Stefan BauschardPotential Resolutions

I think any of the resolutions fair game for the topic committee to come up with based on additional research.

Resolved: The United States should substantially reduce its military presence in one or more of the following: Afghanistan, Iraq, [Iran,] Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Syria, Japan, Korea [add or subtract more countries]

Resolved: The United States should substantially alter its military presence in one or more of the following: Afghanistan, Iraq, [Iran,] Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Syria, Japan, Korea [add or subtract more countries]

*Resolved: The United States should substantially either increase or decrease its military presence in one or more of the following: Afghanistan, Iraq, [Iran,] Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Syria, [Japan, Korea,] [add or subtract more countries, TBD on Korea and/or Japan]

*My favorite, though not necessarily convinced of J/K. I think there are a couple problems with J/K

(a) Increase plans would move in the direction of the status quo(b) There arent many mainstream proposals for decreases.

I wouldnt exclude at this point, but Im skeptical of the desirability of including.

Also, if the TC thinks there is a better term than military presence, I think it is fair for them to change it. I simply went with that based on experience and available definitions.

I put Iran in [ ] because the case to attack Iran seems terrible and there is probably on minimal (at best) military presence in Iran now, but it might not HURT to include it in the resolution. If someone wants to run bomb Iran Aff, best of luck to them.

Decrease could replace reduce. Some reduce definitions are included.

Rationale

The Pros and Cons of US military intervention in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Estonia, Latvia, Lituania, and Syria are one of the hottest topics for geopolitical debate at the moment. The nature and role of US military intervention in East Asia and how this relates to South Korea and particularly Japan is always a hot topic for debates and can even interest with these other areas through resource and diplomatic competition.

In the instances of Iraq and Afghanistan, the US had either reduced presence almost to zero (Iraq) or had intended on reducing it to zero (Afghanistan), but has reduced withdrawal plans (Afghanistan) and actually increased military presence (Iraq). And there is a continued debate about intervention in Syria. Debates about increasing or decreasing US military presence focus on instability in these countries, Sunni-Shiite conflicts, the growing influence of Iran, the price of oil, threats to Israel, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other forums of terrorism. New evidence emerges on these topics issues every single day and there are strong advocates for both increasing and decreasing our military presence in these regions.

Similarly, in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, (and Poland), where the US has recently deployed 3,000 troops to support training and a show of force, there are both advocates for increased military presence and critics who argue that such intervention is saber-rattling and risks conflict. In addition to arguments about US military and diplomatic credibility, these arguments intersect debates about the threat from Russia (both to these countries and generally) as well as overall US global leadership. Evidence is published daily on these disputes.

In regards to Asia, especially Japan and Korea, there is a substantial of timely (though not daily) literature about the merits of the US Japan alliance, especially in regard to the Asia pivot, which is a highly contested idea. This obviously strongly intersects the rise of China. These are all interesting debates, though Im less convinced they are critical to include in the topic, if only because they add a whole other part of the world.

I almost hate to write about critical arguments independently, because there is a direct intersection between more theoretical arguments and policy-specific arguments on this topic that are related to militarism, imperialism, orientalism, realism/idealism, feminism in foreign policy, and terror talk. Obviously the list could go on. There is not shortage of theoretical ground, much of which can be topically accessed.

My favorite resolution is bidirectional, but I it does limit the Affirmative plan from going in both directions at the same time.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, PolandStatus Quo

US has deployed 3,000 trainers in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania

Howard Koplowitz, 3-9-15, http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-crisis-us-sending-3000-troops-latvia-estonia-lithuania-military-exercises-1840934

The United States is sending 3,000 soldiers near Russias doorstep for training exercises with the militaries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Associated Press reported Monday. The deployment by the Pentagon comes amid rising tensions with Russia on the crisis in Ukraine, in which most of the West accuses Moscow of instigating the military conflict between pro-Russia separatists and the Ukrainian military. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are all NATO countries that gained membership in the alliance in 2004. About 750 U.S. tanks, helicopters and other equipment are scheduled to arrive in the Latvian capital of Riga next Monday, Army Col. Steve Warren told the AP. The military exercises are expected to last three months, although Army Gen. John OConner said the equipment will stay for as long as required to deter Russian aggression, according to the Russian news agency Tass.

Operation Atlantic Resolve

Cheryl Pellerin, 1-12-15, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123954

U.S. Army troops resumed Operation Atlantic Resolve land-forces training of allied and partner forces this week as 75 Stryker combat vehicles arrived in Eastern Europe, Pentagon Press spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said today. The training will take place in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, Warren added, and continues to demonstrate U.S. commitment to NATO allies.The Stryker combat vehicles are from U.S. Army Europes 2nd Cavalry Regiment, elements of which will conduct training in Eastern Europe alongside soldiers from allied and partner nations, Warren said, adding that much of the training will focus on individual and team tasks.Defense Department spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. Vanessa Hillman said the training also will include combined, multinational platoon-level exercises and live fires involving a combination of vehicle and foot-soldier maneuvers.

West hems in Russia a little -- https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/west-hems-russia-little-little

NATO: Response to the crisis in Ukraine and Security Concerns in Eastern and Central Europehttps://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43478.pdf

Support of EE Deployment

Article -- http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/the-baltic-states-why-the-united-states-must-strengthen-security-cooperation

Website -- http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0514_atlanticresolve/

Website -- http://www.eur.army.mil/atlanticresolve/Baltic countries welcome US support -- http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/23/amid-fear-of-russian-invasion-baltic-countries-welcome-us-support/

Ramping up in Europe -- http://archive.militarytimes.com/section/SPECIAL15/Ramping-up-in-Europe

Russia danger to Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia -- http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31528981

Peace is over for the Baltic States -- http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/04/03/the-baltic-states/

Stop Putin aggression with US forces in Eastern Europe

Opposition to EE Deployment

http://rt.com/op-edge/239201-us-nato-troops-baltic-states/

RT, 3-10-15, http://rt.com/op-edge/239201-us-nato-troops-baltic-states/

JJ: No, I do not think so. This is again just a show of force and partly it exposes NATOs and Washingtons impotence over events in Ukraine. Now that we see much more that the Europeans seemed to be decoupling their policy from Washingtons guidance, I think there is a sense of frustration that our hold over European security through NATO is somewhat in danger. So this is a political show even more than a military show.RT: Will this be more reassuring or will this potentially increase tension in and around Europe?JJ: I think it increases tensions in the sense that for the US to insert this kind of force in the Baltic states right on Russias doorstep simply adds insult to injury to the fact that we have expanded NATO so extensively in Russias direction not for any legitimate security purpose but simply because we can, it looked like a cost-free exercise at the time it was done. Now that the tensions are rising between the US and Russia, there are costs associated with it. It does contribute to a kind of hair triggered atmosphere which is in nobodys interests.

Dangerous Brinkmanshiphttp://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/medialibrary/2014/11/09/6375e3da/Dangerous%20Brinkmanship.pdf

Afghanistan

Status Quo

16,000 troops remain, withdrawal substantially slowed

Craig Whitlock, 2-21-15, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-nears-deal-to-modify-military-pullout-from-afghanistan/2015/02/21/6b3fd530-b9e1-11e4-bc30-a4e75503948a_story.html

The United States and Afghanistan are nearing agreement to rewrite key aspects of their plan for ending U.S. military involvement in the war against Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters here, U.S. and Afghan officials said Saturday.In a joint appearance, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter acknowledged that they are rethinking the pace of the U.S. military withdrawal, the scope and frequency of U.S. counterterrorism raids and whether they should keep U.S. bases open longer than projected. Although they declined to offer more specifics, they indicated that a new deal could be reached as soon as next month, when Ghani is scheduled to visit Washington to meet with President Obama.Afghan officials and U.S. military commanders have previously acknowledged pressing Obama for more leeway in determining how quickly the remaining 10,600 U.S. troops in Afghanistan are withdrawn over the next two years. But the comments Saturday by Ghani and Carter were the clearest sign yet that changes are afoot.

President Obama is considering a number of options to reinforce our support for President Ghanis security strategy, including possible changes to the timeline for our drawdown of U.S. troops, Carter told reporters. Our priority now is to make sure this progress sticks.The U.S. military ended conventional combat operations in Afghanistan on Dec. 31. American troops remain in the country to train and advise about 350,000 Afghan security forces in their fight against the Taliban.

U.S. troop levels are currently scheduled to dwindle to 5,500 by the end of this year and to drop to zero by the time Obama leaves office in early 2017, save for a small residual force based at the large U.S. Embassy compound in Kabul.U.S. military commanders, however, have sought more flexibility in drawing down troop levels over that period as well as broader latitude to conduct counterterrorism raids and airstrikes against Taliban and al-Qaeda targets.Ghani said he was gratified by a recent Obama directive that temporarily kept an extra 1,100 troops in Afghanistan. But he indicated he would not try to lobby Obama to change his mind about completing the U.S. military pullout by the end of his term, saying he respected Obamas decision.Our relationship is not defined by the number of troops, but by the comprehensive nature of the partnership, he added.

At least 9, 8000 will stay until the end of 2015

IB Times, 3-24-15, http://www.ibtimes.com/us-military-afghanistan-2015-9800-troops-remain-place-through-end-year-white-house-1857844

The United States will keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan through the end of 2015, the White House announced Tuesday. The decision to delay the complete withdrawal followed a meeting in Washington between President Barack Obama and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.The number ofAmerican troops was originally slated to fall to 5,500 by years end.We want to make sure we're doing everything we can to help Afghan security forces succeed so we don't have to go back, Obama said in a White House news conference alongside Ghani. He indicated that there are still plans to complete the withdrawal by the end of 2016, fulfilling his pledge to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of his second term. The slowdown in troop withdrawal reflects our reinvigorated partnership with Afghanistan,Obama said.In Ghani'sfirst visit to the White House since being elected six months ago, the Afghan president struck a more conciliatory tone than his predecessor, Hamid Karzai, who often tangled with the Americans. He thanked Obama and the U.S. military in several media appearances Monday and Tuesday and asked for the extended troop presence. "Tragedy brought us together; interests now unite us," said Ghani, who was working in Lower Manhattan when the 9/11 attacks occurred.

More US troops will come as part of Operation Freedom Sentinel

Mint Press News, 1-6-15, http://www.mintpressnews.com/2015-time-new-us-operations-iraq-afghanistan/200501/

Considering the fanfare its capable of, the US military had quite a muted exit from Americas longest war. The mission known as Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) which had been running since the 9/11 attacks of 2001, in Afghanistan and several other countries officially ended late last month.Maybe the celebration was subdued because there was another mission right around the corner. OEF was replaced immediately by Operation Freedoms Sentinel (OFS), otherwise known as the new US mission in Afghanistan. US forces with OFS will also work as part of the new NATO-led Operation Resolute Support, providing the bulk of that operations 12,000 total troops this year and thousands more in 2016.

US troops supposed to be gone by 2017

Military Times, 11-24-14, http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/25/new-rules-afghanistan-taliban-targets-2015/70089962/

New rules for the 9,800 U.S. troops staying in Afghanistan next year will let commanders order airstrikes or night raids on Taliban forces who pose a significant threat to the Afghan government, defense officials said.The rules came in an order recently signed by President Obama that clarified the authorities U.S. military commanders will have after the official end of the combat mission in December.The new rules appear to signal an incremental expansion of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan next year.Six months ago, Obama announced plans to leave 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for 2015 and limit their primary missions to two training and advising the Afghan military and using a small cadre of special operations troops to target al-Qaida "remnants."With the official end of the combat mission requiring a new set of policies and legal authorities, Obama has approved the details of precisely who U.S. military commanders can target. In some cases, it may be Taliban insurgents.Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said Tuesday that U.S. troops would continue targeting some, though not all, Taliban militants, and may also provide field-level support for Afghan security forces."We won't target Taliban just merely for the sake of the fact they're Taliban and quote-unquote 'belligerents,' " Kirby said.However, he added: "Should members of the Taliban decide to threaten American troops or specifically target or threaten our Afghan partners in a tactical situation, we're going to reserve the right to take action as needed. If they pose a threat directly to our troops or to the Afghan security forces, certainly then they become fair game at that point."U.S. forces also may provide "enabling support" for the Afghan military, which may include airstrikes, medical evacuations or logistical aid."Clearly we know there is going to be some need for some enabling support," Kirby said.Military officials emphasize there are no plans to change the troop levels that Obama committed to Afghanistan in his May announcement, which amount to 9,800 American troops in 2015 and about half that in 2016. Obama's policy will withdraw virtually all U.S. forces from Afghanistan before he leaves office in January 2017.The decision to target some Taliban forces reflects two significant developments over the past several months the resurgence of Islamic militants in Iraq and the new, pro-American government in Afghanistan.Many U.S. military officials were stunned by the catastrophic collapse of several Iraqi army divisions in May and June as militants loyal to the Islamic State seized large swaths of northern Iraq, including the country's second-largest city, Mosul.The U.S. military had given the Iraqi forces billions of dollars and many years of face-to-face training. But many of those troops simply proved unwilling to fight."People are having second thoughts about their confidence in the ability of host-nation militaries. It's always a risk when your strategy relies on someone else to do the fighting," said Mieke Eoyang, director of the National Security Program at Third Way.Also influencing the American mission in Afghanistan is the election of a new president who is far more supportive of U.S. military support than his predecessor.Ashraf Ghani was elected in September and promptly signed a deal with the U.S. to keep American troops there beyond December.

But US troops will participate as part of NATOs Operations Freedom Sentinel

The Times, 1-22-15, http://theweek.com/articles/534816/2015-time-some-new-operations-iraq-afghanistan

Maybe the celebration was subdued because there was another mission right around the corner. OEF was replaced immediately by Operation Freedoms Sentinel (OFS), otherwise known as the new U.S. mission in Afghanistan. U.S. forces with OFS will also work as part of the new NATO-led Operation Resolute Support, providing the bulk of that operation's 12,000 total troops this year and thousands more in 2016.

Post-2014 Afghanistan & the Looming Consequences of Strategic MisappreciationOriginal Research Article Pages 181-198 Thomas F. Lynch III

The fast-moving events of Syria and Iraq in 2014 demonstrated the enormous risk to U.S. security interests when America and its allies have too little intelligence presence or operational agility in an area rife with insurgency and terrorist outfits. The United States cannot fix the region or eliminate the major challenges to security most dominant within Afghanistan. However, America can be better postured to support the already faltering Afghan National Security Force, better aware of the rapidly evolving jihadist militant milieu in the Af-Pak region, and better informed than it might otherwise be about the evolving nature of Indo-Pakistani proxy hostilities playing out across the border region. The promised post-2014 U.S./NATO military presence is insufficient to meet these major requirements.

Should Increase Military Presence

CNN, Why the US Should Leave Troops in Afghanistan beyond 2016http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/21/opinions/bergen-leave-troops-in-afghanistan/

The first state visit to the United States of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah was supposed to take place in early March. But the visit was delayed because Republican leaders had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress during the same time period.According to two Afghan government officials involved in the planning for the visit, the Afghan government believed American media attention would be largely focused on Netanyahu, so the first U.S. visit of the new Afghan president was delayed by two weeks, which is a useful reminder that there is a sound reason why congressional leaders shouldn't unilaterally extend invitations to foreign leaders.Ghani and Abdullah arrived in Washington on Sunday and have had much to discuss with the Obama administration. For the Afghan government, the timetable of President Barack Obama's proposed troop withdrawal is the key issue.

Obama says that the last American troops will leave Afghanistan at the end of 2016. This happens to roughly coincide with the end of his second term in office and also fulfills his campaign promise to wind down America's post-9/11 wars.Ghani is clearly uncomfortable with the pace of this U.S. troop withdrawal, telling CBS' "60 Minutes" in January, "deadlines should not be dogmas" and that there should be a "willingness to reexamine" the withdrawal date.Is Obama's withdrawal plan a wise policy?Short answer: Of course not.One only has to look at the debacle that has unfolded in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of 2011 to have a sneak preview of what could take place in an Afghanistan without some kind of residual American presence.Without American forces in the country, there is a strong possibility Afghanistan could host a reinvigorated Taliban allied to a reinvigorated al Qaeda, not to mention ISIS, which is gaining a foothold in the region.Needless to say, this would be a disaster for Afghanistan. But it would also be quite damaging to U.S. interests to have some kind of resurgent al Qaeda in the country where the group trained the hijackers for the 9/11 attacks.It would also be disastrous for the Democratic Party, should it win the presidency in 2016, to be the party that "lost" Afghanistan.After all, the Democratic Party is viewed by some as weaker on national security than the Republicans and it is inevitable that without some kind of residual American presence in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would gain sufficient strength to launch an attack from the Afghan-Pakistan border region against American interests somewhere in the world.On Tuesday, President Obama announced that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan would be slowed and the remaining 9,800 troops would stay there through the end of 2015. But this welcome development does not change the central issue, which is the Obama administration's withdrawal date of December 2016 for all U.S. forces.Merely because the Obama administration will be almost out the door at the end of 2016 doesn't mean that suddenly at the same time that the Taliban will lay down their arms, nor that the Afghan army will be able to fight the Taliban completely unaided. Nor does it mean that al Qaeda -- and ISIS, which is beginning to establish small cells in Afghanistan -- would cease to be a threat.An easy way for potential Democratic presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton to distinguish their national security policies from Obama's would be to say that they are in favor of some kind of long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and to argue that it would be needed to avoid an Iraq-style outcome.Similarly, as the Republican Party starts ramping up for the 2016 campaign, potential candidates such as Jeb Bush can distinguish themselves from the isolationist Rand Paul wing of the party by saying that they are committed to a long-term presence in Afghanistan.This U.S. military presence in Afghanistan doesn't have to be a large, nor does it need to play a combat role, but U.S. troops should remain in Afghanistan to advise the Afghan army and provide intelligence support.Such a long-term commitment of several thousand American troops is exactly the kind of force that the Obama administration was forced to deploy to Iraq following ISIS's lightning advances there over the past year.Selling a longer-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would be pushing against an open door with that nation's government. Consider that within 24 hours of being installed, the new Afghan government led by Ghani and Abdullah signed the basing agreement that allows American troops to stay in Afghanistan until December 2016.Consider also that the Afghan government has already negotiated a strategic partnership agreement with the United States lasting until 2024 that would provide the framework for a longer term U.S. military presence. Consider also that many Afghans see a relatively small, but long-term international troop presence as a guarantor of their stability.It is also not in Pakistan's interests for Afghanistan to fall to the Taliban or be thrust into another civil war. The Pakistanis have seen for themselves repeatedly the folly of allowing the Taliban to flourish on their own soil, most recently in the Taliban attack in December on the army school in Peshawar that killed 132 children.It is in Pakistan's own interest that the Afghan army is able to fight effectively against the Taliban, which is more likely if they continue to have American advisers at their side.Other regional powers such as the Chinese worry about Chinese Uighur separatists establishing themselves on Afghan soil. The Russians are similarly worried about Islamist terrorist groups located in Afghanistan and so will not stand in the way of a small long-term U.S. military presence in Afghanistan as that would dovetail with their own security concerns about the country.Keeping a relatively small, predominantly U.S. Special Forces, presence in Afghanistan to continue to train the Afghan army past December 2016 is a wise policy that would benefit both Afghans and Americans.Both the Democratic and Republican parties should adopt such a plan in their platforms as they gear up for the 2016 campaign. And Obama should do his successor a favor by leaving this important decision up to the next President.

Should establish a security partnership

Michael OHanlon, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/01/07-protecting-afghanistan-gains-ohanlon

U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan has declined 90% from peak levels. With Afghan security forces exceeding 350,000 troops, the real question is deciding how fast and to what extent to further downsize. For Afghan security, regional stability, and continued access to bases on Afghan territory that allow us to suppress al-Qaeda in Pakistan, it is time to stop thinking in terms of an exitand start thinking about an enduring, if limited, security partnership. This may mean a few thousand troops and a couple of billion dollars a year in aid for a sustained period. But whatever that cost, it is a much smaller price than the U.S. and international community have paid in recent yearsand a far lower price than another 9/11.

Should Sustain Military Presence

Should sustain bases

OHanlon, Brookings, 2-20-15, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/02/20-us-bases-in-afghanistan-ohanlon

The Obama administration has the wrong mind-set on our future U.S. military posture in Afghanistan. Exit should not be the strategy or objective. Protection of the homeland is the right metric. Instead of trying to leave by a given date, we should be planning to stay. The guiding philosophy should be to build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan to finally provide a real payoff for all our investment there in durable bases allowing our forces to continue to target our most dangerous enemies in a part of the world where they still organize and operate.Such counterterrorism capabilities have little to do with the nation-building enterprise in Afghanistan of the past 13 years. That mission is nearly done to a practical extent, and while Obama is being ambitious in his hopes that it can be finished before 2017, there is logic in trying to largely complete the job by then. There is, however, little logic in eliminating our regional counterterrorism capability by that point. We will almost surely still need it. We should have learned from recent experiences in Iraq and Syria, as well as Libya, Mali and other countries, that we cannot end the terrorist threat in a given country on our own timetable.Of course, the pace of drone strikes and raids in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, historically used by al-Qaeda and affiliates, can and should decline. Indeed, according to the Long War Journal, it already has for example, after peaking at more than 100 in 2010, the number of U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan fell to 24 in 2014. But some need endures. Moreover, if extremists knew that the United States no longer had capabilities in the Pashtun belts, they would probably increase their presence there.It is not realistic for the United States to expect Afghan forces to pursue al-Qaeda and its offshoots for us after we leave the country. First, Afghanistan has no capability to fly drones in Pakistan; even if we could successfully transfer the needed assets and expertise to the Afghans, an unlikely prospect, such strikes would probably cause a crisis in Afghan-Pakistani relations. Second, inside their own country, Afghanistans army and police will continue to have their hands full with the Taliban. They may not have the capacity to go after key al-Qaeda-linked targets, many of which matter much more to us than to them.Keeping two to three U.S. bases in eastern Afghanistan Bagram near Kabul, Kandahar in the south, perhaps Khost or Jalalabad in the east would be adequate for counterterrorism purposes. With two or three operating areas, each with 1,000 to 2,000 Americans, the United States would have assets within 150 miles or less of the key areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is a comfortable tactical operating distance for both drones and helicopters carrying commandos.Maintaining these bases might cost $5 billion to $10 billion per year. That is real money, but it is less than the effective cost of keeping naval assets in the Arabian Sea to do the same job much less well. It is far less than the $100 billion a year we spent at the peak of the war. And it is immeasurably less than the cost that could result from another large-scale terrorist attack against the United States.Although the main purpose of such an enduring U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would be counterterrorism, there could be additional benefits. We could continue to mentor modest numbers of Afghan forces at those bases, above and beyond the training mission that will continue in Kabul under Obamas plan. These added forces could also provide us with political leverage that could reduce the chances of civil war in Afghanistan. This is the kind of leverage that we lost in Iraq after our 2011 departure with tragic results.With this approach, Obama will still have ended the main combat phase of two major wars on his watch. This legacy would be secure. More important, the United States would be more secure, too

IraqStatus Quo3400 trainers in Iraq

Global Post, 1-6-15, http://www.mintpressnews.com/2015-time-new-us-operations-iraq-afghanistan/200501/

The US significantly re-engaged in Iraq on Aug. 8, 2014, when airstrikes began against IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL, in Iraq and Syria. Operation Inherent Resolve has been underway for five months (though the operation wasnt given a name until Oct. 15), and now includes a training element: 2,100 US troops are working with Iraqi and Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, providing strategic advice, assistance, and tactical training. That number is likely to increase to 3,400 by the end of January, to train an estimated 12 Iraqi brigades.The US spent a billion dollars fighting IS in the first four months of Operation Inherent Resolve. The Pentagon says current operations against IS run them about $8 million dollars a day.Much like in Afghanistan, US personnel in Iraq are not being explicitly assigned to combat roles. But their work with local militaries and targeting of extremists could mean they get caught up in fighting.As of 2013, some 2.5 million US servicemembers had deployed one or more times to Iraq or Afghanistan. Their ranks will grow a little larger this year.Should Increase Military Presence in Iraq

Ground troops needed to overtake Mosul, air campaign fails

Zach Coleman, February 8, 2015, Lawmakers squabble over ground troops to fight Islamic State, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawmakers-squabble-over-ground-troops-to-fight-islamic-state/article/2559971 DOA: 3-1-15

United States military officials are assessing whether American soldiers are needed on the ground. Central Command officials worry Iraqi forces might not be able to overtake Islamic State strongholds in Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city. The U.S. is a member of a 60-nation coalition that has since September conducted airstrikes against the Islamic State. Secretary of State John Kerry said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the U.S. was "on the road" to defeating the Islamic State, but didn't say whether ground troops would be part of the future strategy. Hawkish Republicans who have long pressed Obama for more decisive, aggressive action to curb the Sunni terrorist group's advances are calling for a U.S. ground presence. Sen. Lindsey Graham last week on CBS's "Face the Nation" suggested the U.S. should send 10,000 U.S. troops to areas the Islamic State has carved out to impose caliphate. "An aerial campaign will not destroy them," Graham said, adding, "You're going to need boots on the ground, not only in Iraq, but in Syria."Iraq military cant retake Mosul

Jason Ditiz, February 20, 2015, MINT Press Review, US Ground Troops likely to join Iraqs fight against ISIS, http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-ground-troops-likely-to-join-iraqs-fight-against-isis/202307/ DOA: 3-1-15

Despite official denials, the US war on ISIS has been careening toward another ground war in both Iraq and Syria. The latest reports suggest the ground component of this war could be very soon to beginning. US officials are now saying that the offensive against the ISIS-held city of Mosul will be supported by the US, with both airstrikes and if necessary US ground troops backing the Iraqi military. This offensive could begin as soon as April. The if necessary qualifier means the US involvement is all but certain, as the Pentagon has repeatedly said they dont believe Iraqs military is even close to being able to take a major city like Mosul on their own.Attack on Mosul will not succeed without US ground troops

Maggie Ybarra, The Washington Times, February 20, 2015, U.S. plans large-scale operation to take Mosul from Islamic State, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/19/us-plans-large-scale-operation-take-mosul-islamic-/?page=all DOA: 3-2-15The U.S. is planning to join a large-scale air and ground coalition offensive to free Mosul, Iraq, from the clutches of Islamic State militants in coming weeks, but analysts fear the effort will lack the resources to succeed - most notably U.S. boots on the ground. The plan, part of a larger undertaking dubbed Operation Inherent Resolve, will be the first challenge for Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in trying to balance the expectations of the White House with the needs of the military. Many policy analysts say the choices Mr. Carter makes in the Iraq operation will be indicative of his style of leadership at the Pentagon. In June, the Islamic State - also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS - took the northern city of more than 1 million people, Iraq's second-largest, after waging a violent assault that prompted Iraqi police to flee their posts. The size of the Islamic State's presence in the region was estimated to be as high as 14,000, although U.S. officials say they don't have a good current estimate. The U.S. military has spent months preparing for the large-scale operation, which will depend largely on the tactical strength of Iraqi security forces, Kurdish fighters, tribal police and warplanes belonging to various members of the 40-nation coalition, which includes Jordan and Britain. International forces have been trying to isolate Mosul by cutting off communication lines between members living within the city and outside forces.Pentagon officials say the effort to reclaim Mosul is likely to launch the spring, soon after Mr. Carter has been brought up to speed on the coalition's strategy and operational needs. An official for U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, told reporters Thursday that a force of 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqi security forces, Kurdish fighters and regional police will be tapped to defeat the 1,000 to 2,000 Islamic State militants who are camped out in Mosul. That attack depends on whether international forces are able to quickly train Iraqi and Kurdish fighters. The military may change its plans if the delivery of pertinent combat equipment is delayed or if more training is needed, the official said. "The mark on the wall that we are still shooting for is the April-May time frame," the official said. "There's still a lot of things that need to come together, and as we dialogue with our Iraqi counterparts, we want them to go in that time frame because if you get into Ramadan in the summer in the heat, it becomes problematic if it goes much later than that."

Without ground troops, efforts to recapture Mosul will fail

Jim Michaels, February 25, 2015, USA Today, Will US troops be drawn back into Iraq war?, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/02/25/mosul/23955799/ DOA: 3-1-15

WASHINGTON A coming Iraqi offensive to drive the Islamic State out of Iraq's second-largest city renews a debate on whether U.S. forces should play a larger role in the operation despite the risk of drawing them back into a war.The White House has pledged to keep American forces out of combat, but Iraq would suffer a major setback in Mosul if its troops falter because U.S. advisers are restricted in what they can do, security analysts say. Failure to retake Mosul from the militants would "reverse all the gains we made since August," when the United States launched airstrikes to stem the Islamic State's advances in Iraq, said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. "A lot is riding on this operation," said David Barno, a retired lieutenant general. There are about 3,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, including hundreds of trainers and advisers. They are limited largely to protected bases, not any battlefield, because of White House concern that an expanded military role could lead to "mission creep," the slow expansion of involvement in another war four years after U.S. combat troops withdrew from Iraq.

Combat Troops Needed to Prevent Genocide

Combat troops needed to prevent Christian genocide in Iraq

Simon Caldwell, February 10, 2015, Catholic Philly, Iraq Needs US Ground Troops to Fight ISIS, http://catholicphilly.com/2015/02/news/world-news/archbishop-iraq-needs-u-s-boots-on-ground-to-fight-islamic-state/ DOA: 3-1-15

Chaldean Catholic archbishop called for the redeployment of U.S. and British troops in Iraq to prevent the genocide of Christians and other minorities by Islamic State militants. Archbishop Bashar Warda of Irbil, Iraq, said he believed the U.S. had a duty to finish the mission in his country by ridding the Ninevah Plain of extremists who last summer drove some 120,000 Christians from their homes. He described the Islamic State as a cancer which had to be cut out if it was not to infect future generations of Muslims and create a potentially greater threat than Afghanistan under the Taliban and al-Qaida. I would like to see American or European or international troops alongside Iraqi troops working to liberate these lands, not alone but together, he told Catholic News Service after meeting with some British politicians in the House of Lords Feb. 9. Definitely, I would like to see more involvement more airstrikes, because that is also needed, he said. U.S. military expertise and resources were crucial in defeating the Islamic State, he told CNS, because neither the Iraqi army nor the Kurdish Peshmerga militia were sufficiently trained or equipped for the job. They (the Americans) know how to tackle these terrorist groups, said Archbishop Warda. The sooner they finish the mission the better, because this is a cancer which needs to be stopped and treated, because otherwise we would have generations of people growing up with the Islamic State mentality. He added: We have to stop this cancer now, and we have to go for very difficult measures sometimes and very difficult decisions. We have got 1.8 million displaced people in Kurdistan, he added. It is not just Christians; everyone is there.Ground Troops Generally NeededGround troops needed to defeat ISISJonathan Broder, Newsweek, February 27, 2015, Jordan Goes All in Against ISIS, but for How Long, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/27/jordan-goes-all-against-isis-how-long-306093.html DOA: 3-2-15The addition of Jordanian troops into the fray would be a welcome development in Washington, where ground forces remain a highly sensitive topic. Military experts say somebody's ground troops--be they American, Iraqi or Arab--will be required to prevail against ISIS. Until now, Iraqi Kurds and Shiite militias have been holding the line against ISIS on the ground, assisted by U.S.-led airstrikes.ISIS cant be defeated without ground troops

RT.com, October 21, 2014, McCain Insists on Sending US ground troops to Iraq, Syra, http://rt.com/usa/197916-mccain-troops-syria-iraq/ DOA: 3-1-15

The longtime senator from Arizona said over the weekend that he would use his perch on the committee to advocate sending ground troops to buttress US-led airstrikes against extremist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS and ISIL), which has come to control large areas of Iraq and Syria since the latters civil war brought the group to prominence. "Frankly, I know of no military expert who believes we are going to defeat ISIS with this present strategy," McCain said at a Pacific Council on International Policy conference, according to The Huffington Post. McCain has hit the campaign trail ahead of election day to support his partys Senate candidates. The GOP has painted President Obamas foreign policy and national security policies as weak as well as insufficient in the fight against jihadist group du jour, Islamic State. "We may be able to 'contain,' but to actually defeat ISIS is going to require more boots on the ground, more vigorous strikes, more special forces, further arming the Kurdish peshmerga forces and creating a no-fly zone and buffer zone in Syria," McCain said. Syrian President Bashar Assad, a fellow foe of Islamic State, must be removed from office if the US wants to see success against extremism in the region, McCain added.10,000 Troop ProposalProposal idea 10,000 ground troops

Eric Pianin, January 27, 2015, Fiscal Times, McCain: Get Ready for US Troops on the Ground in Iraq and Syria, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/01/27/McCain-Get-Ready-US-Troops-Ground-Iraq-and-Syria DOA: 3-1-15The three key components of McCains approach are these:1. Expand the U.S. force in Iraq from the current 2,300 troops to 10,000 to assist Iraqis troops. Rather than keeping U.S. service members confined to bases and headquarters, many of them would be dispatched to the front lines to direct or call in air strikes and take other steps to assist the Iraqis.2. Establish safe zones or no-fly zones in neighboring Syria. McCain initially was reacting to news reports last year that ISIS was attempting to assemble a modest air force with pilots trained by Iraqi military defectors. While that threat has yet to materialize, McCain and administration officials have considered establishing a Syrian no-fly zone to protect civilians from airstrikes by the Syrian government.3. Expand aid and military assistance to moderate Syrian rebels to help them fight back against ISIS and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. AsThe Washington Post noted, Assad appears to be buoyed by months of U.S. and allied air strikes against ISIS that have taken enormous pressure off of him while he continues to destroy rebel forces seeking to topple him.

Should Not Increase Military Presence in Iraq

Military Intervention Increases the ThreatMilitary intervention increases the Islamic State threat

Ramzy Mardini, September 12, 2014, Mardini, is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Councils Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-islamic-state-threat-is-overstated/2014/09/12/acbbebb2-33ad-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html DOA: 3-1-15

A more accurate assessment would be that U.S. military intervention has tremendous propaganda value for the Islamic State, helping it to rally other jihadists to its cause, possibly even Salafists who have so far rejected its legitimacy. Moreover, to the extent that the group poses any threat to the United States, that threat is magnified by a visible U.S. military role. Obamas restraint in the use of military power in recent years has helped keep the Islamic States focus regional on its efforts to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East rather than on launching attacks against the United States. Its only with the U.S. militarys return to Iraq and the prospect of U.S. intervention in Syria that the groups focus has begun to shift.Increasing the US presence will infuriate the Sunnis

Zach Beauchamp, September 18, 2014, Vox, Obama and His Generals, http://www.vox.com/2014/9/18/6338589/obama-generals-isis-iraq DOA 3-1-14

Even if the United States reinvaded Iraq to destroy ISIS which there is no indication it would do there's no guarantee that even this would succeed. The United States did defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq in the late-2000s, but it had lots of Iraqi help. The Bush administration's 2007 troop surge would have failed if the Sunni population wasn't already turning against al-Qaeda there. "I take the somewhat modest position that the action of 6 million Iraqis may be more important than those of 30,000 American troops and one very talented general," Doug Ollivant, the National Security Adviser for Iraq from 2005 to 2009, told me. Without changing Sunni views of ISIS and the Iraqi government, a stepped-up US ground presence might only further infuriate the Sunni population.Iraq war proves ground troops fuel, not arrest insurgencies

Eric Pianin, January 27, 2015, Fiscal Times, McCain: Get Ready for US Troops on the Ground in Iraq and Syria, http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/01/27/McCain-Get-Ready-US-Troops-Ground-Iraq-and-Syria DOA: 3-1-15

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prove that the massive ground forces can't keep insurgencies down. The American invasion of Iraq didn't destroy ISIS. If anything, it gave birth to it. And the nearly decade and a half long occupation of Afghanistan has failed to destroy either al-Qaeda or the Taliban.As a result, Obama's view isn't just that combat troops are risky. It's that the record suggests they actually wouldn't help that much.

Ground war will increase ISIS recruiting

Jason Ditiz, February 20, 2015, MINT Press Review, US Ground Troops likely to join Iraqs fight against ISIS, http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-ground-troops-likely-to-join-iraqs-fight-against-isis/202307/ DOA: 3-1-15

The US war strategy for months has been basically laying out different pitfalls that could force them to launch a ground war in response, including putting 320 lightly armed troops on the front line in Anbar Province as trainers, waiting for them to get attacked so theyd have to be rescued by more ground troops. ISIS has gained enormously from the US war, bolstering their recruitment dramatically across the world. The ground war will likely add to this influx of recruits to resist another American invasion. Ground Troops FailUS cant defeat ISIS in Syria

Zach Beauchamp, September 18, 2014, Vox, Obama and His Generals, http://www.vox.com/2014/9/18/6338589/obama-generals-isis-iraq DOA 3-1-14

The US plan to intervene in Syria against ISIS today short of a full invasion requires enlisting either Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, who benefits from ISIS's existence, or the moderate Syrian rebels, who are disorganized and hard-pressed by Assad already, to coordinate a major offensive. That seems improbable, to say the least.Foreign ground troops fail to arrest insurgencies

Zach Beauchamp, September 18, 2014, Vox, Obama and His Generals, http://www.vox.com/2014/9/18/6338589/obama-generals-isis-iraq DOA 3-1-14

Obama's position isn't unreasonable. A2009 paper by Yale political scientist Jason Lyall and Colonel Isaiah Wilson III, a West Point professor, looked at a dataset of 286 insurgencies between 1800 and 2005.They found that, since World War I, counterinsurgents have tended to lose and foreign occupying troops have a particularly bad success record when fighting local insurgencies. Given America's history in Iraq, and the fact that Iraq's Prime Minister opposes the use of American combat troops, it wouldn't be surprising if Iraqis treated American combat troops like an occupying force.

Not Enough Troops

We wont be able to limit ground troops to 10,000 and ground troops wont stop beheadings

Dayton Daily News, March 1, 2015 , ISIS: What does it want? What should we do?; SHARING ALL SIDES DEALING WITH ISLAMIC STATE, http://www.allsides.com/news/2015-02-16-0743/battle-against-islamic-state-expands-egypt-bombs-libyan-affiliate DOA: 3-1-15

Jim Newell in Salon:The Islamic State may have killed just enough hostages to get the Holy War with the West that it wants. A new CBS poll shows that, for the first time, a majority of Americans (57 percent) are in favor of sending their neighbors' sons to go fight ISIS on the ground. To deploy ground combat troops, into Syria and Iraq, and wherever else they may surface, for a land war. Over the past six months, these figures have jumped a bit higher with each additional round of executions. Since, no matter how many members of ISIS are killed, it will be impossible to stop every last execution, this majority will probably increase. And that makes one wonder, too, how the political rhetoric surrounding the issue of ground troops will change, especially with the hawkish rhetoric arms-race that is a GOP presidential primary just beginning. It may well mean that the consensus GOP candidate opinion goes from a soft "we have to be prepared to send ground troops into Syria and Iraq, if need be" to the harder, Lindsey Graham position of "we have to send in ground troops now - but just like 10,000 or so." We should send in ground troops, but not that many, and not for too long, and without much difficulty. In other words, we'll see the war proposal sold, as they always are, as the ever-elusive "short war" or "weekend war." We just send about 10,000 of our boys in there - into Iraq, into Syria - to kill a bunch of people and then ISIS will be destroyed and the region will be peaceful and we can hightail it out. ... If a politician really thinks that the United States needs to send in ground troops to stop ISIS from consolidating power and spreading, go ahead and make the arguments, but don't assume that it will be easy to prevent from escalating in troop numbers and duration. How will "victory" be defined? Especially since, just as happened in the Iraq war, terrorists worldwide are going to flock to the front lines as soon as the Americans show up, to get a piece of the action.

Successful ground campaign would require 30-50,000 American troops

Dayton Daily News, March 1, 2015 , ISIS: What does it want? What should we do?; SHARING ALL SIDES DEALING WITH ISLAMIC STATE, http://www.allsides.com/news/2015-02-16-0743/battle-against-islamic-state-expands-egypt-bombs-libyan-affiliate DOA: 3-1-15Obama is doing plenty, for now From the Left: by Kevin Drum in Mother Jones: The drumbeat for President Obama to "do something" to fight ISIS is growing louder every day among prospective Republican presidential candidates. It's all a bit weird, since Obama rather plainly is doing something, as interviewers repeatedly point out whenever the subject comes up. But no matter. It's a good sound bite, and in any case, whatever Obama is doing, Republicans insist they want to do more. ... At a first guess, a full-scale assault on Mosul would likely require at least 2-3 times as many troops and result in several hundred American deaths. And Mosul is only a fraction of the territory ISIS controls. It's a big fraction, but still a fraction. So this is what I want to hear from Republican critics of Obama's ISIS strategy. I agree with them that training Iraqi troops and relying on them to fight ISIS isn't all that promising. But the alternative is likely to be something like 30,000 to 50,000 troops committed to a battle that will result in hundreds of American casualties. Are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz willing to own up to that? If they are, then good for them and we'll let the American public decide who's got the better strategy. But if they're not, then it's all just a con job for the rubes. The GOP candidates are screaming for "more," but not willing to acknowledge what "more" really means. Let's hear it, folks. When you say "more," what do you really have in mind? Candidates for president shouldn't be allowed to get away with nothing more than vague grumbles and hazy bellicosity any longer. Let's hear the plan. US Diplomacy SuperiorUS better off in a diplomatic role

Ramzy Mardini, September 12, 2014, Mardini, is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Councils Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-islamic-state-threat-is-overstated/2014/09/12/acbbebb2-33ad-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html DOA: 3-1-15

While some military action is necessary to defeat the Islamic State, that effort should be driven by regional actors, not a Western power. The United States is far better positioned to assume an active diplomatic role, facilitating consensus and cooperation among local and regional players. If the common threat could compel these actors toward local collaboration, national compromise and regional rapprochement, there may emerge an opportunity to bring them together to finally settle the civil wars plaguing the Middle East

Diplomacy essential to resolve the conflicts that are supporting ISIS

Sultan Barakat, February 22, 2015, Barakat is director of research at the Brookings Doha Center and senior fellow at the Center for Middle East Policy. He is known for having pioneered both scholarship and practice in the field of post-war recovery. In 1993 he founded the Post-war Reconstruction and Development Unit, a world-leading center at the University of York. His current research focus is state fragility and recovery in the Middle East, as well as the role of Qatar in conflict mediation. Barakat has been published widely, and has over 25 years of professional experience working on issues of conflict management, humanitarian response and post-conflict recovery and transition, Jordan, Egypt, and Response to ISIS; Beyond Air Strikes, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/02/19-jordan-egypt-isis-response DOA: 3-1-15

Though military action will remin an unavoidable policy against ISIS, a greater role must be lent to diplomacy and development in rooting out the power vacuums that allow such a group to thrive. For Jordan, this means redoubled efforts by the international communityespecially the United States, Russia, and Iranto find a political solution to the Syria conflict that has exacerbated the Kingdoms pressing social, political, and economic problems. As we noted in a recent review of policy towards the country, foreign diplomats and Jordanian officials must work together ensure that aid dollars flow towards reinforcing a productive economyone that can stand to incorporate the hundreds of thousands of refugees and the legions of unemployed alike.

A2: Need US Troops to Free Mosul

Iraqi and Kurdish forces can free Mosul

Jim Michaels, February 25, 2015, Will US troops be drawn back into Iraq war?, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/02/25/mosul/23955799/ DOA: 3-1-15

The ground offensive is expected to be a tough battle. Islamic State forces may fight to hold Mosul using civilians as human shields, rather than attempt to flee. The militants have declared the region part of their "caliphate" and set up shadow governments. U.S. Central Command expects a ground force of 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqi and Kurdish troops to free Mosul. To arm them, the Pentagon is rushing arms and ammunition to Iraq, including a $17.9 million shipment this week. Though the attacking force will vastly outnumber the 1,000-2,000 Islamic State fighters in Mosul, the militants will probably rig buildings to explode as part of their effort to defend the city, said Kagan, who recently visited Iraq.Iraq doesnt want US ground forces in the attack on Mosul

Maggie Ybarra, The Washington Times, February 20, 2015, U.S. plans large-scale operation to take Mosul from Islamic State, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/19/us-plans-large-scale-operation-take-mosul-islamic-/?page=all DOA: 3-2-15

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi told BBC News this week that Iraqi government forces were "planning an offensive on Mosul in the next few months," with help from the U.S. Mr. al-Abadi ruled out the need for U.S. ground troops in the campaign. He said his country needs other forms of help, such as weapons and training, and anticipates the city could be retaken in as little as a few months with minimal casualties.

Syria

Pro Intervention

The argument against US military intervention in Syria and why its wronghttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-pearlman/us-syria-intervention_b_4823932.html

Anti-Intervention

The Case against military intervention in Syriahttp://www.thenation.com/article/175964/case-against-military-intervention-syria

The cost of military intervention in Syriahttps://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2013/09/05/cost-military-intervention-syria/

Ukraine?

What is going on in the Ukraine

US trainers to the Ukraine? http://csis.org/publication/us-trainers-ukraine

JapanStatus Quo

The US-Japan alliancehttps://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33740.pdf

Promises and Pittfalls for the US-Japan alliancehttp://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/promises-and-pitfalls-us-japanese-alliance-trip-report-fpi-leadership-network

Alliance Good/Should Bolster

Strengthening the US-Japan alliance is key for stabilityhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/11/21/strengthening-the-us-japan-alliance-is-key-for-stability-in-east-asia

Revitalizing the US-Japan alliancehttp://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Renewal_CroninKlimanDenmark.pdf

Asia Presence Good

How to Keep the US focus on Asiahttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163660X.2014.978434#abstract

Advantage Areas

*Hegemony -- soft power, power projection, overstretch*Terrorism*Middle East War*Asia War*Racism*ImperialismSex Trafficking/RapeMilitarism

*China Rise

Disadvantages

PoliticsHegemony (internal link turns)Terrorism (links and turns)China Rise/China EncirclementRussian nationalismOil pricesMilitary spending trade-offMilitary reverse spending

Kritiks

RacismImperialismOrientalismGender IRRealism/Idealism/Constructivism

Definitions

Substantially Reduce = 50 Percent ExtensionsA substantial reduction in military personnel is greater than 50%

THOMAS.gov, 92 Summary of H.R.4421, the Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR04421:@@@L&summ2=m&)

Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992 - Title I: Environmental Restoration At Military Installations To Be Closed - Requires, with respect to each military installation which is on the National Priorities List (for substantial environmental cleanup) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and which is to be closed under Federal base closure Acts or otherwise by the Department of Defense (DOD): (1) that at least 75 percent of the environmental remedial action required under Federal law be completed before the installation is closed or substantial reductions in its operations have occurred; and (2) that all of the required remedial action be occurred no later than two years after such installation is closed or substantially reduced. Defines a "substantial reduction" as the reassignment of more than 50 percent of its personnel.

Substantial reduction is at least 50%

Pallone, 3 US Congressional Representative (Text of H.R. 3189, introduced by Pallone, to amend Title XVII of the Social Security Act, 9/25, http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3189.html)

`(7) SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION- The term `substantial reduction'-- `(A) means, as determined under regulations of the Secretary and with respect to a qualified beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of benefits under the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits, an increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date of commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6, 2004), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the total average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan as of such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to permit comparison of values over time); and `(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth sentence of section 602(3).'

"substantial reduction" means 50 percent

Davignon v. Clemmey 01 (Davignon v. Clemmey, 176 F. Supp. 2d 77)

The court begins the lodestar calculation by looking at the contemporaneous billing records for each person who worked on the plaintiff's case. The absence of detailed contemporaneous time records, except in extraordinary circumstances, will call for a substantial reduction in any award or, in egregious cases, disallowance. What is a "substantial reduction"? Fifty percent is a favorite among judges.

Substantially Reduce = 50 Percent ExtensionsSubstantial reduction means 50 percent

Morse 03 (Stephen, Ferdinand Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law & Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Fall, 1 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 289, lexis)

I propose that the amount of punishment reduction should be inversely related to the seriousness of the crime: the fixed reduction would be smaller for more serious crimes and vice versa. Defendants who commit more serious crimes and are therefore more dangerous would be incarcerated proportionately longer than defendants convicted of less serious crimes. In all cases, however, the reduction would have to be substantial to reflect substantially reduced culpability. Consider by analogy the typical penalty difference between second-degree murder and manslaughter, which often provides for a fifty percent reduction. The law already provides for substantial mitigation reduction for the most serious crimes.

In the context of energy and environmental policy, reductions of 50 percent are considered "substantial"

Slawson 86 (David, Torrey H. Webb Professor of Law, University of Southern California, May, 59 S. Cal. L. Rev. 672, lexis)

a. Studies concluding that we are underestimating the severity of the injuries we already know: The law requires that the EPA periodically review its standards concerning the components of air pollution. 49 The last time it reviewed its standards for ozone was in 1979, when it weakened its so-called "primary" standard 50 for this component by raising it [*689] from.08 parts per million ("ppm") to.12 ppm. 51 The reduction was by fifty percent, which, of course, is substantial. Yet, according to a 1982 Brookings Institution study, the governmental review processes that led to the change were neither scientifically sound nor fair. Errors in the process led the EPA to underestimate ozone's long-term ill effects. 52

In the context of energy policy, substantial reduction means over 50 percent

Reitze and Davis 93 (Arnold and Arnold, Elyce Zenoff Research Professor of Law and Director of the LL.M. program in environmental law @ George Washington University + Associate @ Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer, P.C., Fall, 21 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 1, lexis)

Other requirements are similar to those imposed on new sources but are not as stringent. PM limits are thirty-four and sixty-nine mg/dscm for very large and large plants, respectively. SO[2] reductions must be seventy percent for very large plants and fifty percent for large plants; HCl reductions must be ninety percent for very large plants and fifty percent for large plants. 315 These new limits represent a substantial reduction in emissions if complied with, even though they only apply to the largest MSW incinerators. This is because this portion of the combustor universe deals with most of the wastes that are incinerated. The air pollutants that these regulations require removed still must go somewhere. The problem is that "somewhere" is increasingly difficult to find.

Substantial reduction means up to 50 percent

Utility Europe 10/1/00 (lexis)

Web-enabled purchasing, or e-procurement, provides opportunities for European utilities to make substantial cost reductions. For example, they are looking at price reductions in the range of 5-10 per cent on materials and services, and reduced inventory costs of up to 50 per cent were mentioned by those surveyed as targets for web-enabled procurement.

Substantially Reduce = 50 Percent Extensions In the context of environmental and energy policy, substantial reduction means 50 percent

Fontaine 93 (Peter, Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Enforcement, 18 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 31, lexis)

Integrated permits coordinate the permitting processes of various media and consolidate into a single document every relevant and applicable pollution standard. Increased regulatory stringency and diminished resources have already prompted several states, 299 and a number of European nations, 300 to move toward integrated permit systems because they are more efficient and make better environmental sense. In Massachusetts, the success of the Blackstone Project in identifying cross-program environmental problems and opportunities for pollution prevention may lay the groundwork for an integrated permit system. New Jersey is currently implementing an eighteen month pilot program, with funding and assistance from the EPA, that involves the development of a single multimedia permit for three companies which volunteered to test the concept. 301 One noteworthy fact is that the project incorporates pollution prevention as the principal focus of the permits as opposed to the more traditional "end-of-pipe" controls. 302 Pollution prevention opportunities and corresponding permit limits will be identified and established following internal audits to quantify total pollutant-loadings to all environmental media. The project is mandated by New Jersey's Pollution Prevention Act, which established a five-year goal of reducing the generation of hazardous substances by fifty percent. 303 According to one of the companies participating in the project, anticipated benefits include not only substantial reductions in pollution but also substantial administrative and transactional efficiencies as the permits currently held by the facility (totalling more than sixty) will be cut to one. 304

In the context of energy policy, reductions of 55 percent are considered "substantial"

Grumet 98 (Jason, Executive Director of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, Summer, 11 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 375, lexis)

In contrast, substantial NOx reductions (55 percent) can be achieved from electric utilities for under $ 500 per ton and the 85 percent reductions proposed by the EPA can be achieved for under $ 1,700 per ton. 99 These figures are conservative. Many anticipate the actual costs of these controls will be less than $ 1,000 per ton, once control technologies are optimized and a regional trading program is implemented. Concerns over their own fiscal "bottom lines" and basic equity has led other industries to break the code of silence and quietly work to support the control of NOx pollution from utilities. Although denied from the outset, it was commonly understood that the primary goal of the OTAG was to build the case for utility controls. Had all the industrial interests joined together and abandoned the process, the OTAG effort would have been substantially weakened if not scuttled altogether. One of the main reasons other industries stayed in the process was to prevent the utilities from once again escaping regulation. 100 This persistence and the greater cost effectiveness of utility controls seems to have paid off. In the proposed action under Section 110, the EPA proposes to reduce total state NOx emissions by 35 percent on average. The EPA proposes that states fulfill this cumulative NOx reduction obligation by achieving on average a 13 percent additional reduction in NOx emissions from on-highway vehicles, a 14 percent additional reduction from non-road sources (construction and agricultural equipment, trains, lawnmowers, etc.), a 33 percent additional [*405] reduction from non-utility stationary sources, and a 69 percent additional reduction from electric generating utilities. 101

1nC SHellSubstantially Reduce = 25 PercentA. InterpretationSubstantially reduce means at least 25 percent

US Code, 10 (TITLE 10. ARMED FORCES SUBTITLE A. GENERAL MILITARY LAW PART IV. SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT CHAPTER 148. NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION SUBCHAPTER II. POLICIES AND PLANNING, Current as of 5/17/10, lexis)

"(f) Definitions. For purposes of this section:"(1) The term "major defense program" means a program that is carried out to produce or acquire a major system (as defined in section 2302(5) of title 10, United States Code)."(2) The terms 'substantial reduction' and 'substantially reduced', with respect to a defense contract under a major defense program, mean a reduction of 25 percent or more in the total dollar value of the funds obligated by the contract.".

B. The Affirmative doesnt reduce US military or police presence by 25 percent

C. Voting issue

1. limits allowing minor reductions allows countless variations of small affs likes reducing a single type of intelligence gathering or a covert op in Afghanistan or arms sales to Japan; it makes adequate research impossible

2. negative ground topic disads wont link to minor modifications, and generic ground is vitally important to protect since there are 6 different countries with diverse literature bases

Substantially Reduce = 25 Percent Reductions of 20 to 25 percent are "substantial"reductions of less than 15 percent aren't

Thompson v. Brown Printing Co 94 (Thompson v. Brown Printing Co., 1994 Minn. App. LEXIS 1051, lexis)

20-25 percent pay reduction is substantial but less than 15 percent is not sufficient to show good cause to quit. An employee's difficulties with his manager did not constitute good cause to quit where upper management promptly responded to the employee's complaint and the manager ceased swearing. An employee's complaints, such as being left out of meetings, having his managerial powers taken away, and being chastised by his supervisor, do not constitute harassment. Irreconcilable differences with a co-worker, personality conflicts, and job frustrations do not constitute good cause to quit.

"substantial reduction" means at least 25 percentlegal doctrine proves

Rouse 82 (Judge, California Court of Appeals, Maitland v. Employment Development Dept., 130 Cal. App. 3d 331, lexis)

Support for defendants' position is found in Bunny's Waffle Shop v. Cal. Emp. Com. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 735, 743 [151 P.2d 224], where the California Supreme[***5] Court held that HN2a "substantial reduction in earnings" (in that instance a 25 percent wage cut) would generally be regarded as good cause for leaving employment. (P. 743.) Plaintiff has directed our attention to no authority, nor are we aware of any, for the proposition that a far smaller reduction in wages, such as plaintiff's 7-2/3 percent reduction, would constitute good cause for voluntarily leaving employment. The conclusion that such a reduction would not furnish good cause for leaving one's employment is especially compelling here in view of plaintiff's own testimony that the wage reduction would not have caused her to quit her job, without first obtaining other employment, but for her belief that she was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.

Substantial reduction means between 20 and 30 percent

Money Marketing 5/13/04 (lexis)

Sesame is setting out its stall in a bid to attract new members, offering professional indemnity premium cuts of 20 per cent to firms joining its network as well as promising existing members substantial reductions in their PI costs.The mega-network says some members will see their PI premiums cut by up to 30 per cent, with over 90 per cent seeing premiums fall by a fifth.

Substantial reduction means 25 percent

Precision Marketing 2/28/03 (lexis)

Like any industry, we have key objectives. These usually focus on getting more advertisers to use the medium. And the year-on-year growth figures show that we are achieving this. Yet in the same breath we hear that sectors like charities have shown a 25 per cent reduction in mailing volume over the past few years. Why? Because our short-termist philosophy does not deal with the fundamentals. If charities are seeing substantial reductions in volume, will this not filter through to other sectors?

Substantially Reduce = 25 Percent Substantial reduction means at least 24 percent

Frost 98 (Christopher, Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law, Winter, 72 Am. Bankr. L.J. 103, lexis)

While the fast track system is widely touted as a method of reducing the costs of Chapter 11, thus making reorganization available to small debtors, the approach also has significant governance benefits. Managers recognizing that a day of reckoning is close at hand will have less incentive to delay the case in hopes of a turnaround in the debtor's business fortunes. The data regarding fast track procedures certainly shows that the procedure moves cases through Chapter 11 more quickly. A study of Chapter 11 cases before and after Bankruptcy Judge Mund of the Central District of California instituted a fast track procedure show a substantial reduction in the median time to confirmation (24.1 percent), conversion (44.1 percent), dismissal (53.5 percent), [*127] and in the total days in Chapter 11 (45.4 percent). 96

Substantial reduction means 28 percent

Luna 97 (Erik, Member of the California Bar, Winter, 46 DePaul L. Rev. 483, lexis)

Through education and social coercion, Americans have begun to kick the most addictive drug on earth - nicotine. Between 1965 and 1987, the proportion of adults smoking cigarettes dropped twenty-eight percent. 565 "We have seen a substantial reduction in the use of tobacco over the last thirty years," argues political commentator William F. Buckley, "and this is not because tobacco became illegal but because a sentient community began, in substantial numbers, to apprehend the high cost of tobacco to human health." 566 Federal Judge Robert W. Sweet adds, "If our society can learn to stop using butter, it should be able to cut down on cocaine." 567 Education and social disapproval are the answer, not self-righteous paternalism.

Substantially Reduce = 70 PercentSubstantial reduction means 75 percentenvironmental studies prove

Natural Resources Conservation Service 04 ("Highly Erodible Land Conservation Compliance," www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/compliance/helcindex.html)

A Substantial Reduction in Soil Erosion is defined as:Generally, a 75% reduction of the potential erodibility (PE), not to exceed two (2) times the soil loss tolerance (T) level for the predominant highly erodible soil map unit in the highly erodible field.

Substantial reduction means at least 70 percentcrime statistics prove

Petersilia 97 (Joan, professor of criminology, law, and society in the School of Social Ecology, University of California at Irvine, 22 Crime & Just. 149, lexis)

Gerstein et al. (1994, p. 33) conclude: "Treatment was very cost beneficial: for every dollar spent on drug and alcohol treatment, the state of California saved $ 7 in reductions in crime and health care costs. The study found that each day of treatment paid for itself on the day treatment was received, primarily through an avoidance of crime. The level of criminal activity declined by two-thirds from before treatment to after treatment. The greater the length of time spent in treatment, the greater the reduction in crime. Reported criminal activity declined before and after treatment as follows: mean number of times sold or helped sell drugs (-75 percent), mean number of times used weapon/physical force (-93 percent), percent committing any illegal activity (-72 percent), and mean months involved in criminal activity (-80 percent)."Regardless of type of treatment modality, reduction in crime was substantial and significant (although participants in the social model recovery programs had the biggest reduction). In the California study, the most effective treatment programs cost about $ 12,000 per year, per client (Gerstein et al. 1994). UCLA researchers recently concluded: "It seems that drug abuse treatment mandated by the criminal justice system [*192] represents one of the best and most cost-effective approaches to breaking the pernicious cycle of drug use, criminality, incarceration, and recidivism" (Prendergast, Anglin, and Wellisch 1995).

Substantially Reduce = 90 percent Substantial reduction means 90 percentenvironmental policy proves

Menell 90 (Peter, Acting Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law, 1990 COLUM. BUS. L. REV. 399, lexis)

n43 For example, in the four years following Allied Chemical Corporation's structural changes, see supra note 22, employee injuries fell seventy-five percent. See Coffee, supra note 22, at 456. 3M Company has also achieved substantial reduction in environmental degradation through its internal incentive programs. See 3 M Announces Plan to Cut Hazardous Releases by 90 Percent, Emphasize Pollution Prevention, 20 Env't Rep. (BNA) at 441-42 (June 16, 1989); Ling, supra note 22, at 129.

Substantially reduce can Be Complete/EliminationTotal closures meet "substantial reduction"

Sathre 86 (Constance, Legal Intern, Office of the General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Spring, 16 Envtl. L. 731, lexis)

United States scientists predict that the agreement will reduce the Japanese interception of North American salmon by approximately twenty to thirty percent. 61 Total closure of the Bering Sea area to the mothership fleet should result in substantial reductions in the number of salmon intercepted from the Yukon-Kuskokwim River area. The revised research and enforcement provisions are perhaps the most significant aspects of the agreement, since they will contribute to our knowledge of the landbased fisheries, and will provide the basis for future negotiations.

Government bans can be considered substantial reductions in consumptiontobacco ad bans prove

Polin 88 (Kenneth, LL.M. Candidate, New York University, 1990, Fall, 17 Hofstra L. Rev. 99, lexis)

Thus, because advertising serves to attract new product users 238 as well as perhaps to increase consumption by present consumers, and since tobacco advertising has not been established without bias to have the extraordinary effect to the contrary, a ban of tobacco advertising should serve the substantial government interest in the reduction of tobacco use, 239 and is, therefore, valid as "reasonably" based. 240

A2 Substantial means Complete/EliminateSubstantial is distinct from ALL or FULL or COMPLETE

Sucaet 97 (Michael, practices law at the Bloomfield Hills, Michigan law firm of Vestevich, Mallender, DuBois & Dritsas, P.C, Winter, 1997 Det. C.L. Rev. 1203, lexis)

It is no easy task to comply with all of these conditions. The process can be lengthy and expensive. There are, however, benefits. The USEPA Policy lists three major incentives to encourage auditing, disclosure, and prompt corrections. A gravity based penalty is defined as that portion of a penalty above a regulated entity's economic benefit obtained through the noncompliance. n40 The penalties are intended to reflect the seriousness of the violation. The first incentive identified by the USEPA Policy is that gravity based penalties can be reduced by seventy-five percent. n41 That is, a regulated entity may pay only twenty-five percent as a gravity based penalty. The company must satisfy all conditions discussed above to qualify for the seventy-five percent reduction. n42 Substantial compliance is not sufficient. The USEPA expressly reserved the right to collect any economic benefit realized by the regulated entity as a result of the non-compliance. n43

A2 Substantially Reduce must be Numerical/PercentageFederal courts agreesubstantially shouldn't be defined precisely to a numerical value such as 80 or 90 percent

Curtin 03 (United States Circuit Judge of the Western District of New York, Gateway Equip. Corp. v. United States, 247 F. Supp. 2d 299, lexis)

While the court agrees that the meanings of limitation and impairment refer to restriction and reduction, it does not agree with the uncited definition of "substantial" as an order of magnitude equivalent to 80 or 90 percent. Random House Unabridged Dictionary 1897 (2d ed. 1993) defines "substantial" as "of ample or considerable amount quantity, size," a much less precise definition than offered by the government. It is clear that the CB-4000 can and does transport its load over the public highway in the course of traveling to a job[**33] site. The question is whether that transportation function is substantially limited by its special design in the type of material it can haul, and whether there are other factors that substantially limit/ impair its use for over-the-road distance hauling.

Percentage-based definitions of a "substantial reduction" are flawedignore how multiple variations interact

Lord 95 (Senior Judge, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, KAOLIN MUSHROOM FARMS, INC. v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BD. OF R..., 669 A.2d 438, lexis)

While a reduction of ten percent in wages may not be substantial in some instances, and while there is admittedly language in Steinberg Vision Associates noting that "a 14.2% wage reduction is at the cusp," of having a substantial impact, I cannot agree that a ten percent reduction in the wages of a mushroom picker making $ 6 per hour is not a substantial reduction. I cannot accept the notion of a percentage-based "cusp" because I am convinced that the percentage varies with the wage--the less the wages, the more impact any percentage reduction has.

There exists a distinction between numerical and actual substantial reductions

Stewart 03 (Andrew, JD @ William S. Richardson School of Law, Summer, 4 Asian-Pacific L. & Pol'y J. 307, lexis)

Although Prime Minister Sato ultimately succeeded in returning Okinawa to Japan, the final terms of the reversion were not what many Okinawans, and many Japanese, had hoped for. 258 Following a series of negotiations with the United States, streams of domestic allegations and criticisms, 259 and minor compromises between the LDP and fragmented [*349] opposition parties, 260 Okinawa was officially returned to Japan on May 15, 1972. 261 Although the base reduction resulting from the reversion appeared numerically substantial, it only amounted to 5,000 square meters of land returned to Okinawan landowners, of which seventy-five percent had not been used for bases. 262 Furthermore, Japan stationed 6,800 of its Self-Defense Force (SDF) troops in Okinawa following the reversion, while no major U.S. units were withdrawn from the islands. 263 In the end, Okinawan reversion was a showcase for adorning Sato's political legacy 264 and an opportunity for the LDP's conservative wing to revive national pride by removing the Okinawan blemish from the country's collective memory. 265 It was not the liberation from military colonialism that many Okinawans had been hoping for. 266

An action that materially advances governmental interests can be considered a "substantial reduction"

Halberstam 99 (Daniel, Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, April, 147 U. Pa. L. Rev. 771, lexis)

If applied with respect to tobacco advertising, Central Hudson would demand that the restrictions materially advance, and be reasonably tailored to advance, a substantial government interest. If preventing gambling by Puerto Rico residents, and assisting states in preventing their citizens from playing out-of-state lotteries each suffices to justify the restriction of commercial speech, the reduction of the number of smokers should be deemed "substantial" in this calculus as well. If we accept the government's claims about the individual health consequences and the public health costs of tobacco consumption, then the government's interest in reducing the incidence of smoking would easily seem substantial. The central question, then, under Central Hudson would be whether a ban on tobacco advertising (or a more limited restriction) furthers that goal and is reasonably tailored to doing so.

Substantially Reduce Definitions (Random)17 percent reduction is "substantial"

Design Week 10/24/02 (lexis)

People in other functions were not quite this lucky though. New business directors' pay fell 5 per cent across the country, which is perhaps curious given the shortage reported by many recruitment agencies, unless they have benefited from more advantageous incentive- based packages that have cut basic pay levels. Managing directors have felt the pinch too. In our sample, managing directors' salaries fell 17 per cent beyond London.While our data gave London managing directors an average rise of just 4 per cent, just over inflation, other data - particularly that from the big marketing services networks - points to substantial reductions in managing directors' salaries, which are most closely linked to group performance anyway.

Reductions of 43 percent are considered substantial

Sellers 84 (Joseph, Director of the Public Education Legal Services Project, 27 How. L.J. 1471, lexis)

In 1954, the Supreme Court decided Bolling v. Sharpe, 9 a companion case with Brown v. Board of Education 10 and three other state cases. In Bolling, the Court held that the District's racially segregated public school system violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. 11 At the time Bolling was decided, the public school enrollment in the District of Columbia was approximately half white. After desegregation was mandated, the number of white students began declining while the black enrollment rose rapidly. By 1967, white students constituted only about seven percent of the total enrollment. 12 Although it is unclear to what extent the drop in white enrollment was caused by desegregation, the substantial reduction in white students attending the D.C. public schools has made [*1474] integration impractical, if not impossible. 13

Reductions of 95% constitute "substantial reduction"

Inbau 99 (Fred, Summer, 89 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1293, lexis)

The court accepted the opinion of Florida Rock's expert, noting that the decline in fair market value from $ 10,500 to $ 500 per acre constituted a "substantial reduction in value." 81 Yet the court also observed that this ninety-five percent reduction "in and of itself is not a sufficient basis for concluding that a taking has occurred." 82 The court then stated it also must inquire into "the owner's opportunity to recoup its investment" 83 to determine whether compensation was required. 84 It observed that Florida Rock had purchased the property for mining purposes and that the property owner could recoup its investment only by engaging in this activity. 85 The regulation thus resulted in a substantial impact on Florida Rock's investment. 86 The court concluded that a taking had occurred, 87 and the Government appealed for a second time to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Substantially Reduce Definitions (Random)Reductions of 37% are "substantial"

Afilalo 02 (Ari, Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers-Camden School of Law, Summer, 34 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 749, lexis)

The United States recently put forth its proposal for the adoption in the Doha Round of new agricultural rules. 141 The U.S. proposal includes a series of suggested intern