Da Elections Impacts Scholars 20

WNDI 2008

1 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Elections DA Impacts Scholars Elections DA Impacts Scholars...................................................................................................................................1

Elections DA Impacts Scholars.....................................................................................................1 A2: Health Care .........................................................................................................................................................3

A2: Health Care ............................................................................................................................3 A2: CTBT ...................................................................................................................................................................4

A2: CTBT ......................................................................................................................................4 A2: Leadership ...........................................................................................................................................................5

A2: Leadership ..............................................................................................................................5 A2: Space ...................................................................................................................................................................6

A2: Space .......................................................................................................................................6 A2: Pakistan ...............................................................................................................................................................7

A2: Pakistan ..................................................................................................................................7 A2: Military Readiness ..............................................................................................................................................8

A2: Military Readiness .................................................................................................................8 A2: Military Readiness...............................................................................................................................................9

A2: Military Readiness..................................................................................................................9 Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan .............................................................................................................10

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan .............................................................................10 Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan..............................................................................................................11

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan..............................................................................11 Obama Good: Iran Strikes ........................................................................................................................................12

Obama Good: Iran Strikes .........................................................................................................12 Obama Good: African Relations ..............................................................................................................................13

Obama Good: African Relations ...............................................................................................13 Obama Good: China Relations ................................................................................................................................14

Obama Good: China Relations ..................................................................................................14 Obama Good: China Relations.................................................................................................................................15

Obama Good: China Relations...................................................................................................15 Obama good: Australia Relations.............................................................................................................................16

Obama good: Australia Relations...............................................................................................16 Obama Good: NPT ...................................................................................................................................................17

Obama Good: NPT .....................................................................................................................17 Obama Good: Kyoto ................................................................................................................................................18

Obama Good: Kyoto ...................................................................................................................18

WNDI 2008

2 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

McCain Bad: Iran Strikes .........................................................................................................................................19

McCain Bad: Iran Strikes ..........................................................................................................19 Obama Bad: European Relations .............................................................................................................................20

Obama Bad: European Relations ..............................................................................................20 Obama Bad: Social Security ....................................................................................................................................21

Obama Bad: Social Security ......................................................................................................21

WNDI 2008

3 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Health Care Obama wont pass universal health care Herb Deninberg. “Supplying answers on the bear market, Obama and blood pressure” 7/14/08. Question: You always say that the great health-care reformers (such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) should solve one tiny health-care problem before disrupting the whole system with a total reform. In other words, they should prove their competence by executing a small reform before they go for the big one. Exactly where would you recommend they start? Answer: With Mr. Obama, I'd recommend he release his full health records, in view of his background of smoking, doping, and boozing, and as he's running for president. But the media gave him a free pass when he released virtually nothing. But to answer your question, here's a good starter. A recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, found only one in 10 adult Americans have all the skills needed to manage their health. How about teaching the other nine what they need to know. Or how about getting doctors to wash their hands. Neither Hillary nor Barack, when it comes to healthcare reform, have demonstrated they can even walk, yet they want to fly to the moon by adopting universal health care. I'm sure their version would break the bank and the system.

Universal health care will inevitably fail Michael Hampton. “’Universal health care has failed again,” 3/2/07. Most Americans, not knowing any better, think “universal health care” is a really good idea. Unfortunately, there is no such thing. To see exactly what American universal health care will look like, one needs look no farther than the smaller version of universal health care which already exists. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows that 55 percent of Americans think the most important domestic issue is making health insurance available to all Americans, and 64 percent said the federal government should provide it, the Times reported Friday. And it sounds great. Everybody would finally get all the health care they could possibly ever want, and it wouldn’t cost anything. At least, that’s what we’re told. Okay, maybe taxes would go up a little bit, they’ll admit when pressed. But it’ll be so much better once everyone gets free medical care and doctors no longer get paid exorbitant rates. But before we jump headlong into universal health care, just because it sounds so good, we should have some idea what we’re getting into. “Universal health care” is a national tragedy wherever it has been tried, resulting in needless death and suffering as fewer and fewer people actually get anything resembling health care from the national health bureaucracy. The reason for this is simple: no government can effectively run a social program. Indeed, there’s no need to leave the country to see what universal health care would look like. You need go no farther than Building 18 of Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the nation’s so-called leading military hospital.

WNDI 2008

4 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: CTBT CTBT bad for United States The Heritage Foundation. “Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse Idea Today” 06/29/07. For both procedural and substantive reasons, the Senate should oppose ratification of the CTBT. The Senate rejected ratification in 1999 for good reasons, and those reasons are still pertinent today. Further, the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrence posture has declined in recent years for reasons of atrophy within the weapons complex and changing international circumstances. The United States has no margin for error in maintaining its national security in the context of its nuclear deterrent. Senate consent to the ratification of the CTBT entails nothing less than gambling with the survival of the United States.

CTBT has fundamental flaws The Heritage Foundation. “Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Bad Idea in 1999, a Worse Idea Today” 06/29/07. Persistent Problems with the CTBT. Substantively, the shortcomings of the CTBT that the Senate found in 1999 persist today. The requirements of the treaty have not changed in any way since 1999, and the United States’ security continues to require a nuclear arsenal that is safe, reliable, and militarily effective. Such an arsenal depends on preserving the option to conduct explosive tests of the weapons already in the arsenal for the purpose of developing new weapons to meet new requirements. CTBT ratification by the United States and its entry into force would lead to the same unacceptable outcomes that caused the Senate to reject the treaty in 1999.

The US signing the CTBT would destroy national security Robert R. Monroe. “Nuclear testing realities” The Washington Times. 12/4/07. Reality No. 1 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would do unbelievably grave damage to U.S. national security. Nuclear weapons exist - tens of thousands of them. More states now have them than ever before, and they're being improved. A whole world of fourth-generation nuclear weapons is just around the corner. More than half the world's population lives in states that have nuclear weapons, and other states and terrorist organizations are striving to acquire them, and use them. The U.S. will continue to face serious nuclear weapon threats for generations to come. Our very lives will depend upon our ability to develop new nuclear weapon strategies and advanced nuclear weapons to deter these threats. Our survival will depend on our nuclear technology being superior to that of anyone else in the world, decade after decade. This will certainly require testing, which the CTBT would deny.

Ratifying the CTBT increases proliferation Robert R. Monroe. “Nuclear testing realities” The Washington Times. 12/4/07. Reality No. 3 is that U.S. ratification of the CTBT would increase proliferation. Some 30 states (e.g., Japan, Germany) depend upon the U.S. nuclear umbrella rather than having their own nuclear forces. If we ratify the CTBT, denying ourselves the ability to transform our arsenal, the failure of our once-credible deterrent will force our allies and friends to develop their own nuclear weapons.

WNDI 2008

5 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Leadership Obama lacks experience Ashley C. Stinnett. “Can Americans really trust Barack Obama?” The Herald Dispatch. 07/02/08. In this day and age of exit polls and data analysis, it seems only fair to point out an ongoing struggle the Barack Obama campaign has yet to overcome: So many Americans are leery of his inexperience as a United States senator. Many will recall not too long ago, Obama was merely a state representative in Illinois. He was propelled to his current office after serving many years in his home state. Like most freshman senators, Obama quickly began learning the ups and downs of national politics. He began shaking hands with prominent political leaders while memorizing the names of top lobbyists. Of course, anyone who keeps up with national level politics realizes if an individual serves in Washington for more than a week, he or she will be introduced to lobbyist sharks really soon. It's all part of the game. Now begins the troubling part. Within a year of entering office, Obama made the conscious decision to run for president. He began collecting names of influential people, all the while making phone calls to big-money donors. This is typical behavior of anyone who seeks a major office. Obama spent the majority of 2007 launching his bid to become president. The young statesman began traveling and reaching out to millions. His campaign became more of a rock concert aimed at energizing minorities, youth voters and blue-collar workers. Although everything seems to be going well, his many faults, not to mention the bizarre company he keeps, begin to surface.

No president, even Obama could restore US credibility John Brown. “After the honeymoon. Electing Barack Obama president won't be enough to improve America's standing in the world” 6/26/08. The new administration should also not give overseas audiences the false hope that its arrival on the world scene will mean a sudden, drastic departure from the policies of Bush, despite his low reputation at home and abroad. The American political system, which leads presidential candidates to adopt "centrist" positions, leaves the options for restructuring American foreign policy limited. This includes Iraq, a fiasco that will take years to settle.

Obama’s military and political inexperience would render him an ineffective president MICHAEL GOODWIN. “HE'S GOT A LOT TO LEARN. McCain's exposing Obama's weaknesses on national security,”06/01/08. Even before he clinches the nomination, a flurry of McCain attacks over Iran, Iraq, Cuba and military leadership has exposed Obama 's soft underbelly on national security. The effective barrage is a testament to how the primary battles never tested the rookie Democrat on whether he is ready to be commander in chief. In Prof. McCain's class, Obama is slowly making progress, but remains far below grade average. It's not certain he can catch up by November's final exam, where the threshold issue is the public's confidence a candidate can and will defend America. Perceived weakness is a disqualifier. The problem for Obama, beyond his lack of experience, is that his instincts are those of the Perfect Liberal by way of Harvard Law School. Like Bill Clinton's clumsy attempts to salute when he first won the Oval Office, Obama exhibits discomfort about things military. He is a peacenik by gut and, as critics note, drew the wrong lessons about Cold War talks JFK and Ronald Reagan had with the Soviets. That didn't matter during the primary battle, where Obama 's early opposition to Iraq was a defining difference against Hillary Clinton. But doubts about his national security bona fides are already a handicap in the nascent general election. McCain, showing it is never too early to shape the battlefield to match your strengths, has ripped into Obama on a daily basis. Truth be told, Obama has presented him with a target-rich environment. The first opening surfaced in a July 2007 debate, when Obama was asked if he would, without preconditions, meet in the first year of his administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Obama promptly and famously said, "I would."

WNDI 2008

6 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Space Obama Supports NASA Eun Kyung Kim. “Obama says he'll support NASA programs,” 07/29/08. < http://www.newspress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/NEWS01/80729090/1075> WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama pledged his commitment to NASA in a statement his campaign released Tuesday congratulating the agency on its 50th anniversary. The declaration may surprise many NASA supporters. Earlier in his campaign, the Illinois senator said he would rather see money budgeted for Constellation, the program to replace the aging shuttles, go instead toward education reform. Yet, Obama said he would support the agency if elected this fall. “I believe we need to revitalize NASA’s mission to maintain America’s leadership, and recommit our nation to the space program, and as President I intend to do just that,” he said. Obama took aim at the current Washington establishment — and the Bush administration — for failing to give NASA the sufficient support it has needed.

NASA is setting the global standard on research NASA. “The Good, the Bad and the Ozone,” 06/04/04. < http://www.nasa.gov/missions/earth/f-ozone.html> NASA's Aura is going to keep tabs on both types of ozone. It's a spacecraft that will provide us the first comprehensive global view of the Earth's atmosphere, an essential stepping stone to better understanding the Moon, Mars and beyond. The launch of Aura is a challenging endeavor, a mission on the cutting edge of scientific discovery characteristic of the Agency's legacy of ground-breaking exploration.

NASA is key to Mars Exploration NASA. “NASA 101: from vision to reality,” No date given. < http://legislative.nasa.gov/NASA_101_brochure.pdf> Announced in 2004, the Vision for Space Exploration communicates the United States’ and NASA’s commitment to a long-term robotic and human program to explore the solar system, starting with a return to the moon that will ultimately enable the future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The Vision affirms our commitment to human space exploration and gives NASA a new focus and clear objectives. It is affordable and sustainable and maintains the highest levels of safety. It has been endorsed by bipartisan majorities of the U.S. Congress.

WNDI 2008

7 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Pakistan Obama’s proposed invasion of Pakistan would fight terrorism JAMES GORDON. “HIS GOOD IDEAS TOO LATE – PROS,” 08/02/07. WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama yesterday offered a sweeping and sophisticated strategy for nailing Al Qaeda inside U.S. ally Pakistan's borders - but his best ideas may be too little, too late, counterterror experts say. Chief among them is to add at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan. Obama 's speech was a highly detailed assessment of the "forgotten war," arguing for more military might, close cooperation with allies and increased development aid that could pull Afghanistan back from the brink and maybe destroy Osama Bin Laden's base in Pakistan. Surging the number of American forces to over 30,000 by adding up to 7,000 or more G.I.s makes sense, since the Taliban and Al Qaeda continue to replenish their ranks. Obama also wants better trained Afghan forces included in more combat missions. But none of it would happen for 18 months, even if he wins in 2008. Robert Grenier, a private security executive who as CIA station chief in Pakistan oversaw the toppling of the Taliban in 2001, said adding more U.S. troops would be "re-creating on a smaller scale the same mistake that has been made in Iraq." "Only Afghans can deal with the phenomenon that is the Taliban," he said. "There needs to be an Afghan solution." Though vague in his speech about how he would use extra U.S. forces, a key adviser said Obama does not envision occupying parts of Pakistan, where Al Qaeda - and most likely Bin Laden - have a safe haven. "Nobody is talking about a ground invasion of Pakistan's tribal areas," said former Bill Clinton National Security Council aide Susan Rice, an Obama adviser. "That isn't feasible." Rice said surgical strikes continue to be the best option, adding that Obama wants to strengthen U.S. special operations forces on the Afghan side to "up the ante" and cajole European NATO allies to get more into the fight. Obama talked tough by warning Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that if intelligence on Bin Laden surfaces and Musharraf "won't act, we will." Grenier speculated that as President, Obama would likely still coordinate any strikes with the Pakistanis, just as President Bush has.

WNDI 2008

8 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Military Readiness Obama calls for troops to withdraw from Iraq Brian DeBose. “Obama calls for complete withdrawal by end of '08,” The Washington Times. 09/13/07. Sen. Barack Obama yesterday called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq at a steady pace, with all combat troops either at home or redeployed elsewhere by December 2008. "We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later, but our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month," Mr. Obama said. A day after hearing the progress report from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus to Congress, Mr. Obama rejected the general's recommendations and said Iraq's government has failed to meet its own goals. His withdrawal proposal reinforces the Iraq war as the major battleground among the Democratic presidential candidates, who have spent the campaign competing with each other for support from the party's antiwar voters.

Troops being deployed in Iraq hurts military readiness Richard Cowan. “US House approves 2008 troop withdrawal from Iraq,” 03/23/07. But House Democrats, geared up for battle with Bush in the final two years of his presidency, disagreed. Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, who says the war has sapped military readiness, said, "We're going to make a difference ... We're going to bring those troops home." Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said a vote for the bill would mean "that we're going to end the permanent, long-term, dead-end baby-sitting service. That's what we are trying to do." All but two House Republicans voted against the bill, which they say will tie the military's hands and invite failure.

Military readiness has been harmed because of Iraq “Making up for lost time in Iraq,” < http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/pdf/prosperity_agenda.pdf> How the United States extricates its troops from Iraq will impact its broader efforts to restore its position of leadership in the world. The pace and manner in which it does so will be one of the most important decisions of the next president and Congress. The capabilities of the Iraqi police and security forces will play a major role in that decision, as will their allegiances and motivation. However, removing troops from Iraq should be only one part of the debate. The United States also needs to determine how it will marshal its considerable economic and diplomatic powers to get Iraqi leaders, countries in the region, and other global powers to do their share and shoulder a greater part of the burden to help Iraq achieve a degree of stability and a semblance of prosperity. America ’ s military readiness has been harmed by five years of continuous deployments, and its image is in tatters as a result of mistakes made in the Iraq War. A growing bipartisan consensus has pragmatically recognized that the United States cannot afford to simply stay the course and continue to go it mostly alone in Iraq.

Obama would increase US troops by 92,000 Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. “Barack Obama on Diplomacy,” 01/17/08. Indeed, Obama has promised to enlarge the size of the uniformed armed forces by more than 92,000 troops. Given that the United States – surrounded by two oceans and two weak friendly neighbors – is essentially safe from any potential conventional attack, this position inevitably raises the question of what he intends to do with that expanded military capability.

WNDI 2008

9 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

A2: Military Readiness Readiness is key to deter global conflicts and maintain US leadership Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, FDCH, February 5, 1998 Maintaining a high state of readiness to execute the military tasks assigned by the National Command Authorities remains our first and most important priority. U.S. military forces remain the best equipped, best trained and most capable of any in the world. Our military power, in conjunction with a strong, dynamic economy and skilled diplomacy, guarantees that American citizens and territory are protected and that our standard of living and our democratic values are maintained. Our ability to

maintain strong, capable forces throughout the globe, backed up by flexible, strategically deployable forces from CONUS, makes us the preeminent military power in the world. This ability to selectively apply military forces anywhere in the world is a major stabilizing factor in international affairs and a key component in American world leadership. Since the end of the Cold War, we have used our military forces more frequently to support our security interests and conduct major operations where U.S. leadership was needed. There is no question that more frequent deployments affect readiness. We are beginning to see anecdotal evidence of readiness issues in some units, particularly at the tactical level of operations. At the operational and strategic levels, however, we remain capable of conducting operations across the spectrum of conflict. Readiness issues have our full attention, and we are working aggressively to refine and improve our mechanisms for tracking readiness and, with Congressional support, for correcting the readiness shortfalls we have identified. While we are undeniably busier and more fully committed than in the past, the U.S. military remains fully capable of executing the National Military Strategy with an acceptable level of risk. I can assure the Congress that we are not returning to the 1970's. We are fundamentally healthy and will continue to report our readiness status to the Congress and American people with candor and accuracy. Contingency operations not funded in the defense budget continue to impact on how we allocate resources within the military. The extension of operations in Bosnia and increased tensions in the Gulf have resulted in unfunded contingency requirements in FY98. In addition, the FY99 budget does not explicitly fund Bosnia contingency requirements. To ensure adequate funding for readiness and normal operations this year, we will request supplemental appropriations in accordance with Congressional language. Without timely relief, we will be forced to absorb these costs from operations and maintenance accounts, to the detriment of overall readiness. Tempo, the pace of peacetime activities of the force, is another major concern for senior military leaders. The reality of our current tempo is that we are doing more operations with a smaller force. While our overall force structure has declined by approximately one third since FY88, our requirements across a broad range of military operations have greatly increased. On any given day more than 40,000 personnel are participating in ongoing named operations and many more are away from home supporting other routine, yet no-less demanding, requirements. Unchecked, high tempo may lead to both near-term and longterm readiness concerns. In the near-term, increased tempo contributes to lost training opportunities and accelerated wear on equipment. In the long-term, increased tempo has its greatest impact on our people, by negatively impacting their quality of life and jeopardizing our ability to attract and retain quality people. We have implemented several initiatives to better manage the increased tempo brought on by a changed security environment and our strategy of engagement. The Joint Staff has led an effort to control selected Low Density/High Demand assets through the Global Military Force Policy (GMFP). In addition, a 15% man-days reduction in the Joint Exercise Program through FY98 has been directed, and we are studying further reductions now. Other ongoing efforts include the increased use of Reserve Component assets; global sourcing; increased use of contractors and allied support; use of like systems (i.e. EP3s in lieu of RC135s); and the Joint Monthly Readiness Review (JMRR), which includes tools to provide better visibility and management of potential tempo problems. Managing the pace of operations better is directly related to improving personnel readiness - the linchpin of a trained and ready force. We place our people in a demanding environment that subordinates them to national and professional requirements. Their commitment is around the clock. Our standards are high, and we demand frequent, personal sacrifices from them, sometimes to the extent of risking their lives. Attracting and retaining the right people, and developing them as joint warfighters, is as important as anything else we do in the readiness arena.

Readiness is key to maintain credibility, peace, and stability Admiral Harold Gehman Jr., Vice Chief Of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy, FNS, April 17, 1997 Well-trained people, operating modern, well-maintained equipment in the right numbers, constantly patrolling the world's trouble spots, are the trademarks of your Navy. Readiness is ultimately the foundation for maintaining the credibility of our forces as an instrument of foreign policy and national resolve. Today, our Navy remains forward deployed and ready to protect America's interests both at home and abroad. Our Naval forces are poised to transition instantly from maintaining peace to deterring crises to resolving conflict. We believe that our readiness is well understood by potential enemies and will give them pause; thus accomplishing our most important objectives, the deterrence of conflict and the preservation of peace and stability.

WNDI 2008

10 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan Obama is key to Japan relations REIJI YOSHIDA. “Obama scores big in Japan portion of global primary,” Times Japan Times. 02/19/08. U.S. Sen. Barack Obama won an overwhelming majority of the votes cast at polling stations in Japan during the first-ever global primary for the Democratic presidential nomination. Lauren Shannon, chairwoman of Democrats Abroad in Japan, said Monday that Obama's victory here was due in part to his multicultural background and overseas experience. "That means a lot to a lot of us," she told a news conference at the Japan National Press Club in Tokyo. Shannon is a supporter of Obama. Obama won 83 percent of the votes cast Feb. 5 in Tokyo, around 80 percent in Kyoto and 70 percent in Nagoya, Shannon said. The numbers from the three polling stations do not include votes coming in via the Internet or fax. The final tally will not be available until after Thursday, Shannon said.

Obama, Japan is key to Barak Obama’s support internationally DAVID MCNEILL. “Citizens of Obama are backing their man,” The Irish Times. 02/27/08. JAPAN: Four hours from Tokyo and a long, long way from Washington DC, a Japanese town has picked a candidate to win the US presidential election, and it's not Hillary Clinton. The former first lady may once have had supporters in the remote fishing town of Obama, population 32,000, on the Japan Sea coast, but the best of luck finding them. Just two months since realising that their town shared a name with the man who may well become the first black US president, the citizens of Obama are among his most fervent supporters. Pictures of Barack Obama hang in pachinko parlours and restaurants, "I Love Obama " T-shirts have been cranked out by the hundreds and a song eulogising the dashing senator's charms is in the can. This is the place to come in Japan for Obama burgers, sweet-bean buns and fish burgers. Even the town mayor backs the man from Illinois. A supporters club made up mainly of housewives that meets daily to plan strategy has no doubts at all that their work counts. "Ever since we started backing him he has been winning," says Satoko Udagawa. "It could be just a coincidence but we don't think so." Win or lose, she says the supporters plan a trip to see their idol in America. Serendipity has lent a hand to the unlikely campaign. Apart from that name, supporters have noted that the senator shares a birthday - August 4th - with the town's "chopstick day", founded to commemorate its most famous product: lacquered chopsticks. The town sent a set to Obama last year with a note in English from mayor Toshio Murakami, which said: "I am glad if you use it habitually." Obama has at least heard about the little corner of Japan backing him for the world's most powerful job, although he has yet to stop by. He told Japanese TV in 2006 that his passport was stamped by a man who looked up and told him he was from the town. It was the start of what may become a beautiful relationship. A viewer told the town office about the coincidence and the campaign was launched, slowly. "At first we thought Mrs Clinton might win so we weren't so enthusiastic," says Murakami. To those who would accuse him of opportunism, the mayor has the perfect answer: President Obama 's policies would be good for the town. A vocal critic of Japan's hardline policies toward North Korea, which incidentally is closer to Obama than Tokyo, the mayor believes the new president will bring stability to the region. "I heard Mr Obama say he will talk to North Korea," says the 75-year-old. "If he does, China and South Korea will also take note, and relations with Japan will improve." That means more chopstick exports to Asia and more tourists to Obama, but the mayor says something bigger is at stake. "I believe Mr Obama is a man of peace, someone who will help the world and also help save the environment. We're proud to back him."

WNDI 2008

11 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: Key to Relations with Japan The US/Japan alliance is key to preventing several scenarios of nuclear war in Asia INSS Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 10/11/2000, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SR_01/SR_Japan.htm Major war in Europe is inconceivable for at least a generation, but the prospects for conflict in Asia are-far from remote. The region features some of the world’s largest and most modern armies, nuclear-armed major powers, and several nuclear-capable states. Hostilities that could directly involve the United States in a major conflict could occur at a moment’s notice on the Korean peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait. The Indiansubcontinent is a major flashpoint. In each area, war has the potential of nuclear escalation. In addition, lingering turmoil in Indonesia, the world’ fourth-largest nation, threatens stability in Southeast Asia. The United States is tied to the region by a series of bilateral security alliances that remain the region’s de facto security architecture. In this promising but also potentially dangerous setting, the U.S.-Japan bilateral relationship is more important than ever with the world’s second-largest economy and a well-equipped and competent military , an as our democratic ally, Japan remains the keystone of the U.S. involvement in Asia. The U.S.-Japan alliance is central to America’s global security strategy.

Dooming relations means they can’t solve the case – relations are key to heg Joseph P. Keddell Jr., Specialist in Japanese Politics, Faculty of Law at Tokyo University and Tohoku University, 1993, The Politics of Defense in Japan: Managing Internal and External Pressures, pg. 200 The maintenance of bases in Japan has been important to the United States for two reasons. First is the bases' .geostrategic location. Such bases had served during the Cold War to help contain the Soviet Union militarily and were deemed useful for blocking Soviet forces that were trying to move from Vladivostok to the Sea of Japan and Pacific Ocean in the event of war. The U.S. bases in Japan are also considered useful in the post-Cold War era for deploying U.S. forces to cope with the increased likelihood of regional conflicts following the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Continuing instability in Indochina and the potential for increased tensions in Northeast Asia following the demise of aging leaderships in North Korea and China increase the value of these bases to the United States, as does the loss of the U.S. air and naval bases in the Philippines. Second is the cost effectiveness of such bases. Japan furnishes military bases to the United States at no charge and continues to increase its share of financing base costs. For instance, by 1990 the Japanese government had increased its coverage of U.S. base costs in Japan to over 50 percent.106The government views its financing of the costs of U.S. military facilities in Japan as a means of ensuring continuation of the U.S. security guarantee.

The alliance is key to preventing a China/Taiwan conflict Ted Osius, US Foreign Service Regional environmental affairs officer for Southeast Asia and the Pacific 2002, The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance: Why it Matters and How to Strengthen It, pg. 23 To deter conflict, the United States discourages Taipei from declaring independence and Beijing from forcibly attempting to unite Taiwan with the mainland. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States supplies Taiwan with weapons necessary for defense against the mainland.3 Given China's size and resources, however, Taiwan cannot achieve security based solely on independent military capabilities. Taipei relies on Beijing's fear that the United States would defend it in the event of a cross-strait conflict. Because U.S. forward-deployed forces are in Japan, Taiwan also depends on a strong and stable U.S.-Japan alliance.

US-Sino conflict over Taiwan causes global nuclear conflict Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5/14/2001, The Nation, Pg. 20 China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China’s minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world’s most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China’s sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.

WNDI 2008

12 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: Iran Strikes Obama opposes striking Iran Barak Obama. “BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO SECURE AMERICA AND RESTORE OUR STANDING,” 2008. Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including KylLieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

WNDI 2008

13 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: African Relations Because of his heritage, Obama gives hope to Africa The Namibian. “Africa; Obama 's Triumph Provides A Moral Lesson About Democracy,” Africa News 07/11/08. On a more familiar note, many have commented that with Barack Obama technically clinching the Democratic Party nomination it is worth noting what an exceptional moment this is for the United States. Thinking about this in America's racial historical context, it is indeed extraordinary. In particular, the polls say he is the odds-on favourite to become the next President. It is also an extraordinary moment for Africa as a result of Obama 's late Luo father from the little village of Nyangoma-Kogelo in Kenya. Much of the simplistic discussion around Senator Obama in Africa has been an exchange of what Obama could do for Africa as the first black President of the United States.

WNDI 2008

14 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: China Relations Obama perceive as good in China, would help improve relations Greg Torode. “Friend or Foe?” South China Morning Post. 03/07/08. the three, Senator Obama is the least known in the region. Regional governments are building a picture of the charismatic, eloquent senator from Illinois. Already, senior US-based Chinese diplomats have met him on several occasions, talking with him about China's role in Africa and other regional issues. He has courted Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and is soon expected to meet Japanese and Korean envoys. "Those who have met him walk away simply stunned at his grasp of the region and his intelligence," said one Asian diplomat. "The word is: he's got it ... drive, judgment and charm." One Washington source who is very familiar with Senator Obama 's approach to Asia, said this week the candidate was seeking to offer a significant change in presidential tone and style in his dealings with regional leaders - part of his wider effort to rebuild US diplomacy. While strengthening and broadening traditional alliances and engaging new potential regional friends across a deeper range of issues, Senator Obama would offer a distinct alternative to the unilateralism of the Bush era. He would also seek to display a new American "humility" - something that may also set him apart from his rivals for the White House. "Whether we are talking to friends and allies or more difficult regimes, we need to show we are listening as part of that engagement. Obama is very serious about this," said the source. "That humility doesn't mean he doesn't want to lead. If anything, it means that he wants our leadership on issues to be more responsive, realistic and respected. I think we are talking about a marked change in tone and style ... he's a reconciler. We are confident regional leaders will come to respect his integrity ... it is something that is at the core of his political makeup."

Maintaining US-Sino ties is crucial to prevent escalation over Taiwan. Paul Kerr, research analyst at the Arms Control Association. International Security, “Taiwan: Maintain the Current Ambiguity.” Volume 1, Number 1 - Fall 1999. http://www.csis.org/pubs/prospectus/99FallKerr.html Stable U.S.-China relations can also help prevent Chinese aggression towards Taiwan. The bottom line is whether or not Beijing can be persuaded to accept the status quo between the two countries. The U.S. commitment to Taiwan inextricably links relations between Taipei and Beijing to the relationship between Beijing and Washington. If the PRC perceives other areas of its relationship with the United States to be strong, such as U.S.-China trade and negotiations over China's membership in the WTO, it has less incentive to disrupt the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Provocative U.S. actions may lead Beijing to believe that it has little to gain by maintaining peaceful relations with the United States.

Taiwan conflict causes nuclear war. – text modified Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5/14/2001, The Nation, Pg. 20 China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China’s minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world’s most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear [war] holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China’s sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.

WNDI 2008

15 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: China Relations US-China relations are crucial to regional stability. David Shambaugh, Director of the China Policy Program @ George Washington University. International Security, Volume 29, Issue 3, Winter 2005. “China Engages Asia.” http://www.brookings.org/dybdocroot/views/articles/shambaugh/20050506.pdf On balance, this complex relationship is characterized by substantial cooperation on bilateral, regional, and global issues. While not a full condominium of two-power domination, and occasionally displaying traditional balance of power features, Sino-American cooperation is a significant feature of the current Asian order. Even the absence of Sino-American antagonism is an important factor. While some Asian countries may hedge against either U.S. or Chinese domination, and adroitly acquire whatever resources and benefits they can from both China and the United States, every country (except perhaps North Korea) seeks a stable, cooperative Sino-American relationship. Should Beijing and Washington one day confront each other, all of these regional states would be put in the awkward position of having to choose sides—and this they seek to avoid at all costs.

Strong US-China ties are preventing a global economic collapse now. LA Times, 7/18/05 Ties between the U.S. and China are far more extensive. Chinese immigrants have played a key role in the American hightech boom and have served as a bridge between the two countries. Trade between the U.S. and China has grown thirtyfold in the last decade, propelled by global retailers and producers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., shifting production from other low-cost countries to China. China has become the world's top destination for foreign funds. Last year, that country received nearly $61 billion in foreign investment and more than half of that country's exports are from factories owned by foreigners. China has also become the fastest-growing market for many U.S. industries such as high-tech and natural resource extraction. Low-cost goods from China

keep U.S. inflation down, while Chinese buying of U.S. Treasury securities helps keep American mortgage rates down. If China's growth were to slow significantly, it could trigger a global slowdown and major disruptions in key U.S. industries dependent on Chinese imports or components. "Until recently, we were not very dependent on China at all," said Edward Gresser, a former Clinton administration trade official and analyst with the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic think tank. "Now, we're relying heavily on China as a source of finance for our growth and our budget deficit." With so much at stake in its dealings with China, the United States must walk a tightrope -encouraging China to move forward with economic and political reforms without triggering a costly

confrontation.

WNDI 2008

16 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama good: Australia Relations Obama would lead to more US Australia cooperation Phillip Coorey. “Clinton embraces PM, Obama praises Howard's end,” Sydney Morning Herald. 04/2/08. THE US Democratic presidential frontrunner, Barack Obama, has not forgotten John Howard 's attack on him more than a year ago and raised it yesterday during a lengthy phone conversation with Kevin Rudd. Mr Rudd, in Washington, spoke with Senator Obama for about 30 minutes after meeting the other Democrat candidate, Hillary Clinton. Early this morning, Mr Rudd was scheduled to meet the Republican presumptive nominee, John McCain. Sources familiar with the Obama phone call said the Illinois Senator raised Mr Howard's attack as he congratulated Mr Rudd on becoming Prime Minister. In February last year, a day after Senator Obama launched his presidential campaign, Mr Howard said Senator Obama 's Iraq policy made both him and the Democrats al-Qaeda's party of choice. The controversial comment was construed as potentially damaging to the alliance and prompted Senator Obama to challenge Mr Howard to send 20,000 more troops if he was so serious about Iraq. Following yesterday's phone call, Senator Obama released a lengthy statement saying Mr Rudd's "progressive" policy agenda suited "this new chapter in US-Australia relations". "His progressive domestic policy agenda, innovative and realistic diplomacy, and optimistic vision enrich the already solid base of our bilateral dialogue, reminding us that we can accomplish more when we listen to our friends and allies than when we lecture them."

US/Australian relations are the lynchpin of South Asian stability Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs. “The Australia-United States Alliance and East Asian Security,” Speech at the University of Sydney conference, 29 June 2001 http://www.dfat.gov.au/media/speeches/foreign/2001/010629_fa_us_alliance.html I want to put to rest this evening a view we hear from time-to-time in the media and elsewhere which argues that the ANZUS Treaty and the alliance is no longer relevant to Australia's interests with the end of the Cold War, or that it somehow imposes unacceptable tradeoffs in Australia's relations with the Asia Pacific region. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forging and maintaining strong relations with one country or region does not mean neglecting any other country or region. To suggest that the depth and strength of our alliance with the US somehow weakens or compromises our ties with the Asia Pacific is nonsense. In fact, ANZUS was seen from the outset as a means of enhancing our ties with the region: Percy Spender, who pushed so strongly to conclude the ANZUS Treaty, did so with a clear and expressed conviction that Australia’s

destiny was bound up with Asia. He saw the Australia – US alliance as a linchpin for stability in the region. On the eve of his departure for the Colombo Conference in January 1950, Spender said that “Australia and the United States of America are the two countries which can, in co-operation one with the other, make the greatest contribution to stability and to democratic development of the countries of South-East Asia.” This was 13 months before the crucial Canberra negotiations at which the fundamentals of ANZUS were hammered out. And the preamble to the treaty itself noted the desire of the parties “to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific Area”. The contemporary argument in favour of ANZUS and the Australia-US alliance doesn't rest fundamentally on the genuinely close emotional and cultural links between the two countries - as important and long-standing as they are - but on the continuing congruence of Australian and US national interests and values in so many areas. In short, it is mutually beneficial. Let me make four key points in support of my argument. First, from the outset, ANZUS was conceived as a security pact flexible enough to be relevant to a range of challenges. Initially, this was Australia’s concern to be protected against the threat of a militarily resurgent Japan. Then, in the Cold War, it was protection against the threat of Communist expansionism. Now, in what President Bush has recently described as an era in which the threats come from uncertainty, it provides a bedrock of certainty and security on which both Australia and the United States know they can always rely.

South Asian conflict ensures nuclear winter Ghulam Nabi Fai, Kashmiri American Council, July 8, 2001, Washington Times The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The director of central intelligence, the Defense Department, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.

WNDI 2008

17 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: NPT Obama supports the NPT Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. “Barack Obama on Diplomacy,” 01/17/08. In a break with the other leading presidential contenders, Obama supports the United States’ commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate nuclear stockpiles. However, although the United States possesses by far the largest number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems on earth, Obama hasn’t indicated support for any unilateral American initiatives to move the process forward, such as cuts in weapons or delivery systems where the United States has a qualitative advantage.

WNDI 2008

18 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Good: Kyoto Obama would ratify the Kyoto Protocol Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. “Barack Obama on Diplomacy,” 01/17/08. In addition to calling on the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, Obama has called for a series of policy initiatives “to bring developing countries into the global effort to develop alternative sources of energy and prepare for the ravages of a changing climate,” including “funding to leverage the investment and venture capital needed to expand the developing world’s renewable energy portfolio.” Despite his emphasis on climate change as a national security issue, however, many environmentalists find that his proposals do not go nearly far enough

WNDI 2008

19 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

McCain Bad: Iran Strikes McCain will use military force against Iran The Associated Press. "Giuliani, McCain: U.S. should prepare to use force against Iran." 10/16/07 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/913507.html (CVD) Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain said Tuesday they would be prepared as president to use military force against Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. Giuliani characterized Iran as a state sponsor of terror that is seeking nuclear weapons and said Tehran needs to understand how the United States would respond to that development. "Anybody who wants to be president of the United States would say a prayer at the beginning that you would never have to use American military power," the former New York City mayor said. "But as president, you can't hesitate to do that, if it's in the best interest of the United States." "You have to stand up to dictators and tyrants and terrorists," he added. "Weakness invites attack. Strength keeps you safe." On Iran specifically, Giuliani said, "We've seen what Iran will do with ordinary weapons. If I'm president, I guarantee you we will never find out what they would do with nuclear weapons because they're not going to get them." Said McCain, "At the end of the day, we cannot allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons." The presidential candidates spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition. Last week, Giuliani reiterated during a presidential debate his stance in favor of a military option against a nuclear Iran. On another subject, Giuliani said he would not negotiate with the Palestinians on the situation in the Middle East until two conditions are met: acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and a good-faith effort to stop terror. "If they do those two things and mean it, then of course we can negotiate," Giuliani said. "We would like to have peace. But we don't want to have a peace in which we are taken advantage of. We don't want to have a peace in which Americans and Israelis are getting killed. And we certainly don't want to create another terrorist-supporting state. We have too many of them already."

McCain likes the Beach Boys and will bomb Iran CNN "McCain sings 'Bomb, bomb Iran." 4/19/07 http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007 /04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html (CVD). WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At a town hall meeting in South Carolina Wednesday, Arizona Sen. John McCain was asked if there is a plan to attack Iran. McCain began his answer by changing the words to a classic Beach Boys' song. "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?" the Republican presidential candidate said. Then, he sang. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He finished his answer by discussing the Iran's nuclear ambitions and the country's desire to wipe Israel off the map to emphasize the real dangers that it poses to the world.

McCain WILL order Iranian missile strikes and mass bombing strikes Arnaud de Borchgrave, Specialist in International Affairs. "Israel: We Will Strike Iran Alone." Newsmax. 7/26/08 http://www.newsmax.com/borchgrave/israel_iran_nuclear/2008/06/26/107691.html (CVD) If, on the other hand, John McCain moves into the White House on the afternoon of Jan. 20, 2009, he presumably would approve of Israeli bombing raids and cruise-missile strikes against Iran's nascent nuclear weapons capability. There is only one thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has said, and that is an Iranian nuclear bomb.

WNDI 2008

20 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Bad: European Relations Obama would not live up to European expectations and hurt relations Denis MacShane; MacShane is Labour Member of Parliament for Rotherham and a former minister for Europe. “Welcome To Natoland,” Newsweek. 02/04/08. Of all the lazy thinking in Europe's capitals, the laziest is the notion that the next U.S. administration will usher in a new era of sweetness and light in transatlantic relations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Barack Obama is the darling of the anti-Bush crowd in Europe. But in his book "The Audacity of Hope" he declares, "We have the right to take unilateral action to eliminate an imminent threat to our security." Obama insists that the U.N. Security Council should not have a veto "over our actions." He even offers an old metaphor as he accuses Russia and China of seeking "to throw their weight around," which means "there will be times when we must again play the role of the world's reluctant sheriff. This will not change. Nor should it."

WNDI 2008

21 Elections DA Impacts Scholars

Obama Bad: Social Security Obama would raise taxes to support social security TEDDY DAVIS. “Obama Floats Social Security Tax Hike,” 09/22/07. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is considering a major tax hike on the rich to shore up the nation's Social Security system. Obama Iowa "If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000," Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, "we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall." Obama's idea, which he described on the op-ed page of Friday's Quad City Times as being "one possible option" and not a formal plan, would raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years by subjecting income of more than $97,000 to a 12.4 percent tax. Half of the tax would be paid by employees and half would be paid by employers.

Tax hike to support Social Security would tank the economy Michael Tanner. “The Democrats Want to Raise Social Security Taxes,” No date given. Moreover, raising the tax cap would not just impact the super rich, as is often argued, but would fall most heavily on the upper middle class. Some 9.2 million Americans would see their taxes increased. Roughly three quarters are managers or other professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. 16 percent work in sales or office occupations, while the remainder includes teachers, nurses, truck drivers, farmers, and police officers. Small businesses would be particularly hammered: about one-third of the workers affected by raising the cap would be small business owners. Eliminating the cap would saddle the United States with the highest marginal tax rate in the world, higher even than countries like Sweden. Studies suggest that it would cost the United States as much as $136 billion in lost economic growth over the next 10 years, and as many as 1.1 million lost jobs. In exchange for this economic catastrophe, we would gain surprisingly little in terms of Social Security's finances. Even the most drastic, and politically unlikely proposal -- completely eliminating the cap without allowing any additional credit toward benefits -- would result in only eight additional years of cash-flow solvency. Rather than beginning to run a deficit in 2017, Social Security would continue to run a surplus until 2025. That's very little gain for so much pain. Nor would eliminating the cap address Social Security's other problems. It would not enable workers to decide how their money is invested. It would not allow low- and middle-income workers to accumulate a nest egg of real, inheritable wealth. It would not improve Social Security's rate of return for younger workers.