropriation because "the company's cutting edge
technology is poised to help ease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce environmental pollution."
61

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
SOLAR BADECON
Solar power would crash the US economy.
S. Julio Friedmann Head of the carbon Storage Initiative at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Thomas
Homer-Dixon Director of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto
Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2006 Out of the Energy Box Lexis [ev]
Sources of renewable energy, such as solar power, pose no such danger, butthey are inherently ill suited to modern energy
needs. Many of the regions thatconsume the most energy do not have bright, year-round sunlight. (Think of NewYork
City, London, Moscow, and Tokyo in the long fall and winter seasons.) Solar energy has a low power density, so even in
regions where sunlight is steady and bright, as in the Mojave or Sahara deserts, a square meter receives littlepower every
day. Industrial zones and high-density urban cores consume manytimes more power per square meter than they receive.
To power Tokyo from solarenergy, for example, a large chunk of the island of Honshu would have to be covered with
photovoltaic cells. As a result, generating power from the sun requires huge amounts of land andmoney. Admittedly, the
price of solar energy is falling, and optimists believethat it may be competitive with that of conventional energy within 10
to 20years. But, for now, it remains expensive: about three to eight times more thancoal or gas power. Satisfying current
U.S. electrical consumption would requirenearly 10 billion square meters of photovoltaic solar panels. At about 500 per
square meter, the panels alone would cost5 trillion, twice the U.S. federal budget for 2004and nearly half of U.S.
GDP. Connecting this power to the mainelectrical grid and installing a means to store it would double or triple the price
tag.
62

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*SEMICONDUCTORS 1NC*
A. Silicon wafers are key to every electronic good but supply is on the brink.
B. Solar industry drains silicon supply.
C. Semiconductor industry key to US economy.
63

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*SEMICONDUCTORS 1NC*
D. Economic collapse causes nuclear war.
64

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
TURNS CASE
65

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
LINK EXT
PV uses semiconductors.
States News Service 2/22/06 United States Must Commit To Alternative Energy Development Lexis [ev]
DR. ARVIZU: Photovoltaics is actually the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity through semiconductor material,
and it's essentially what we use in computers for chips that power those things. And to a large degree, it's a technology
that's been around a long time, but it has become much closer to commercialization. Now, in high-value markets it is
commercial today.
66

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 NO SPILLOVER
1. The aff mandates solar use throughout the militarybecause the semiconductor supply is so fragile, this
guarantees tradeoffthats Electronic News.
2. Even if military use is minimal, military nanosolar will spill over to commercial applications.
Carlstrom 05 Staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle (Paul, 7/11, As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/11/BUG7IDL1AF1.DTL&type=printable)ev
Until the distribution issue is solved, Nordan says, solar energy will not be able to meet its potential of supplying vast
amounts of power. Analysts like Nordan and Mints say that while rooftops are the most attractive areas for investors,
nanomaterial solar energy may first be implemented on mobile devices like cell phones and laptop computers. Contracts
from the military These applications have smaller power requirements than buildings, and military research contracts at
Konarka, Nanosys and Nanosolar may pave the way for commercial availability of solar batteries for communications
devices. "Price is no object for the military, and they need power on the go," said Nordan. "Besides, the mobile-phone
industry is driven by new features." All three companies rely upon government contracts in addition to private funding.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been the most generous. Konarka has a $6 million grant, and
Nanosolar has received $10.3 million. Nanosys' $9.4 million in grants comes from that agency, as well as the Department
of Energy and the Navy, among others -- although not all of this research is solar-related. Industry watchers like Wooley
of the Energy Foundation say that some kind of government assistance is necessary to make alternative sources of energy
viable. "The (solar) industry has grown and expanded through incentives. The technology doesn't need government
support forever, but it's at a crucial point," he said.
67

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 BUT WERE NANOTECH

1. Even if the plan uses some nanotech, the majority of applications will be solar panels.
A. Top officials are requesting solar panels.
Calling for more energy in the middle of oil-rich Iraq might sound odd to some. But not to Marine Corps Maj. Gen.
Richard Zilmer, whose deputies on July 25 sent the Pentagon a "Priority 1" request for "a self-sustainable energy solution"
including "solar panels and wind turbines."
B. Contractors are using solar panels.
One guy who thinks he can solve the general's problem is Dave Muchow, president of SkyBuilt Power Inc. in Arlington,
Va. Aided by funding from In-Q-Tel, a venture-capital firm for the Central Intelligence Agency - SkyBuilt makes a hybrid
solar-panel and wind-generator power system that fits in a standard shipping container. It can be dropped onto a
mountaintop or into the desert. Its solar panels and wind turbine deploy in minutes. And where there's water, a "microhydro" unit can be dropped into a stream for an added boost.
2. Solar nanotech uses silicon.
Hank Green, EcoGeek.org, 8/16/07, Silicon Nano Crystals Could Triple Solar Efficiency,
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/889/ [ev]
Solar Power converts photons to electrons. For as long as solar power has existed, I've considered this to be a one to one
relationship. A photon hits some sort of electrically unstable substance, and an electron jumps across some sort of barrier
creating a current. I've never questioned that this is as good as we can do. One photon...one electron, that's just the way it
is. Well not anymore it's not. Apparently some exotic (and expensive and toxic) substances can produce multiple electrons
per photon. But that has never been achieved with non-toxic, inexpensive materials, like silicon. Until now. Scientists at
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (a place where many many more tax dollars should be going) have proven that
certain silicon nano-cyrstals can produce two to three electrons per photon of high energy sunlight.
68

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*SOLAR SOLVENCY FRONTLINE 1/4*

1. Readiness is deadrecruitment is at record lows.
Washington Post, 3/19/2005 (Two Years Later, Iraq War Drains Military http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A48306-2005Mar18.html)
The active-duty Army and Marine Corps, and five of six reserve components of the military, all failed to meet at least
some recruiting goals in the first quarter of fiscal 2005, according to Defense Department statistics. The active-duty
shortfalls came amid rising concern among Army and Marine officials that their services risk missing annual recruiting
quotas for the first time this decade. Shelley, for example, has signed up four people in nearly six months, despite working
16-hour days. Asked why recruiting is so difficult, he has a quick reply: "The war." Increasingly, surveys show that the
main reason young American adults avoid military service is that they -- and to a greater degree their parents -- fear that
enlisting could mean a war-zone deployment and death or injury. One survey showed such fears nearly doubling among
respondents from 2000 to 2004. Indeed, today's recruiting problems reflect a widespread concern dating from the
conception of the all-volunteer force in 1973 -- that a military composed wholly of volunteers would not supply adequate
troops for a lengthy ground war. The military is seeking to rebuild forces, adding temporarily 30,000 Army soldiers and
5,000 Marines. But the war isn't the only obstacle. Rising college attendance and an expanding job market are giving high
school graduates more choices. "It's times like this when unemployment is reaching 5 percent that is a critical level" for
undercutting recruitment, said Curtis L. Gilroy, director of accession policy for the Defense Department.
2. Cant solve casualtiesrechargeables dont get rid of car bombs and insurgents.
3. Incentives now means status quo solves.
Abate 6/22/08 (Tom, San Francisco Chronicle, Latest in battle gear is a prize: batteries http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/21/BUTF11A2UU.DTL)ev
Thanks to night vision goggles, battlefield computers and the pervasive radio, modern warriors can go into battle carrying
up to 20 pounds of batteries, said Lt. Colonel Brian Maka, a Defense Department spokesman who served in the first Gulf
War. "When the soldier goes outside the wire and he is checking to make sure he has everything, batteries are right up
there," Maka said in explaining the rationale behind a new federally sponsored contest called the Wearable Power Prize.
Pentagon officials hope to lighten soldiers' loads by encouraging the development of new technologies, such as fuel cells,
that can provide more juice and weigh less than bulky batteries. Rather than solicit bids, the Pentagon has set up a
competition. In October, it will field test new power storage technologies in a contest offering three cash awards of $1
million, $500,000 and $250,000. The winning devices must deliver at least 96 hours worth of power in a package
weighing less than 9 pounds.
4. Training time kills readinesssoldiers are used to existing batteries and forcing a shift will disrupt procedure
and endanger military efforts.
69

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange

5. Solar panels convert energy slowly and are inefficient.
US States News, NSF Shines Light on Arizona State University Solar Project, 10/23/0 6, p. Lexis
ASU scientists Rudy Diaz and Stuart Lindsay will lead a research group on a three-year, $1.1 million grant from the
National Science Foundation for an innovative project designed to break through the current technological hurdles of solar
energy. Today's solar panels, made up of thousands of individual solar cells, are extremely inefficient and costly to
produce, limiting Sun Belt states such as Arizona from fully using their most abundant renewable energy resource. "Over
the past decade, ASU has quietly reassembled one of the most comprehensive portfolios of solar-related research
programs in the world," says Jonathan Fink, vice president of ASU's Office of Research and Economic Affairs. "This new
award is a prime example of ASU's interdisciplinary approach to solar research and uncovering new ways to better
harness, create and utilize solar energy." Diaz and Lindsay have assembled a group of scientists across ASU into a NSFfunded Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team. Diaz is an associate professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering and WINTech/Connection One in the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, and Lindsay is a professor of
physics in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and director of the Biodesign Institute's Center for Single Molecule
Biophysics. The team's goal is to create nanoscale devices for higher-efficiency solar energy and photonics applications.
This so-called "bottom up" approach to nanotechnology promises to take on the challenges of solar energy research by
building devices atom by atom at a scale a thousand times finer than the width of a human hair. In every solar cell, light
energy - measured in the billions of photons that hit a square centimeter patch of the cell every second - is converted to
electricity. But even the most advanced solar cells can harness just 10 percent to 30 percent of the available sunlight
energy. The majority of the energy is lost and simply escapes as heat.
6. No solvencygrid tech makes solar power impossible.
US Fed News, Smart Grid May Yield Cheaper, Cleaner Energy, 2/28/07, p. Lexis
Energy issues are getting a lot of attention on Capitol Hill these days. Prompted by concerns about climate change and
dependence on foreign energy imports, lawmakers are looking for ways to promote a clean, secure energy future. When it
comes to electricity, it seems everyone has a favorite source: wind, solar, clean coal, nuclear ? But amid all the debate
surrounding different sources of electric power, there is very little discussion of the critical role played by the delivery
mechanism itself: the grid. In fact, the fiscal year 2008 budget request from the Department of Energy contains significant
cuts to existing grid-research programs. This is unfortunate, because this piece of the puzzle is instrumental in unlocking
the potential of all the other pieces. The basic design of our nation's power grid has remained largely unchanged since the
19th century. Electricity is still generated in large, centralized power plants and delivered through long-distance lines to
end-users. The grid must be large enough to accommodate the highest level of demand, even if that level is rarely reached,
and extra power plants must run constantly to meet any demand spikes. This requires massive investments in rarely used
infrastructure and wasted fuel - a highly inefficient system. As demand for energy services grows, the nation's outdated
grid is showing signs of strain due to congestion, sometimes resulting in large-scale outages, such as the blackouts and
brownouts experienced in New York, California, and my home state of Texas during summertime heat waves in recent
years. One solution to this problem would be to build scores of new power plants and thousands of miles of new
transmission lines to increase overall grid capacity. A better way is to change how we manage electric power, by
deploying smart-grid technologies.
70

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange

7. Solar energy cant solve oil reliancepower density.
S. Julio Friedmann Head of the carbon Storage Initiative at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Thomas
Homer-Dixon Director of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto
Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2006 Out of the Energy Box Lexis [ev]
Sources of renewable energy, such as solar power, pose no such danger, butthey are inherently ill suited to modern energy
needs. Many of the regions thatconsume the most energy do not have bright, year-round sunlight. (Think of NewYork
City, London, Moscow, and Tokyo in the long fall and winter seasons.) Solar energy has a low power density, so even in
regions where sunlight is steady and bright, as in the Mojave or Sahara deserts, a square meter receives littlepower every
day. Industrial zones and high-density urban cores consume manytimes more power per square meter than they receive.
To power Tokyo from solarenergy, for example, a large chunk of the island of Honshu would have to be covered with
photovoltaic cells.
8. Low conversion and weather dependency make military PV uselessthey cant solve readiness.
Marc Lawton, tactical intelligence officer for the 25th Infantry Division (Light) Detachment and Tacildayus Andrews,
assistant operations officer, Combat Support Coordination Team 3, Eighth U.S. Army, Korea., July/August 1999, Army
Logistician Vol 31 Issue 4, Fueling the Force in the Army After NextRevolution or Evolution?
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JulAug99/MS406.htm [ev]
Solar energy currently has no viable technological application for vehicle propulsion except through the use of
photovoltaic cells, which convert solar radiation into electrical energy that is then stored in batteries. These systems are
currently impractical for military vehicle applications due to the low conversion efficiency of photovoltaic cells and the
limited storage capacity of batteries. In addition, these systems' dependence on clear skies is unacceptable. Current vehicle
designs rely on at least one battery for their operation. Inspired by environmental concerns, researchers continue work on
vehicles that operate exclusively on electricity stored in batteries. Technological advances have produced lighter
automotive batteries with greater storage capacity. Unfortunately, battery-powered cars still have two serious drawbacks:
battery disposal and the need for recharging. All of the components of current batteries are environmentally unfriendly
and have to be handled with caution. Vehicle batteries also currently need at least 4 hours to recharge from an external
sourcenot long for a commuter car but an eternity for a combat vehicle.
71

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange

9. Mandating A Shift Away From Fossil Fuels Kills The Military- Only New Funding Can Allow An Effective
Military
(James Jay Carafano and Oliver Horn, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby
Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior Research Fellow in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for
Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Oliver Horn is Research Assistant in the Douglas and Sarah Allison
Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation., October 30, 2007 , Emissions Mandates Would
Undermine National Security, http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/wm1683.cfm
As the military fights a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress is attempting to open up a third front:
emissions mandates. The proposed Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007 (H.R. 3221) would restrict all federal
agencies to fiscal year 2010 emissions levels beginning in 2011. That presents a big a problem for the Department of
Defense (DOD), which accounts for well over half the federal government's energy consumption. Imposing CO2
constraints on the armed forces would hamstring the Pentagon's ability to train, sustain, and fight; the cost of
operating and maintaining an already overstretched force would skyrocket. In addition to being disastrous for
national security, the emissions mandate is unnecessary: DOD is already committed to alternative energy research
and the development and fuel conservation measures. Rather than hamstring the Pentagon with unrealistic
legislative mandates, Congress should encourage its research and conservation efforts and promote modernization
initiatives that add new, needed combat capabilities while reducing energy demands. Worse Than Pearl Harbor
H.R. 3221 could shift the Pentagon's primary mission from defending the nation to curbing emissions. To meet the
environmental mandates, the services would have to divert funds away from maintenance, repair, research, and
procurement. Beyond the initial freeze, the Pentagon would face the unrealistically stringent goal of reducing emissions annually
to the level of zero by 2050. The overly broad judicial review provisions could allow anyone to challenge DOD policies in court on
the grounds that the resultant emissions may put it out of compliance. The DOD would spend time and money fighting endless CO2related lawsuits. Furthermore, the Pentagon is already at the forefront of developing alternate energy sources, investing roughly
$250 million in such programs in fiscal year 2006. These programs include the development of synthetic fuel, fuel cells, and
lightweight materials. As one of the world's largest consumers of fossil fuels, the U.S. military already has every incentive to find
ways to conserve energy and reduce the vast logistical energy tail that limits the agility of forces on the battlefield. In expending
resources, however, the Pentagon must balance the real-world needs of current operations with efforts to refit and modernize the force
all within the limits of what current technologies can deliver.
Room for Improvement Without question, DOD can
and should do more to reduce energy consumption. The armed forces would probably be better off if they burned fewer fossil fuels
and were less dependent on foreign energy. In fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon spent $10.9 billion on energy supplies. Today, every $10
increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the military an additional $1 billion in operating costs. In terms of operations, fuel
represents more than half of the DOD's logistics tonnage and more than 70 percent of the tonnage required to deploy the Army.
Consequently, reducing fuel consumption would alleviate both a significant expense and a strategic weakness. The following
initiatives would help address the DOD's energy issues:
* Building nuclear cruisers and expanding the submarine force;
*
Expanding research into synthetic fuels;
* Continuing research and development into next-generation batteries, fuel cells, and
composite materials;
* Ending congressional earmarks in the Pentagon's R&D budgets, allowing the services to focus research
dollars on real needs;
* Accelerating development and production of a new bomber that uses less fuel to put more bombs on targets;
and
* Accelerating the fielding of next-generation ground vehicles. Conclusion Emissions mandates are an unnecessary
and unrealistic way to reduce the military's energy demands. H.R. 3221 is an unfunded mandate that would
hamstring the Pentagon and undermine national security. What the Pentagon needs is a robust and adequate
budget. Funding defense at about 4 percent of GDP every year would provide sufficient resources for a trained and
ready force, current operations, and preparing for the future.
72

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXT 1READINESS
Extend Washington Postthe all volunteer army makes readiness impossibleparents dont want their kids dying
in Iraq and new job opportunities mean that no one HAS to look to the military for a career.
Readiness is low now multiple indicators
National Security Advisory Group, Jan. 2006 (The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2006/us-military_nsag-report_01252006.pdf)
The Facts
Nearly all of the available combat units in the U.S. Army, Army National Guard and Marine Corps have been used in current
operations. Every available combat brigade from the active duty Army has already been to Afghanistan or Iraq at least once for a 12
month tour. Many are now in their second or third tours of duty. Approximately 95% the Army National Guards combat battalions
and special operations units have been mobilized since 9/11. Short of full mobilization or a new Presidential declaration of national
emergency, there is little available combat capacity remaining in the Army National Guard. All active duty Marine Corps units are
being used on a tight rotation schedule seven months deployed, less than a year home to reset, and then another seven months
deployed and all of its Reserve combat units have been mobilized.
The Army is experiencing the beginnings of what could become a major recruiting crisis . At the end of FY2005, the active
Army fell 6,627 recruits short of its annual goal of 80,000 new accessions. Although this shortfall is not alarming in and of itself,
there are some important indicators that the recruiting shortfall will be far larger next year. In addition, some worry that the Army is
lowering its quality standards, drawing a higher than normal percentage of its new recruits from Category IV (the lowest aptitude
level accepted). This year will be critical in determining whether the active Army is simply going through a bad patch or entering
one of the worst recruiting crises in its history. Meanwhile, the Army Reserve fell 16% behind its recruiting target for the year, and
the Guard 20% short of its annual goal.
Private Pentagon studies concur unless force size increases readiness will be destroyed
Robert Burns, AP military writer, Jan 24, 2006 (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/24/D8FBBNG98.html)
Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless
relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot
sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's
decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was
overextended.
As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump _ missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 _ and
its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.
"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an
interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of
combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not
released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.
Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report's chapters, "The Thin Green Line."
He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a
catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
Col. Lewis Boone, spokesman for Army Forces Command, which is responsible for providing troops to war commanders, said it
would be "a very extreme characterization" to call the Army broken. He said his organization has been able to fulfill every request
for troops that it has received from field commanders.
The Krepinevich assessment is the latest in the debate over whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn out the Army, how
the strains can be eased and whether the U.S. military is too burdened to defeat other threats.
Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam veteran, created a political storm last fall when he called for an early
exit from Iraq, arguing that the Army was "broken, worn out" and fueling the insurgency by its mere presence. Administration
officials have hotly contested that view.
George Joulwan, a retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, agrees the Army is stretched thin.
"Whether they're broken or not, I think I would say if we don't change the way we're doing business, they're in danger of being
fractured and broken, and I would agree with that," Joulwan told CNN last month.
Krepinevich did not conclude that U.S. forces should quit Iraq now, but said it may be possible to reduce troop levels below 100,000
by the end of the year. There now are about 136,000, Pentagon officials said Tuesday. For an Army of about 500,000 soldiers _ not
counting the thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers now on active duty _ the commitment of 100,000 or so to Iraq might
73

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
not seem an excessive burden. But because the war has lasted longer than expected, the Army has had to regularly rotate fresh units
in while maintaining its normal training efforts and reorganizing the force from top to bottom.
74

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXT 3SQUO SOLVES

Status quo solvesthe military is handing out massive cash prizes for military developmentthe plan is completely
unnecessarythats Abate.
Squo solvescontracts.
Global Solar 6/3/05 GLOBAL SOLAR ENERGY AWARDED ARMY ORDER
http://www.globalsolar.com/content/view/23/107/ [ev]
TUCSON, AZ, JUNE 3, 2005 : Global Solar Energy, Inc. manufacturer of the highest efficiency thin-film Copper Indium
Gallium diSelenide (CIGS) solar cells on a flexible substrate was recently awarded a $1,000,000.00 contract by the US
Army to provide a powerful, lightweight and durable rucksack portable solar charger providing individual soldiers, a
lightweight and safe power generator to charge batteries and power portable electronic equipment.
DoD is funding PV now.
Nanosolar Inc. 9/5/07 Cell Production Leads the Way Toward Longer-Lasting Portable Power
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:ckpuk3el9UJ:www.darpa.mil/sbir/pdf_files/Nanosolar_09_05_07.pdf+nanosolar+military&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us [ev]
Nanosolar is working with the U.S. Army as well as the U.S. Marines to define requirements for military applications. In
addition, Nanosolar worked with the U.S. Air Force through an Air Force Research Lab sponsorship of an earlier DARPA
program on flexible photovoltaics.
75

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXT 5SOLAR SUCKS

Solar panels are slow and inefficientthats US States Newsreplicated studies show that solar panels are expensive,
only work in hyper-sunny areasfurthermore they only get 10% of energy means they take out 100% of solvencyeven
if troops figure out how to use the panels they wont be able to charge their equipment and will face complete technical
breakdown trashing heg.
Solar Panels are inefficient
US States News, NSF Shines Light on Arizona State University Solar Project, 10/23/0 6, p. Lexis
ASU scientists Rudy Diaz and Stuart Lindsay will lead a research group on a three-year, $1.1 million grant from the
National Science Foundation for an innovative project designed to break through the current technological hurdles of solar
energy. Today's solar panels, made up of thousands of individual solar cells, are extremely inefficient and costly to
produce, limiting Sun Belt states such as Arizona from fully using their most abundant renewable energy resource. "Over
the past decade, ASU has quietly reassembled one of the most comprehensive portfolios of solar-related research
programs in the world," says Jonathan Fink, vice president of ASU's Office of Research and Economic Affairs. "This new
award is a prime example of ASU's interdisciplinary approach to solar research and uncovering new ways to better
harness, create and utilize solar energy." Diaz and Lindsay have assembled a group of scientists across ASU into a NSFfunded Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team. Diaz is an associate professor in the Department of Electrical
Engineering and WINTech/Connection One in the Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, and Lindsay is a professor of
physics in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and director of the Biodesign Institute's Center for Single Molecule
Biophysics. The team's goal is to create nanoscale devices for higher-efficiency solar energy and photonics applications.
This so-called "bottom up" approach to nanotechnology promises to take on the challenges of solar energy research by
building devices atom by atom at a scale a thousand times finer than the width of a human hair. In every solar cell, light
energy - measured in the billions of photons that hit a square centimeter patch of the cell every second - is converted to
electricity. But even the most advanced solar cells can harness just 10 percent to 30 percent of the available sunlight
energy. The majority of the energy is lost and simply escapes as heat.
Solar Power is inefficient
Warren Cornwall, Seattle Times Staff Writer, Going Green Adds Up; Energy Alternatives Can be Expensive, The
Washington Post, 2/11/06, p. Lexis
Seven years ago, Jeremy Smithson decided it would be beneficial to heat and light his home with solar power. Then he
did the math. His 1908 Craftsman house on the western slope of Phinney Ridge would need a roof four times bigger to
hold enough solar panels to meet his energy needs. Smithson now has a house so tightly insulated "that a BTU can't
wiggle out of it." Efficient fluorescent bulbs poke out of the light sockets. Solar panels and tubes line his home's southfacing roof and wall. "What we discovered is that if you super-insulate, then you reduce your heat requirement to the
point where you can solar heat," Smithson said. Over the year, the home will need about 2,000 kilowatt-hours of power
from outside sources, down from about 18,500, he said.
Solar Power is inefficient
Warren Cornwall, Seattle Times Staff Writer, Going Green Adds Up; Energy Alternatives Can be Expensive, The
Washington Post, 2/11/06, p. Lexis
For solar heat, homes can be built to absorb more heat from sunlight during the winter with large, south-facing windows,
part of a strategy known as "passive solar." While that often makes sense, using solar panels or solar tubes to run a
heating system is more problematic, said Mike Nelson, director of the Northwest Solar Center, part of Washington State
University's Energy Program. "Passive solar pencils out the quickest," Nelson said. "If you're adding flat plate and
evacuated tubes [that use sunlight to heat water], you better approach that with a pretty sharp pencil, and you better have a
good designer." Running a heat system on photovoltaic cells that convert sunlight to electricity is far less efficient than
using that electricity to turn on lights or appliances, Nelson said. It's "a lot like burning violins in a woodstove," he said.
"You can do it. It will keep you warm. It will cost you a fortune."
76

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXT 6GRID
Solar energy doesnt work with existing grid tech because its ridiculously outdated and no one is funding its
replacementthats US Fed Newsthat means that even if the military does successfully implement solar they
wont be able to use the tech on their bases which takes out the internal to casualtiesfuel convoys are the number
one cause of deaths.
David Roberts, interview with Amory Lovins, 26 Jul 2007, All You Need Is Lovins A conversation with energy guru
Amory Lovins, http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/26/lovins/
If you build an efficient, diverse, dispersed, renewable electricity system, major failures -- whether by accident or
malice -- become impossible by design rather than inevitable by design, an attractive nuisance for terrorists and
insurgents. There's a pretty good correlation between neighborhoods with better electrical supply and those that are
inhospitable to insurgents. This is well known in military circles. There's still probably just time to do this in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, about a third of our army's wartime fuel use is for generator sets, and nearly all of that electricity is used to
air-condition tents in the desert, known as "space cooling by cooling outer space." We recently had a two-star Marine
general commanding in western Iraq begging for efficiency and renewables to untether him from fuel convoys,
so he could carry out his more important missions. This is a very teachable moment for the military. The costs,
risks, and distractions of fuel convoys and power supplies in theater have focused a great deal of senior military
attention on the need for not dragging around this fat fuel-logistics tail -- therefore for making military equipment
and operations several-fold more energy efficient.
77

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXT 7OIL
Solar energy doesnt sovle reliance on oilthats Friedmaneven huge panels have a low solar density means they cant
convert enough energyproven by scientific studiesmeans even if solar cells can power a laptop they sure as hell cant
power a tank or an entire military base.
78

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXT 8MILITARY VEHICLES

PV cells are dependent on good weather ,convert energy slowly, and dont work to power vehicles because of
electricity inefficiencythis makes them useless for milityar purposes, even if theyre adequate domestically the
military needs a step uptheres only a risk that solar cells TURN readiness by forcing the military use inefficient
technologythats Lawton and Andrews. Prefer our evidenceLawton and Andres are experienced military
officers means they KNOW whats going on on the ground and they know what the military needstheir authors
are <CIVILIAN HACKS> who have no idea what our troops actually require and just want to push their own
petty political agendaonly our evidence is written with the goal of helping readiness instead of ulterior domestic
motives.
79

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXT 9FUND DIVERSION

Government mandates for military energy policy piss the DoD off like no otherthats Carafanomandates put
the focus on energy consumption instead of on homeland securitythis means that the military has to divert
resources from protecting America to worrying about their green imagein the struggle to appease hippies the
military loses all readiness.
80

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*IRAQ FRONTLINE 1/2*

1. Regional leaders agree that US military is destabilizing force.
International Herald Tribune 6/10/08 U.S. troops causing instability in Iraq, Iran's religious leader says
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/10/africa/10iraq.php
Iran's supreme leader told Iraq's prime minister on Monday that the American forces in Iraq were the biggest obstacle to
Iraqi stability. The message from the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was the most authoritative public word to
date on Iran's objections to long-term security agreements currently under negotiation between the Bush administration
and the government of Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The American military has been operating in Iraq
under a United Nations resolution that expires at the end of this year.
2. Cant solve stabilityoutside terror growth.
Deutsche Presse-Agentur 4/22/08 ROUNDUP: Iraq calls for anti-terror action, embassies to re-open Lexis [ev]
Speaking at the meeting, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki urged neighbours to tighten control over their borders to stop
"terrorists" from crossing into Iraq. "Those countries have to eliminate the sources of terrorism and its funding and stop
those seeking to undermine the political process and taking neighbouring countries as a stage for moves against the Iraqi
people," al-Maliki said. "Instability in Iraq affects the region. We will not allow terrorist groups to take safe haven in Iraq
and to harm neighbouring countries," he added. The premier listed the security and political achievements of his
government in an apparent bid to entice Arab countries to open embassies in Baghdad as some foreign states have done.
"Many other foreign countries have diplomatic missions in Baghdad despite security considerations," al-Maliki said.
3. Cant solve stabilityoil corruption.
New York Times 4/16/08 Iraqs Insurgency Runs on Stolen Oil Profits
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/world/middleeast/16insurgent.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print
[ev]
The sea of oil under Iraq is supposed to rebuild the nation, then make it prosper. But at least one-third, and possibly much
more, of the fuel from Iraqs largest refinery here is diverted to the black market, according to American military officials.
Tankers are hijacked, drivers are bribed, papers are forged and meters are manipulated and some of the earnings go to
insurgents who are still killing more than 100 Iraqis a week. Its the money pit of the insurgency, said Capt. Joe Da
Silva, who commands several platoons stationed at the refinery. Five years after the war in Iraq began, the insurgency
remains a lethal force. The steady flow of cash is one reason, even as the American troop buildup and the recruitment of
former insurgents to American-backed militias have helped push the number of attacks down to 2005 levels. In fact,
money, far more than jihadist ideology, is a crucial motivation for a majority of Sunni insurgents, according to
American officers in some Sunni provinces and other military officials in Iraq who have reviewed detainee surveys and
other intelligence on the insurgency. Although many American military officials and politicians and even the Iraqi
public use the term Al Qaeda as a synonym for the insurgency, some American and Iraqi experts say they believe that
the number of committed religious ideologues remains small. They say that insurgent groups raise and spend money
autonomously for the most part, with little centralized coordination or direction.
4. US forces are root cause of terror.
Clark, David. Britain must take the lead in Iraq by getting out first. The Guardian. July 16, 2007.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2127061,00.html) Accessed Jul 16, 2007. TRP CSDI 07
Yet the government has to recognise that its current open-ended commitment is equally dangerous. The idea that
American and British troops hold any of the answers to Iraq's security problems is collapsing in the face of evidence that
Bush's "surge" strategy is failing to achieve most of its stated aims. Extending deadlines and increasing force levels will
not fix this: the occupation itself is one of the main reasons for Iraq's continued dysfunctionality and the violence it
breeds.
81

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*IRAQ FRONTLINE 2/2*

5. Iraq policy guarantees loss of hegmagnifies US weakness.
Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center of the Interdisciplinary University in Israel
and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, 2005, The Washington Quarterly 28.2, 67-80, Project Muse
One of the most forceful arguments against a planned and phased U.S. withdrawal is based on the administration's desire
to preserve its own reputation and U.S. credibility. Refusing to leave Iraq, U.S. policymakers believe, is the only way to
ensure that the United States retains a high level of credibility with its adversaries in the region. For the United States, to
pull out as it did from Vietnam or to allow for the defeat of its allies as it did in the shah's Iran, they argue, would signal to
radical forces that they could attack U.S. interests with impunity and disregard its threats. Although this may sound like a
persuasive argument, it does not accurately reflect the current situation. The United States achieved the most credibility
possible through its willingness and ability to overthrow Saddam. Being bogged down in an endless war in Iraq,
however, can only erode U.S. standing in the region. The United States is currently so overextended in Iraq that it is
incapable of taking tough action on any other issue in the region or elsewhere in the worldand its enemies know it.
The U.S. military presence has been used to criticize and mobilize forces against the United States. The lack of a
U.S. victory has been portrayed as proof of its weakness, and U.S. misdeeds have been invented or magnified to
demonstrate that the United States has evil intentions toward Arabs and Muslims.
82

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
EXTOIL CORRUPTION
Cant solve stabilityoil corruption.
[ev]
Before the invasion of Iraq, eight gasoline stations dotted the region around Sharqat, an hour north of the refinery at the
northern edge of Saddam Husseins home province, Salahuddin. Now there are more than 50. Economic growth? Not
exactly. It is one of the more audacious schemes that feed money to the black marketeers. Most tanker trucks intended for
Sharqat never make it there. Its all a bluff, said Taha Mahmoud Ahmed, the official who oversees fuel distribution in
Salahuddin. The fuel is not going to the stations. Its going to the black market. Gas stations are often built just to gain
the rights to fuel shipments, at subsidized government rates, that can be resold onto the black market at higher prices. New
stations cost more than $100,000 to build, but black market profits from six or seven trucks can often cover that cost, and
everything after that is profit, said officials who have studied the scheme. The plan also requires bribing officials in the
province and Baghdad, said Col. Mohsen Awad Habib, who is from Sharqat and is now police chief in Siniya, near Baiji.
He said owners of bogus gas stations told him they paid $20,000 bribes to an Oil Ministry official in Baghdad to get their
paperwork approved. Local and provincial officials then extort their own cut. In each station youll find high Iraqi
officials who have shares, he said. In Baiji, dozens of active insurgent groups feed off corruption from the refinery, said
Lt. Ali Shakir, the commander of the paramilitary Iraqi police unit here. If I give you all the names, your hand is going to
be tired from writing them down, he said.
Stability cant solve corruption on every level of society.
[ev]
Lieutenant Shakir said the more hard-core insurgent groups had a lot of money to pay other fighters, and he grumbled that
part of the reason they thrived was that obvious thievery was never prosecuted. Another scheme, he said, involves a
trucking company owned by a man tied to the insurgency who is also a relative of Baijis mayor. The trucks take fuel from
the refinery but are then unloaded just south of Tikrit. Making arrests would be a waste of time, he said, because
provincial officials would let the perpetrators go. What can I do? he said. After a half hour, they would be released.
Last year, the Pentagon estimated that as much as 70 percent of the Baiji refinerys production, or $2 billion in fuels like
gasoline, kerosene and diesel, disappeared annually into the black market. Baiji supplies eight provinces.
Insurgents and officials agree that oil corruption is key.
[ev]
American and Iraqi officials struggle to say exactly how much the insurgency reaps from its domestic financing activities.
In the past, Iraqi officials have estimated that insurgents receive as much as half of all profits attributable to oil smuggling.
And before the troop buildup began a year ago, an American report estimated that insurgents generated as much as $200
million a year. Nor is the skimming limited to the insurgency; illicit earnings from the Baiji refinery also flow to criminal
gangs, tribes, the Iraqi police, local council members and provincial officials who also smuggle fuel, Iraqi officials say.
Barham Salih, the Iraqi deputy prime minister, said he believed that the pool of money available to insurgents across Iraq
had fallen in the past year, but he declined to provide an estimate himself. He said Iraqi security analysts estimated that Al
Qaeda in Mesopotamia received $50,000 to $100,000 per day from swindles related to the Baiji refinery. Its a serious
problem, he said. Those amounts are significant given the hard realities of Iraq, especially in Sunni areas where
unemployment and discontent with the Shiite-run government run high. Men can be hired to hide roadside bombs for
$100, officers say. And while American troops have captured stockpiles of artillery shells from Mr. Husseins days,
insurgents have adapted, building bombs from cheap materials like fertilizer and cocoa. The insurgents appear to
understand how valuable the Baiji refinery is to their operations. They have not attacked the oil refinery, because they
83

Military Neg
Emma
Serrano/Strange
dont want to damage their cash cow, said First Lt. Trent Teague, who commands the Third Platoon in Captain Da Silvas
unit, the headquarters company of the First Battalion, 327th Infantry.
84

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
*PTIX LINKS*
85

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXPLAN BIPART$
Plan is bipartisanCongress is pressured to fund DoD and wants to tack on extra measures.
Bloomberg 6/20/08 House Backs Iraq War Funds, Money for Domestic Items
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aWjn2IAoJCkQ&refer=home [ev]
June 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House approved a compromise agreement that gives the Bush administration more than
$160 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and includes new spending sought by Democrats for domestic priorities.
The House voted 268 to 155 last night to approve the war funding. Lawmakers followed with a 416-12 vote to add $2.7
billion to the measure in disaster relief funds, new educational benefits for veterans and an extension of unemployment
compensation. President George W. Bush, speaking to reporters at the White House, said the legislation gives U.S. troops
the ``funds they need to prevail without tying the hands of commanders in the field.'' The Senate is likely to consider the
legislation next week before sending it to Bush. Congress is under pressure to produce a military spending bill before the
Defense Department runs short of money to supply troops in combat.
Plan is bipartisanpatriotism outweighs all political considerations.
Connecticut Post Online 9/27/06 Connecticut Gains in New Defense Bill Lexis [ev]
The defense spending compromise was approved in the House of Representatives Tuesday night and is expected to clear
the Senate in the next few days. It also includes funding for procurement of aircraft engines, submarines and other defense
equipment manufactured by a host of Connecticut defense contractors including Norden Systems in Norwalk, Producto
Moore in Bridgeport, Electric Boat in Groton and Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford. Significantly, while there's been
contentious political wrangling in this year's campaigns for House and Senate seats, most notably here in
Connecticut, on the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, the defense spending bill easily cleared the House on a 39422 vote with a similar wide margin expected in the Senate. Despite the bitter political fights, both Democrats and
Republicans in Congress realize the need to increase defense spending to better protect our troops and provide the
best military hardware available to fight in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
86

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXUNPOP W/ DEMS$/IRAQ
Democrats hate Iraq funding.
States News Service 12/19/07 Voting In Opposition To Giving President Bush A No Strings Attached Blank Check
To Fund Iraq War Lexis [ev]
Congressman Kendrick B. Meek issued the following statement in opposition to giving President Bush a no strings
attached blank check to fund the Iraq War: "Today President Bush received a no strings attached $70 billion check to fund
the Iraq War without telling the American public how long our open ended commitment to fighting this unpopular war
will last. The Democratic-led House and Senate held 289 hearings to bring an end to the war in Iraq, but the Republican
leadership chose the will of President Bush over the desire of the American people. Financing a war on borrowed money
as if on a credit card with a skyrocketing interest rate is a legacy I do not want to leave for future generations. Our efforts
in Afghanistan are being compromised because our commitment to Iraq deepens by the day."
87

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXUNPOP W/ EVERYONEIRAQ
Everyone hates Iraqpublic pressure.
USA Today 4/27/07 War calls for common new direction, not more sniping Lexis [ev]
Timetable or no timetable, the votes in Congress are an unmistakable marker that time is running out on Bush's ability to
prosecute an unpopular war. Not only are Democrats now aggressively pushing for a pullout, the near-party-line nature of
the votes belied the deep misgivings many Republicans voice about the war. Many of them will find it increasingly
difficult to back an unpopular war as the 2008 election nears. Polls already find that nearly 60% of the public wants a
timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops out of Iraq, and more funding votes loom in the fall.
88

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXA2 PUBLIC OPPOSITION IRAQ

The American public is divided on Iraq.
The Patriot Ledger 4/19/08 American public, politicians conflicted over best course; Should U.S. troops remain
indefinitely, or should there be a timetable to leave? Lexis [ev]
Opinion polls suggest the American public is conflicted over the best course. Sixty-five percent of Americans think the
U.S. has an obligation to stay until a reasonable level of stability and security has been achieved in Iraq, according to a
March 14 Gallup poll. At the same time, 60 percent of Americans also say they'd like to see a timetable set for withdrawal
of troops from Iraq, according to the polling agency.
89

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXPLAN POP W/ PUBLICIRAQ

The majority of Americans now think Iraq is going wellcurrent progress outweighs the original invasion.
Protein Wisdom 6/11/08 The Big Picture(s): Revisiting the media coverage, public opinion [Karl] Newstex Web Blog
Lexis [ev]
First, the premise that public opinion is impervious to news of progress in Iraq is overstated. Looking at the
PollingReport link Allahpundit provides shows that public opinion has remained largely unchanged on the questions of
President Bush handling of Iraq, whether Iraq was a mistake and whether to get out sooner rather than later. As the first
two questions are asked in most polls, it is impossible to know the degree to which having injected Pres. Bush in the
first question affects the answers to the second. As for the third question, a plurality usually falls in the middle,
depending on how much choice is allowed by the question. Otherwise the answer tends to be sooner "" which should
shock no one; even those who supported the mission would prefer to complete it quickly as well as successfully.
Moreover, there has recently been much hindsight discussion about the wisdom of the administration's emphasis on
WMDs as the primary justification for the invasion. Regardless of where one comes down in theat debate, the polling on
whether the invasion was a mistake is likely fixed for the foreseeable future because the average person polled viewed
WMDs as the (prime) reason for the invasion and no stockpiles were found. The politically-involved can debate the
details, or curse those polled for their lack of nuance, but I would suggest that dynamic accounts for the steady polling on
the question. Those questions, however, do not reflect the entirety of public opinion on the mission in Iraq. Let's
review the same poll data compiled at PollingReport. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll taken at the end
of April shows that 39% think things are going very or moderately well in Iraq "" an increase of 11% from April 2007.
The ABC News/Washington Post Poll taken April 10-13, 2008, shows 40% think the US is making significant progress
toward restoring civil order in Iraq "" an 8% increase from a year ago. The CBS News Poll taken March 15-18, 2008
showed 42% thinking the surge had improved conditions in Iraq "" up 12% from September 2007. So the polls are fairly
consistent in showing a 10% swing to about 40% thinking the surge is making significant progress. A CNN/Opinion
Research Corporation Poll taken March 14-16, 2008 showed 57% thinking the US would likely or certainly win. The
USA Today/Gallup Poll taken Feb. 21-24, 2008, showed that 60% think the US should have a timetable for withdrawal,
but also showed 65% thought the US had an obligation to stay to establish a reasonable level of stability. And so on.
These sorts of numbers buttress the notion that the steady numbers on whether invading Iraq was a mistake reflect
a more general opinion, as opposed to an opinion about the current trends. Furthermore, it is instructive to look at the
polling data on what people think the top issues and priorities are for the country. Iraq now ranks second or third in these
questions, in comparison to 2007, when Iraq was generally considered the number one issue. Some of that shift
undoubtedly reflects public anxiety over the economy, but the current trends in Iraq "" and perhaps the dearth of media
coverage "" are also likely factors. That being said, if the establishment media gave more time and space to the current
trends in Iraq, the polling numbers might well be even better than they are. But I doubt increased coverage would move
the hindsight judgments as much as those about the present and the future. There may be room for more people to be
convinced that the US is making significant progress in Iraq before hitting the ceiling of those fully invested in defeat.
That is one reason we have election campaigns.
90

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXPLAN POP W/ PUBLICIRAQ

A majority of American support the war in Iraq.
Tucker Carlson MSNBC's Senior Campaign Correspondent 4/13/08 TUCKER for March 13, 2008 Lexis [ev]
And as the Democratic candidates run strong against extending the war in Iraq, a new Pew poll suggest a shift in public
opinion on that subject. A majority of Americans, 53 percent now believe the U.S. ultimately will succeed in achieving its
goals in the war. And the number of Americans who think the war is either going very well or fairly well is up from 30
percent to 48 percent in the last year.
91

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXPLAN POPULAR W/ CONGRESSSOLAR

Congress loves solar power.
Energy Washington Week 5/21/08 House Plan Taxes Hedge Funds To Extend Renewable Energy Credits Lexis [ev]
The tax proposal is the latest in a longstanding effort by Congress to reauthorize popular tax credits for renewable energy
sources, such as wind and solar power. The House has approved several proposals in the past year, which have died in the
Senate over concerns about how to pay for the tax credits. The upcoming House vote could be seen as an attempt to
overcome those obstacles by targeting hedge funds, which have come under increasing scrutiny as a largely unregulated
segment of the financial sector.
92

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXPLAN UNPOP W/ CONGRESSSOLAR

Despite public support, Congress doesnt want to pass solar energy legislation.
San Jose Mercury News 5/20/08 Climate change bill picking up steam Lexis [ev]
For those trying to put the nation on a low-carbon diet, the timing is right. In odd-couple-style TV spots, Nancy Pelosi
joins Newt Gingrich, and Pat Robertson sides with Al Sharpton, in urging Congress to take action. Time magazine has
struck up the drumbeat, trading its red border for green with a recent cover story called "How to Win the War on Global
Warming." Tucker Eskew, a Republican strategist who worked in the Bush White House, sees a shift among Republicans
on the issue: "A number of Republican senators are now looking very hard at this legislation, and there's latent
opportunity for doing something." Even if the bill doesn't get the necessary votes this year, the Senate could lay the
foundation for eventual passage under a new, receptive president, Eskew said. The bill is a major test for Sen. Barbara
Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee. Boxer and the bill's sponsors,
Lieberman and Warner, have spent weeks in one-on-one meetings with senators on the bill. While "going green" has
become a mantra of popular culture, Congress has lagged in taking action. This year Congress is struggling just to extend
tax credits to boost solar, wind and other renewable energy industries. Silicon Valley business leaders lobbied for that
issue last week on Capitol Hill.
93

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
PTIXPLAN UNPOPFUNDING FIGHTS

Renewable policy triggers partisan funding fights.
San Francisco Chronicle 6/18/08 Congressional Stalemate Over Renewable Energy http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL [ev]
Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in
danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year. The
Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable
energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight between Democrats and
Republicans over how to pay for them.
94

Emma
Military Neg
Serrano/Strange
A2 PLAN POPULAR
Political gridlock in energy policy outweighs popularity.
San Francisco Chronicle 6/18/08 Congressional Stalemate Over Renewable Energy http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL [ev]
The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington. House
Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising
revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that money. The House first
passed a measure early last year to extend the renewable energy credits by cutting subsidies to big oil companies. The oil
industry lobbied fiercely, President Bush vowed to veto it and the Senate blocked it. Last month, the House approved a
bill to extend the credits by delaying an obscure tax break for companies with foreign operations and closing a tax
loophole for hedge fund managers. But Republicans objected to what they called a stealth tax increase, and the Senate's
52-44 vote Tuesday fell short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and move the legislation forward.
95

115 SS Military Case Neg

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

115 SS Military Case Neg

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Volume 13, Issue 4, , Page 42 sciencedirect)

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

EXTQUID PRO QUO

The Nature of Incentives

an incentive is an offer by a sender to provide a good that the recipient desires, if

considering the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons, or to

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

PRIVATE SECTOR KEY

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

UNILAT GOODSPECIFIC SITUATION

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

*2AC INTERVENTION DA 1/2*

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

*2AC INTERVENTION DA 2/2*

Terrorism risks extinction

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

UNILAT FAILSCLIMATE CHANGE

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

UNILAT BADSOFT POWER

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

OIL KILLS HEG

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

OIL KILLS HEG

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

OIL KILLS IRAQ

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Hence the drive into Central Asia.

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

Dartmouth Debate Institute 2008

2AC INTERVENTION DA 1/2

2AC INTERVENTION DA 2/2

HYDROGEN FRONTLINE 1/3

HYDROGEN FRONTLINE 2/3

HYDROGEN FRONTLINE 3/3

SOLAR SPACE CP

SOLAR SOLVENCY FRONTLINE 1/4

SOLAR SOLVENCY FRONTLINE 2/4

SOLAR SOLVENCY FRONTLINE 3/4

SOLAR SOLVENCY FRONTLINE 4/4

IRAQ FRONTLINE 1/2

IRAQ FRONTLINE 2/2