Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[79]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[74]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[79]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-08 16:15:25.234
	1	+2017-03-08 16:15:25.0

Caselist.CitesClass[74]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
	1	+Their readiness indicts are old news – the only good thing Trump has done is ramp up our military. Serbu 1-30
	2	+Jared Serbu, Trump orders review of military readiness, boosting Defense funds in 2017, Federal New Radio, January 30, 2017 EE
	3	+
	4	+President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the Pentagon to immediately set about the work of figuring out how much money the Defense Department would need to overcome what military leaders have said are serious readiness problems brought on by years of political deadlock over the federal budget. In a memo he signed at the Pentagon during a symbolic swearing-in ceremony for Defense Secretary James Mattis, Trump told the new secretary to launch a 30-day examination of a broad set of measures of military readiness, from maintenance to munitions and infrastructure to manning and training. Also over the next month, DoD will work with the Office of Management and Budget to draw up an emergency supplemental 2017 budget request. The funds would be used to pay for any immediate readiness gaps the Pentagon review identifies, and the order also tells OMB and DoD to use to results of the readiness review as a basis for Defense budgets in 2018 and beyond. Hiring freeze result of Trump team's review of federal agencies In addition to the near-term cash infusion for readiness, the order set a broad agenda of “rebuilding” the U.S. military through a new National Defense Strategy Trump ordered DoD to produce in preparation for its 2018 budget submission, including a new review of the country’s nuclear weapons posture and its capability to defend itself from missile attacks.
	5	+
	6	+Interview with US general proves Morale is high now – homefront and mission pride. Garamone 2-8
	7	+Jim Garamone, Air Force Chief of Staff Targets Improving Quality of Service, DoD News, Defense Media Activity, Feb. 8, 2017 EE
	8	+Some airmen are living in rough conditions, and yet there are no complaints, the general said, because they are doing what they signed up to do. They take great pride in the mission and their parts in performing that mission, he added, and they believe they are part of something big ~-~- part of “a high-powered team of people that had a mission every day accomplishing something that matters.” The key is making sure that type of attitude happens not just overseas, but at home stations, Goldfein said. “I’ve got folks contributing to this fight and the global challenges we face right here at home stations,” he said. “As the chief, I’ve got a lot of things to worry about, but I believe I have one moral obligation, and that is I can never send someone into harm’s way that is not properly organized, trained, equipped and led, and I must take care of their families while they are gone. “That’s my mirror check. That, I’ve got to get right,” he continued. “Everything else, I do the best I can.”
	9	+
	10	+Campus activism against war undermines morale and forces withdrawal – collapses American presence abroad and causes massive instability that culminates in terror attacks and extinction. Levy 07
	11	+Janet Levy , MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist, Iraq’s only Similarity to Vietnam: Its Dangerous Anti-War Movement, Accuracy in Media 2-28-2007 EE
	12	+Contrary to media reports and the perception of a majority of Americans, the United States was winning the war in Vietnam following the successful watershed battle known as the Tet Offensive. Sadly, the Vietnam War was not lost on the battlefield. The carnage and repressive regimes that followed the U.S. exit may have been avoided had the truth been known by the American public. The United States was defeated by a carefully conceived, multi-pronged propaganda campaign that set the stage for America’s eventual failure in the region. The ingredients for the U.S. defeat consisted of the funding and encouragement of the anti-war movement by Hanoi and Communist splinter groups, enlistment of “useful idiots” in Hollywood to publicize and popularize the movement, media complicity with negative portrayals of the war, anti-American proselytizing by professors and students on American university campuses, denigration and demonizing of the military and, ultimately, withdrawal of support and appropriations by the U.S. Congress. All these factors led to the perceptual reframing of the Vietnam War as an ignoble imperialistic atrocity, a far cry from its launch as a fight to extinguish communism in Southeast Asia. Today, many of these same elements have reappeared as the United States struggles to defeat Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and to apprehend a fifth column of jihadists at home. Inherited from the Vietnam experience, they are now evident within the new conflict. This time, the risks to our country’s future are even greater should they succeed. Anti-War Groups As was true during the Vietnam War, today’s anti-war groups hide their anti-Americanism behind the politics of peace. Recruiting others on a platform of “peace,” they ally themselves with radical Islamists, glorify the enemy’s goals and identify themselves as “freedom fighters,” battling an imperialistic world power. In the lead up to the war against Iraq, anti-war activists effectively mobilized some of the largest protests and demonstrations since the Vietnam War. They attacked the war effort abroad and security measures at home, sympathized with Saddam Hussein as a victim of American war-mongering and even served as strategically-placed human shields. Although Operation Iraqi Freedom was welcomed by the vast majority of Iraqis and succeeded in liberating 25 million people from the ravages of a murderous despot, anti-war protestors decried the U.S. “occupation” of Iraq and the alleged subjugation of the Iraqi people. Their steadfast position was that any use of American military power was an attempt to establish American hegemony in the region and exploit Iraq’s oil resources. The discovery of Saddam’s mass graves and torture chambers were ignored by the anti-war movement in the service of demonizing the actions of the evil, American empire. Hollywood Similarly, in the tradition of Hanoi Jane Fonda, Hollywood plays a highly visible role in opposing the Iraq war and in spearheading demonstrations. Fonda is back in the anti-war fray as Jihad Jane joined by actors Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and others. Before the invasion by coalition forces, Penn embarked on a “fact finding mission” in Iraq, where he met with Saddam Hussein. In a propaganda coup for the anti-war movement and the Baathists, Penn proclaimed to the media that the United States had initiated the war effort on false and illegitimate premises and declared that Iraq was free of weapons of mass destruction. Since then, the Hollywood anti-war cabal has threatened the political future of elected representatives unwilling to support the recent, nonbinding resolution against the war. As Hollywood stars use their celebrity in their attempts to sabotage the U.S. war effort, they fail to mention Saddam’s rape rooms, gassing of Kurds and murder of children in front of their parents. These movie stars deny the valiant purpose of the U.S. mission and its committed and brave soldiers. Instead, they give aid, comfort and legitimacy to the enemy. Mass Media As in the Vietnam era, the media has become the propaganda machine for the anti-war movement, using the same tactics of the 1960s and 1970s. The overwhelmingly negative and biased reporting of the Vietnam War era is very much in evidence in today’s Iraq coverage. The press continually advances the notion that life was better for the Iraqis under Saddam, minimizes the atrocities committed by Saddam and his henchman, and focuses instead on the U.S. role in “destabilizing” Iraq. The “good news” about economic recovery, business successes, progress made by the Iraqi government and improvements in public services are ignored in favor of stories of civil strife. Every attack on American soldiers and Iraqis is magnified and featured prominently, while successes are largely ignored or reported in passing. Few news stories focus on the heroism and generosity of American troops. Any hint of malfeasance, allegations of combat errors or misconduct on the part of the U.S. military gets center stage. U.S. forces are portrayed as an enemy as dangerous or even more so, than the terrorist groups they fight. U.S. soldiers are portrayed as acting without regard to the rule of law and abusing the rights of captured “insurgents.” Schools Equally reminiscent of the ’60s and ’70s, university and high school campuses are hotbeds for anti-American and anti-war sentiments. Prior to the inception of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the “Books Not Bombs” strike was coordinated on campuses nationwide by the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, whose members include the Young Communist League, USA, and the Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada. This anti-war protest was endorsed by professors in a wide variety of disciplines, from economics to biology, who cancelled classes or assured anti-war students they would not be penalized for absences. Some professors even focused the day’s class material on the potential war. Thus, a majority of institutions of higher education appeared to expect conformity of anti-war opinion and, in some cases, actually imposed the strike on the student population. This behavior continues today as literature and anthropology professors use classroom time to express their opinions against the war and pressure students to toe their ideological line. Often, students who agree with the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq jeopardize their grades by coming forward. They are treated with disdain and even disrespect in the classroom. Returning Iraq war veterans have been insulted, harassed and called “baby killers” in university classrooms. The Military Finally, as was the case during the U.S. fight against communism in Southeast Asia, the mission of the military has been undermined by blatant hostility and blanket condemnations. Venomous slurs have been directed toward the dedicated servicemen and women who toppled a brutal dictator, struggled against radical Islamists, and fought for a better life for the Iraqi people. Politicians have been extremely negative. For example, Illinois senator Barrack Obama referred to the “wasted” lives of our soldiers. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry insulted the intelligence of our armed forces by proclaiming that people end up in the military if they’re not smart or studious. Anti-military groups have tried to stop military recruitment drives and job fair participation in high schools and on college campuses. Even though all recruits today are committed volunteers who believe in the U.S. mission, anti-war activists portray them as victims, mercenaries or butchers. Isolated military improprieties committed by a few soldiers, like the Haditha incident and the Abu Ghraib scandal, receive outsized attention and are portrayed as representative of all military conduct. The slightest hint of misconduct is used to characterize all recruits and to malign the entire military mission. Anti-militarism has even been expressed by sweeping, local government measures. The city of San Francisco has engaged in various actions to rid itself of any relationship whatsoever to the military. Residents recently passed a symbolic measure demanding the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and prohibiting recruitment at high schools and colleges. City residents tried to stop Navy sponsorship of a summer concert, successfully blocked the docking of the USS Iowa at the Port of San Francisco and are trying to eliminate Fleet Week and the Blue Angels air shows. Congress In Congress, many Democrats and several Republicans are invoking the Vietnam “quagmire” descriptive to support demands to curtail the Iraq war and withdraw U.S. troops. The Democrat electorate has chosen to interpret recent election results as a sign that the public is opposed to the war, rather than opposed to the way the war is being fought. According to a recent national survey by Public Opinion Strategies, a majority of Americans (57) wants to win the war in Iraq and makes the connection between Iraq and the global jihad. Fifty-three percent feel the Democrats are acting precipitously in pushing for immediate withdrawal and a majority (56) also believes that Americans should stand behind the president in times of war. Most telling, 74 of those surveyed disagreed with the statement, “I don’t care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves. I just want the troops brought home.” Last week, on the same day that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki told Bush that the new security plan and heightened troop presence in Baghdad were “a dazzling success,” the House passed a non-binding resolution rejecting Bush’s 21,500-troop surge in Iraq. In the Senate, the resolution was just four votes short of the sixty required for cloture, which would have limited debate on the resolution and ensured passage. As a consequence of this narrow defeat, Democrats have pledged to repeal a 2002 measure authorizing and defining the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq. With no consideration of how this plays with the enemy, the morale of U.S. troops and the U.S. ground troops’ ability to build alliances with Iraqis, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement that the invasion of Iraq was “the worst foreign policy mistake” in U.S. history. In further attempts to block the deployment of more troops, House Democrats hope to restrict parts of a $100 billion emergency military funding request by the President. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and other Democrats have joined forces with anti-war groups to limit the President’s powers as Commander-In-Chief. Murtha and company plan to attach stipulations to any military appropriations; embark on a multi-million dollar, anti-war advertising campaign; and target vulnerable Republicans. Murtha is also seeking legislation as part of what he calls his “slow bleed strategy.” It would prevent military units from being deployed unless they meet certain standards and receive a break of at least one year between deployments. This damaging action by politicians and their failure to support the U.S. government “destroys morale, stymies success and emboldens the enemy,” says Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), a former Vietnam prisoner of war. “Words cannot fully describe the horrendous damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground,” Johnson said. “We must stick by ‘the troops.’ We must support them all the way. To our troops we must remain always faithful.” This inattention to the message being sent to our soldiers is part of the broader failure by Iraq war opponents to recognize the dire consequences of U.S. withdrawal. It completely escapes opponents of the war on all fronts anti-war activists, Hollywood, colleges and universities and politicians that the conflict is not regional and one from which we can walk away without harm. It is positively stunning that they fail to recognize that Iraq could fall to Islamic terrorists. If this happened, Iraq would be a fertile base for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and a haven from which emboldened terrorists could attack U.S. allies and interests and threaten the very existence of our nation.
	13	+
	14	+Homefront moral is key to the war on terror and preventing future attacks – funding, mandate and morale. Snavely 02
	15	+Christopher B. Snavely, HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON DEVELOPING AND MAINTAINING HOMEFRONT MORALE FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM, NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL, June 2002 EE
	16	+Persuasion is the ultimate purpose of every terrorist action and relies on both the rallying of ones own morale combined with the degradation of the opposition’s morale. Terrorism hopes to provide "propaganda by deed," whereby a terrorist act seeks to “awaken the consciousness of the people” to their cause. Laqueur By inducing a western escalation of the conflict, al-Qaeda hopes to provide the catalyst for an Arab revolution in opposition to the West. The coalition of Arab states would constitute a force capable of threatening the prosperity of western civilization, and therefore capable of forcing the withdrawal of western presence in the Middle East. Terrorism also seeks to undermine homefront support of American foreign policy. Al-Qaeda hopes to meet their 3 political aims by having a dramatic effect on the American will to fight. By inflicting, or threatening to inflict significant damage to the United States and its populace, al-Qaeda hopes to force the American public into opposition of the governments Middle East policy. Tugwell, pg. 68 By developing and maintaining homefront morale the American government would deny the terrorists the effect their attacks intend. Further, The War on Terrorism will undoubtedly be a protracted campaign, requiring a great deal of budgetary investment. In order to assure continued monetary support for the war effort, the public must believe that victory is possible. Public support for the war will lead to political support for the war, which in turn will lead to budgetary support. Armed with the necessary funds and political mandate, the government will be empowered to take the necessary measures to prevent further attacks and effectively prosecute the terrorist networks. Maurice Tugwell, author of Terrorism as a Psychological Strategy, claims that a military campaign can only exist if the warring nation meets three psychological criteria. The three convictions, termed the Mobilizing Trinity, consist of the following: First, a belief in something good to be promoted or defended; Second, a belief in something evil to be destroyed or resisted; Third, a belief in the ultimate victory of the good cause. Tugwell, pg. 70 4 While it cannot do so alone, a homefront morale campaign can aid in meeting the criteria by serving as the intermediary between the public and the cause. The development and implementation of a campaign for homefront morale can help form the public’s perception of what is at stake, who the enemy is, and the prospect of victory. The question thus becomes how should the U.S. government develop, maintain, and regulate public support for the war?
	17	+
	18	+A single coordinated attack escalates and kills billions Myhrvold 2014
	19	+Myhrvold 2014 (Nathan P chief executive and founder of Intellectual Ventures and a former chief technology officer at Microsoft; Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action; cco.dodlive.mil/files/2014/04/Strategic_Terrorism_corrected_II.pdf; kdf)
	20	+Technology contains no inherent moral directive—it empowers people, whatever their intent, good or evil. This has always been true: when bronze implements supplanted those made of stone, the ancient world got scythes and awls, but also swords and battle-axes. The novelty of our present situation is that modern technology can provide small groups of people with much greater lethality than ever before. We now have to worry that private parties might gain access to weapons that are as destructive as—or possibly even more destructive than— those held by any nation-state. A handful of people, perhaps even a single individual, could have the ability to kill millions or even billions. Indeed, it is possible, from a technological standpoint, to kill every man, woman, and child on earth. The gravity of the situation is so extreme that getting the concept across without seeming silly or alarmist is challenging. Just thinking about the subject with any degree of seriousness numbs the mind. The goal of this essay is to present the case for making the needed changes before such a catastrophe occurs. The issues described here are too important to ignore. Failing nation-states—like North Korea—which possess nuclear weapons potentially pose a nuclear threat. Each new entrant to the nuclear club increases the possibility this will happen, but this problem is an old one, and one that existing diplomatic and military structures aim to manage. The newer and less understood danger arises from the increasing likelihood that stateless groups, bent on terrorism, will gain access to nuclear weapons, most likely by theft from a nation-state. Should this happen, the danger we now perceive to be coming from rogue states will pale in comparison. The ultimate response to a nuclear attack is a nuclear counterattack. Nation states have an address, and they know that we will retaliate in kind. Stateless groups are much more difficult to find which makes a nuclear counterattack virtually impossible. As a result, they can strike without fear of overwhelming retaliation, and thus they wield much more effective destructive power. Indeed, in many cases the fundamental equation of retaliation has become reversed. Terrorists often hope to provoke reprisal attacks on their own people, swaying popular opinion in their favor. The aftermath of 9/11 is a case in point. While it seems likely that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hoped for a massive overreaction from the United States, it is unlikely his Taliban hosts anticipated the U.S. would go so far as to invade Afghanistan. Yes, al-Qaeda lost its host state and some personnel. The damage slowed the organization down but did not destroy it. Instead, the stateless al-Qaeda survived and adapted. The United States can claim some success against al-Qaeda in the years since 9/11, but it has hardly delivered a deathblow. Eventually, the world will recognize that stateless groups are more powerful than nation-states because terrorists can wield weapons and mount assaults that no nationstate would dare to attempt. So far, they have limited themselves to dramatic tactical terrorism: events such as 9/11, the butchering of Russian schoolchildren, decapitations broadcast over the internet, and bombings in major cities. Strategic objectives cannot be far behind.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-08 16:15:29.879

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Panel

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook NS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+79

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Octas

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Engel Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JAN-FEB - DA - Moral

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Berkeley