Afghanistan Politics Aff

Will Malson Afghanistan Politics Aff Page 1 of 28
Index
Index...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1AC
1AC (1/5)............................................................................................................................................... 3
1AC (2/5)............................................................................................................................................... 4
1AC (3/5)............................................................................................................................................... 5
1AC (4/5)............................................................................................................................................... 6
1AC (5/5)............................................................................................................................................... 7
1AC XTs
Plan XTs ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Status Quo #1 XTs ............................................................................................................................... 10
Status Quo #2 XTs ............................................................................................................................... 11
Implication XTs (1/2)........................................................................................................................... 12
Implication XTs (2/2)........................................................................................................................... 13
Impact A. / Troops Solvency XTs ........................................................................................................ 14
Impact B. XTs...................................................................................................................................... 15
Impact C. XTs...................................................................................................................................... 16
Impact D. XTs...................................................................................................................................... 17
Alan Robock ........................................................................................................................................ 18
Impact Weighing – Global Warming.................................................................................................... 19
Impact Weighing – Human Life ........................................................................................................... 20
T
Topicality – Energy Policy ................................................................................................................... 22
Topicality – Energy Subsidies / NEPA ................................................................................................. 23
Topicality – Standards.......................................................................................................................... 24
Topicality – Voter ................................................................................................................................ 25
Topicality – FXT.................................................................................................................................. 26
Topicality – Extra-T............................................................................................................................. 27
T is an RVI .......................................................................................................................................... 28
1AC
1AC (1/5)
One of the most important concepts of our era is the concept of political capital, or political power. With
it, presidents can get their agenda through Congress and enacted into law. What I’m going to be talking
about to you today is how, by changing environmental policy, President Obama can bolster his political
capital, and the benefits from such an action. This leads my partner and I to a resolution: Resolved: that
the USFG should significantly reform its environmental policy.
Let’s start right off with the plan. The following plan will be implemented by the President of the
United States through legal, constitutional means:
Mandates: The USFG should end all on- and off-budget subsidization of alternative energy.
Funding: General Revenue
Timeline: Work to achieve the mandates will begin immediately.
…And the Affirmative team reserves the right to clarify as needed.
1AC (2/5)
Let’s continue on to present observations of the affirmative case. Observation 1 is of the Status Quo.
We’ll be examining in 2 points what the political cost of alternative energy subsidies are to Obama.
SQ #1: Obama is spending an unprecedented amount of political capital on alternative energy.

Benjamin L. Israel & James W. McTarnaghan 09 BENJAMIN L. ISRAEL AND JAMES W.
MCTARNAGHAN [partners at Duane Morris LLP.], "Navigating the ever-changing currents of the US
renewable energy market", Financier Worldwide, May 2009,
http://www.duanemorris.com/articles/static/israel_mctarnaghan_fw0509.pdf (HEG)
When President Obama signed the American Recovery and Rein- vestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) into
law on 17 February 2009, he put into place key elements of a comprehensive policy to assist the de-
velopment of renewable energy in the United States. Never before has so much political capital – and
real capital – been dedicated toward the growth of the domestic renewable energy market. With the
industry’s focus on attracting what are significant, but still limited, financial resources, it is even more
critical for market participants to understand the ever-changing currents of this still-developing market.
SQ #2: Obama is spreading his political capital too thin.

Kenneth Silber 09 Kenneth Silber [senior editor at Research, a magazine for financial advisors, and has written on various topics in science,
technology and economics for publications including the New York Post, National Review, Scientific American and the Wall Street Journal], "Obama –
Getting the Big Things Wrong", © 2009–2010 FrumForum.com, August 17, 2009, http://www.frumforum.com/obama-getting-the-big-things-wrong (HEG)
Early in 2008, economist Lawrence Lindsey published a book titled What a President Should Know …
But Most Learn Too Late. Though Lindsey, along with coauthor Marc Summerlin, had worked in the George W. Bush White House, the book
sought to give advice that could be useful to a president of either party, on matters of policy and management alike. I wrote a positive review for the New
York Post, which appeared in truncated form. Overall, though, What a President Should Know didn’t get too much attention, and I think it’s a safe bet that
Lindsey’s advice would’ve spared Obama, and the American public,
Barack Obama never read it. And that’s too bad, because some of
from some needless, counterproductive aggravation. In particular, Obama would’ve benefited from a memo from Lindsey (much
of the book is in the form of memos) titled “Unsolvable Problems: Pick One and Solve It.” Lindsey advised the incoming president that certain problem
areas — such as energy, health care and education — have been intractable because they are loaded with unavoidable tradeoffs (cheap energy versus clean
energy, for example). The memo explained: “You have a fundamental choice between conserving your political capital by doing something small in a
variety of areas to make it look like you are addressing problems or actually making one big step toward solving one of these unsolvable problems.” Lindsey
Obama, by contrast, has been
recommended the latter: “picking one key problem that you care a lot about and throwing all your energies into it.”
trying to bring about major change in both energy policy (with the cap-and-trade proposal, now
languishing in the Senate) and healthcare policy (with Obamacare , now being shouted down in town
halls), on top of his massive stimulus spending (which the public seems to want stopped). In so doing,
Obama has spread his political capital thin, let his energies dissipate and largely left it to Congress to
figure out what’s going to be in all this landmark legislation.
What we’ve seen in these two points are that subsidization of alternative energy is damaging to Obama’s
political capital, or political power or political influence, whichever term you want to use. In addition,
Obama’s political capital has been spread thin, which means, in the long run, he has even less to use.
1AC (3/5)
We’ll proceed on to Observation 2: implications. Here we’ll analyze this lull in Obama’s political
capital. What are the practical implications?
The practical implication concerns the war in Afghanistan. Specifically, Obama needs political
capital in order to resist calls from the left to end the war in Afghanistan.
Peter D. Feaver 09 Peter D. Feaver [Ph.D. from Harvard in 1990, is the Alexander F. Hehmeyer
professor of political science and public policy at Duke University and director of the Triangle Institute
for Security Studies], "Obama's race against time (and some Democrats) on Afghanistan", ©2009
WASHINGTONPOST. NEWSWEEK INTERACTIVE, LLC., Foreign Policy, May 13, 2009,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/05/13/obamas_race_against_time_and_some_democrats_o
n_afghanistan (HEG)
Which brings us back to the reaction to Obama's military command shake-up. He may be inching
towards that awkward position of finding that the chattering class from across the aisle increasingly
shows more support for his war policies than does his base counterpart. Some of the same groups that
wanted to end rather than win the war in Iraq are now starting to lobby to end rather than win the war in
Afghanistan. In so doing, they are increasingly seeing Obama as the problem not the solution, and they
are willing to work against him on these issues. That is an indication that Obama, to his great credit,
seems to be making war decisions on Afghanistan and Iraq based primarily on his team's assessment of
the facts on the ground, rather than on what will serve partisan political interests. But it does complicate
the job of building and preserving public support to continue the war -- a job that is inescapably
political. Obama has the rhetorical gifts and political strength to build that political support, but it will
require expending time and political capital on that effort. And, if my read of the chattering class' mood
is correct, it will also require that he swim against the currents in his own party.
1AC (4/5)
In our last observation, Observation 3, we’ll look at the impacts of withdrawing out of Afghanistan.
We’ll have 4 points, which will lead us to the terminal impact.
A. Early withdrawal destroys gains in Afghanistan, & we won’t get another chance at success.
Bruce Riedel 09 Bruce Riedel [Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy],
"Afghanistan: What Is at Stake?" © 2010 The Brookings Institution [nonprofit public policy
organization based in Washington, DC], April 30, 2009,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0430_afghanistan_riedel.aspx (HEG)
Twice in the last quarter century the United States has squandered great victories achieved in
Afghanistan by failing to follow up battlefield success with an enduring and resourced commitment to
helping to build a stable government in Afghanistan. Both times the cost of taking our eye of the ball in
Afghanistan had been high. It is imperative not to make the same mistake a third time or the cost will
again be painful, and we probably won’t get a fourth opportunity.
B. Giving up Afghanistan to the Taliban would result in a radicalization of nearby Pakistan.

Bruce Riedel 09 Bruce Riedel [Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy],
"Afghanistan: What Is at Stake?" © 2010 The Brookings Institution [nonprofit public policy
organization based in Washington, DC], April 30, 2009,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0430_afghanistan_riedel.aspx (HEG)
Even more devastating would be the impact in neighboring Pakistan. A victory for the Afghan Taliban
would encourage its new partners, the Pakistan Taliban, in their struggle to take over the world’s second
largest Muslim country. This February several Pakistani Taliban leaders united their forces and
proclaimed their allegiance both to Omar and bin Laden. Already on the march in Pakistan from the
tribal frontiers to inside major cities like Karachi, a Pakistani Taliban further invigorated by its partner’s
success across the Durand Line would be well positioned to take over much of the country. The
Pakistani army would probably make a deal, as it already has in the Swat district. Al Qaeda’s room for
maneuver would be even greater and it might well get its hands on the world’s fastest growing nuclear
arsenal.
1AC (5/5)
C. Radicalization of Pakistan would result in nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan – such
a scenario “can no longer be simply rejected as an alarmist fantasy.”
Dr. Mohan Malik 03 Dr. MOHAN MALIK [Professor of Security Studies at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. Published over 90
articles on Asian-Pacific security issues in refereed journals. Has done consultancy work for the Australian Department of Defense (Army), and the United
Kingdom-based Jane’s Information Group], "The China Factor in the India-Pakistan Conflict", © 2003 Mohan Malik, Parameters [US Army War College
Quarterly, The United States Army's Senior Professional Journal], Page 47, Spring 2003 (HEG)
Should post-Musharraf Pakistan disintegrate or be taken over by Islamic extremists, a new level of
instability would rock the region and increase tensions among Pakistan, India, and China. Another
dreadful scenario is one in which Chinese-made Pakistani nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the
United States, Israel, or even India in the event of a civil war should al Qaeda or the Taliban de- clare
jihad against Pakistan—the weakest ally in the US-led anti-terrorism coalition.51 India would be
tempted to militarily intervene in Pakistan if Islamists gain control over the nuclear weapons of its
neighbor, either through a coup or civil war.52 Such a scenario could reveal information regarding
China’s own nuclear program and the extent of help provided by Beijing to Islamabad. The scenario of
Pakistan in splinters, with one piece becoming a radical Muslim state in possession of nuclear weapons,
can no longer be simply rejected as an alarmist fantasy.
D. Nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cause a “little ice age”, rendering the
world uninhabitable. We “have to start looking at ourselves as a species.”
TJ Greaney 07 TJ Greaney [reporter], "On high alert", 'Steven Starr of Columbia takes warning about nuclear bombs to U.N.', The Columbia
Daily Tribune, Clips Report [a selection of local, statewide and national news clips about the University of Missouri and higher education, compiled by UM
System University Communications as a service for UM System officials], November 8, 2007,
https://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/sites/uc/Clips%20Reports/2007/clips071109.doc (HEG)
a "small, regional" nuclear war, such as that possible between India and Pakistan,
Starr further explained that
could result in the detonation of 100 nuclear bombs the size of those dropped in World War II. The
resulting mass fires would, according to some projections, send huge quantities of smoke into the
stratosphere that could drop the Earth’s temperatures to levels of the pre-industrial age, a time called
"the Little Ice Age." Much of the world’s farmland would be unusable. "If you launch a successful first strike, but it
makes the world uninhabitable, then how successful was it?" Starr asked. "They call it a regional war, but nothing is regional
when you’re dealing with nuclear arms. … When it comes down to it, we have to start looking at
ourselves as a species."
Let’s summarize. In observation 1, we looked at the cost of alternative energy subsidies to Obama’s PC.
His PC is being hurt, and his PC is being spread too thin. In observation 2, we looked at the cost of
hurting his PC. He needs PC in order to resist “calls from the left” to pull the troops out of Afghanistan.
In observation 3, we looked at what would happen if he pulled the troops out – what would happen if his
PC continued to suffer – what would happen if we did not cut alternative energy subsidies. Do we want
a destabilization of the Middle East? Of course not. But if we stick with the SQ, that’s we’ll get. What
we need to do is cut alternative energy subsidies in order to bolster his PC and preserving his ability to
prevent nuclear conflict in the Middle East.
1AC XTs
Plan XTs
A. We define on-budget subsidies as anything in the federal budget such as a transfer of money to
an industry without anything in return, as opposed to a loan.
Subsidy: 1 a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business
so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive (Oxford American
Dictionaries)
B. We define off-budget subsidies as tax subs, capital subs, price regs, and quantity restrictions
Cees van Beers & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh 09 Cees van Beers [professor of innovation management at Delft University
of Technology] & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh [ICREA professor at Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona and professor of environmental and resource
economics at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He was awarded the Royal/Shell Prize 2002 for research on ‘‘Sustain- able Development, Environment and
Resources,’’ and was a member of the Energy Council of The Netherlands. From 1997 to 2007 he was professor of environmental economics at Vrije
Universiteit], "Environmental Harm of Hidden Subsidies: Global Warming and Acidification", Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Ambio Vol. 38, No. 6,
page 339, September 2009 (HEG)
Public subsidies can be broadly defined as all government interventions that directly or indirectly cause the price for consumers to be below, or for producers
above, the undistorted market price. As opposed to on-budget subsidies, off-budget subsidies are often not recognized as being subsidies. This in turn hinders
Off-budget subsidies can be categorized as follows:
the assessment of their environmental consequenc- es.
i) Tax subsidies: deductions, exemptions, or special tariffs, like reduced energy taxes for specific sectors
or low VAT rates for specific product categories
ii) Public provision of goods and services below their cost, like infrastructure
iii) Capital subsidies, such as loan guarantees, debt forgiveness, and government loans with ‘‘soft
conditions’’ (e.g. below- market interest rates)
iv) Price regulation, such as minimum prices for agricultural products
v) Quantity restrictions, such as regulating a minimum use of a certain input or product
vi) Trade barriers, such as import quota and export credits
Status Quo #1 XTs
A. Obama is spending political capital on funding alternative energy.

Peter Slevin and Steven Mufson 09 Peter Slevin and Steven Mufson [Washington Post Staff Writers], "Alternative Energy Still Facing
Headwinds", © Copyright 1996-2010 The Washington Post Company, February 17, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601199.html (HEG)
Obama, who made the country's energy future a central part of his campaign pitch, is now staking political capital on his vision.
With the nation enduring its deepest economic crisis in decades, he told Energy Department employees earlier this month that
energy provisions, including funding in the stimulus bill, would "begin to end the tyranny of oil in our
time." "After decades of dragging our feet," Obama said, the "plan will finally spark the creation of a
clean energy industry that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next few years,
manufacturing wind turbines and solar cells, for example."
B. Long-term alternative energy subsidies will be more difficult to pass than the one-time stimulus
programs – they take political capital to pass.
Robert Kuttner 09 Robert Kuttner [co-editor of The American Prospect], "It's Show Time for Obama", © RealClearPolitics 2008, Jan 26, 2009,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/its_show_time_for_obama.html (HEG)
This also suggests an ideological division that will be hard to paper over. After four decades of
bipartisan assaults on government, many progressive Democrats (this writer included) hope to use the stimulus
as a down-payment on an expansion of government services such as affordable housing and early childhood education that have been
chronically under-funded, as well as long term investments in green energy and smart infrastructure. But the 49-
member Blue Dog Coalition in the House and Senate fiscal conservatives such as Conrad see the
stimulus as a one-shot. They want sharp spending cuts as soon as the immediate crisis is past, to pay for
the fiscal sin of a temporary deficit hike.
Status Quo #2 XTs
Obama is spreading himself ridiculously thin on too many fronts

David Stokes 09 David R. Stokes [reporter], "This Time Abe, FDR, And JFK Can’t Help", Copyright © 2009 The Richard Nixon Foundation,
March 13, 2009, http://thenewnixon.org/2009/03/13/this-time-abe-fdr-and-jfk-cant-help/ (HEG)
During recent remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, President Barack Obama waxed a bit
defensive in response to mounting criticism that he may be spreading himself, his vision, and his
obvious political capital too thin in these early days of his administration. He is calling for reform in our health care
system, the same for education, while ending torture as the bad guys have known it, opening the stem
cell floodgates on an ethical slippery slope, while trying to fight two wars and fix a troubled economy.
We may be witnessing the birth of the modern octo-presidency.
Implication XTs (1/2)
A. Obama needs political capital to shore up support for Afghanistan plans.

Peter Feaver 09 Peter Feaver [Ph.D. from Harvard in 1990, is the Alexander F. Hehmeyer professor of political science and public policy at Duke
University and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies], "Is Obama losing public support for Afghanistan?" ©2009
WASHINGTONPOST.NEWSWEEK INTERACTIVE, LLC., Foreign Policy, March 13, 2009,
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/13/is_obama_losing_public_support_for_afghanistan (HEG)
Another prop of public support is elite consensus. Right now, the public seems to be mirroring elite confusion on what to do. The
most recent poll I have seen has the public equally split between increasing troops, decreasing troops, or
keeping the troops in Afghanistan about the same. The military and other experts likewise seem to hold many conflicting opinions
on what should be done (contrast this with this). And, for a real blast from 2006, you can't get much more retro than this: Les Gelb arguing for the Baker-
Hamilton solution in Afghanistan, while Max Boot and Fred and Kimberley Kagan argue for a surge.This is a quandary we have seen
before -- in Iraq and, before that, in Vietnam. The situation stabilized in Iraq, but only after the Bush
administration actually found a winning strategy (the surge) and spent virtually all of its remaining
political capital implementing it. The situation never stabilized in Vietnam. I am sure it did not please the White House team to see
Newsweek label Afghanistan "Obama's Vietnam." But the analogy may be apt in one important respect: Obama may find himself spending
far more time trying to mobilize public support to continue this war than he ever expected. And if he does not
find a strategy that will reverse the situation on the ground in Afghanistan -- and if he cannot explain this strategy to the American people -- then he may find
public support dropping faster than he can prop it up.
B. Obama needs confidence to maintain troop increase in Afghanistan

Max Boot 09 Max Boot [senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations], "Deja vu in Kabul", Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times, Feb 7,
2009, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot7-2009feb07,0,4669288.story (HEG)
Keep in mind that until fairly recently, the conventional wisdom was that we had already won in Afghanistan and could never win in Iraq. Now we hear the
reverse, but the new zeitgeist is no sounder than the old. We
can win in Afghanistan, as we are now winning in Iraq. The
key is for policymakers to ignore the naysayers. They will get louder over time, because, just as in Iraq,
a surge in the number of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan will inevitably bring about a short-term spike in
casualties. But if President Obama doesn't lose his nerve, the odds are that a classic counterinsurgency
strategy, supported by adequate troop levels, can turn around another failing war effort.
C. Sustaining the fight in Afghanistan will require consistent political capital.

Matt Gurney 09 Matt Gurney [National Post editor], "Matt Gurney: Obama's new Afghanistan", © 2009 The National Post Company, National
Post, May 15, 2009, http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/05/15/matt-gurney-obama-s-new-afghanistan.aspx (HEG)
That’s a tall order. Fashioning Afghanistan into a stable, peaceful state, or at least one not hostile to our
interests, will be the work of tens of thousands of troops and many, many years. It would strain voter
patience and popular support in the NATO countries to the very limit, and in many cases, perhaps beyond. Even so,
and granting all the risks and uncertainties of such a strategy, it would still be better in the long run to
pursue that difficult goal than to focus instead on hurting the Taliban just enough to permit a withdrawal
whilst claiming victory. America tried that once before, with predictable results. The longer-term effort, focused on rebuilding
Afghanistan in our image, was a job better suited to General McKiernan, even if it ran contrary to Obama’s preference for all change, all the time.
Implication XTs (2/2)
D. Sustained political support key to success of afghan mission – & right now that support is there.
Michael E. O'Hanlon 09 Michael E. O'Hanlon [Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy], "Toward Reconciliation in Afghanistan", © 2010 The
Brookings Institution, April 2009, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/04_afghanistan_ohanlon.aspx (HEG)
Based in part on a December 2008 trip to Afghanistan with the Canadian military, I came away with the
impression that the situation in Afghanistan was fairly bad, but the prospects for the future are reasonably good, at least
relative to the standards and expectations of the Afghan people.1 Since prevailing in counterinsurgency is largely about sustaining the support of the
indigenous population, this is a hopeful sign. Moreover,
the incoming Obama administration has made its commitment to this
war clear, presumably ensuring that U.S. political support for the mission will endure for a considerable
period. The year 2009 is likely to be bloody as the additional U.S. forces establish themselves in the country. Will the additional troops, however, bring
about a turning point in the war? In other words, will the extra forces enable the United States and its allies to cap the violence and also to focus more on the
development of the security sector of Afghanistan and the political reconciliation process?
Impact A. / Troops Solvency XTs
A. U.S. tactics are improving chances for success

Of course, it is not just a question of how many troops will be in Afghanistan, but what they will do.
According to initial plans, the added forces would be used to secure major highways in the country,
expand coverage of populated regions, attempt to reduce the flow of insurgents into the country from
Pakistan to the extent possible, and perhaps most of all, train the Afghan military and police forces.
Many of the concepts guiding employment of NATO and Afghan forces are now following solid
counterinsurgency and stabilization doctrines. For example, the strategy for securing the country is
following the concept of ‘‘clear, hold and build.’’ Until now, NATO forces had often moved into populated areas to pursue
insurgents, and then would pull out once a given search and destroy operation was complete. The Taliban would then return and would kill or intimidate the
friendly Afghans who would never help the foreign forces again. This approach does not work, as the U.S. forces also learned during the first four years of
Iraq. Today, Afghan and NATO security forces move into new regions only when forces are available to hold onto them thereafter. Training of soldiers and
police has also become much more serious. These programs are not only longer and tougher, but training teams are being embedded into units after they
complete training.
B. Overall, U.S. strategy has chance for success

U.S. strategy for 2009 has

In short, in addition to improving security directly through reinforcements from the United States, NATO and
several promising elements. First, the focus is now on proper implementation of counterinsurgency
doctrine, such as ‘‘clear, hold, build,’’ with areas being reclaimed only after combined Afghan/NATO forces have
the capacity to hold on to the liberated areas thereafter. Second, increased U.S. troops will allow proper
training of Afghan forces for the first time, including embedding of advisors after basic training. And
third, serious, sophisticated, and systematic attention is now being given to the challenge of how to
approach the reconciliation process.
C. Even with all that could go wrong there is still a good chance for success
Much can still derail the United States and the international community from this objective. The police may
prove simply too corrupt. The sanctuary for Taliban and militia fighters in Pakistan may prove too impregnable and otherwise resilient to efforts to stanch its
effects on the conflict in Afghanistan. Critical government reformers may wind up in personality-driven disputes with Karzai (or his successor, if a new
president is elected in 2009) and be fired. Or some may be assassinated, depriving the country of much needed leadership. With
sustained
attention and resources, however, the international community in partnership with Afghan patriots and
reformers has a good chance to make important progress in this important war and nation-building
enterprise.
Impact B. XTs
Leaving Afghanistan would allow for a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Bharat Verma 10 Bharat Verma [Editor Indian Defence Review], "India Begs US Not To Leave Afghanistan", Feb 4, 2010,
http://www.daily.pk/india-begs-us-not-to-leave-afghanistan-15621/ (HEG)
New Delhi has appealed to

While China and Pakistan have joined hands against India and bide their time for the American forces to leave,
Washington not to exit from Afghanistan. With the American declaration of an exit from Afghanistan, Beijing and Islamabad are
upbeat. This leaves India in the lurch as it is ill prepared to face the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists and the Chinese Communists argues Bharat
Verma. The creeping invasion by authoritarian regimes will engulf Asia by 2020 as democracies continue to retreat. India is unprepared and unwilling to
safeguard the Asian democratic space. The growing clout of totalitarian regimes coupled with non-State actors is set to shrink the democratic space in Asia.
If the onslaught is not reversed by the end of the next decade, Islamic fundamentalist regimes, Communist dictatorships, military juntas and non-State actors
The squeeze on the democratic space in India will increase
will redraw the international boundaries and largely govern Asia.
once the American forces begin to exit Afghanistan in July 2011. Islamic fundamentalists with the assistance of the
sympathetic Pakistan army will take over Afghanistan and Pakistan. This Taliban stronghold will
operate on a ‘hub and spoke’ principle to expand influence and territory. To begin with, India will lose $1.5 billion
(about Rs 6,900 crore) worth of investment in Afghanistan, as it is unwilling to defend it.
Impact C. XTs
A. A radicalization of Pakistan would allow Al Qaeda to fire to up to 100 nuclear weapons.

National Terror Alert 09 National Terror Alert, "Pakistan – Taliban Nuclear Nightmare", Copyright © 2009 National Terror Alert, April 23,
2009, http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/04/23/pakistan-taliban-nuclear-nightmare/ (HEG)
Nuclear-armed Pakistan is unraveling at a frightening pace and if it doesn’t worry you, it should.
Imagine al Qaeda having it’s finger on the button of up to one hundred nuclear missiles and you quickly
get an idea of the mortal danger (as Hilary Clinton called it earler this week) the world is facing should Pakistan fall.
Amazingly, most Americans seem unaware or simply unconcerned.
B. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is at risk from Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgency.

Fox News 09 Fox News, "U.S. Fears Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons at Risk", © 2010 FOX News Network, LLC., May 4, 2009,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518742,00.html (HEG)
ISLAMABAD — Senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal
may be at risk from a rising Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgency in the vulnerable country, the New York Times
reported Monday. Officials told the Times they are worried militants could take possession of the arms during transport or by potentially infiltrating atomic
The Taliban's
laboraties or fuel-production plants, but emphasized that there was no reason to believe that the arsenal faced an imminent threat.
recent incursion into Buner, a key region 60 miles from the capital, Islamabad, heightened global fears as
the whereabouts of all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites is unknown.
Impact D. XTs
A. Nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would block the sun, causing unprecedented
climate change and temperatures more extreme than the “little ice age”.
Eben Harrell quoting Alan Robock 09 Eben Harrell, "Regional Nuclear War and the Environment", Copyright © 2010 Time Inc., Jan
22, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1873164,00.html (HEG)
Tensions between India and Pakistan have been high recently. If they escalated to all-out nuclear
war, what would be the effect to the global climate? We looked at a scenario in which each country
used 50 Hiroshima-sized weapons, which they are believed to have in their arsenals. That's enough
firepower to kill around 20 million people on the ground. We were surprised that the amount of smoke
produced by these explosions would block out sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change
unprecedented in recorded human history. Your study predicts mass cooling. With all the heat and radioactivity of the explosions,
why wouldn't nuclear war warm the planet?
It has nothing to do with the radioactivity of the explosions — although that would be devastating to nearby
populations. The explosions would set off massive fires, which would produce plumes of black smoke.
The sun would heat the smoke and lift it into the stratosphere — that's the layer above the troposphere, where we live —
where there is no rain to clear it out. It would be blown across the globe and block the sun. The effect would not be a
nuclear winter, but it would be colder than the little ice age [in the 17th and 18th centuries] and the change would
happen very rapidly — over the course of a few weeks. Would you be able to see the smoke? The sky would not be
blue. It would be grey.
B. India-Pakistan nuclear exchange would shorten the growing season causing a global food crisis.
Eben Harrell quoting Alan Robock 09 Eben Harrell, "Regional Nuclear War and the Environment", Copyright © 2010 Time Inc., Jan
22, 2009, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1873164,00.html (HEG)
And what would the results be for humanity? We calculated that there would be a shortening of the growing season
in the mid-latitudes — that includes Europe and America in the Northern Hemisphere — by a couple of weeks. The growing season is defined as the period
crops that need the whole growing season would not reach
between the last frost in spring and first frost in the fall. Some
fruition and there would be no yield. Others would grow more slowly and produce a small yield. In
addition there would be less precipitation and it would be darker, also damaging yield. You compound
that with [the shutdown of] the current global network of food trading — countries would likely stop
shipping food and focus on feeding their own populations — and it's a big crisis. We don't have the resources to do
detailed analyses on the impacts of crops in different farming regimes but this suggests it could be a very serious problem.
Alan Robock
Alan Robock’s models are accurate; they match almost exactly with independent studies
Eben Harrell quoting Alan Robock 09 Eben Harrell, "Regional Nuclear War and the Environment",
Copyright © 2010 Time Inc., Jan 22, 2009,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1873164,00.html (HEG)
How confident are you that your modeling is correct? We used ModelE, designed by NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and one of the models used to produce the results of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The model does an excellent job of simulating
climate change that resulted from volcanic eruptions in the past. That gave us confidence. What's more,
a group repeated the calculations for the Pakistan-India scenario with a different model at the National
Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and the results almost exactly agreed. Their
research showed how the smoke from the fires would open up holes in the ozone, which would cause
even more problems for humanity. We'd like other people to test the calculations with their models, but
we're pretty confident that they'll get the same answer. So we get a clue of the climatic effects of
nuclear war from volcanic eruptions? Yes. 1816 was known as the "year without summer." It
followed the Tambora Volcano eruption in Indonesia in 1815. It was sudden climate change on a similar
scale, and it resulted in a severe famine in Europe, food riots and mass emigrations. Volcanic aerosols
have a lifetime of about a year in the stratosphere. The lifetime of soot from nuclear fires is about five
years. It's obviously much harder for a society to recover from such an extended cooling.
Alan Robock’s credentials

Copyright © 2010 Time Inc., Jan 22, 2009,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1873164,00.html (HEG)
Alan Robock, a Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University who
participated in the original nuclear winter research, recently completed a study on the results of a nuclear
war between India and Pakistan. He spoke with TIME from his office in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
(See pictures from the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks.)
Impact Weighing – Global Warming
Global Warming pales in comparison to the effects of an India-Pakistan nuclear war

Copyright © 2010 Time Inc., Jan
Some scientists, most notably Freeman Dyson of The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton,
have stirred controversy by arguing that nuclear weapons are a more urgent environmental threat
than global warming. Do you agree? Yes. If India and Pakistan engaged in nuclear war, they would
use about 0.3% of the global nuclear stockpile. And still the effects on the climate would be dramatic.
Our calculations on nuclear winter from the early 1980s have been confirmed by modern climate
models. And fundamentally the situation hasn't changed — even with reduced stockpiles there still
exists enough weapons to cause nuclear winter. That's something that maybe people don't realize.
Impact Weighing – Human Life
Where there is life there is hope; no political system or notions of “sovereignty” should stop us
from preventing untold destruction of human life.
Richard Ochs 02 Richard Ochs [MA in Natural Resource Management from Rutgers University and Naturalist at Grand Teton National Park],
“BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS MUST BE ABOLISHED IMMEDIATELY,” Jun 9, 2002, http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html (HEG)
Against this tendency can be posed a rational alternative policy. To preclude possibilities of human extinction, "patriotism" needs to be redefined to make
Even if we lose our cherished freedom, our sovereignty, our government or
humanity’s survival primary and absolute.
our Constitution, where there is life, there is hope. What good is anything else if humanity is
extinguished? This concept should be promoted to the center of national debate.. Forexample, for sake of argument, suppose the
ancient Israelites developed defensive bioweapons of mass destruction when they were enslaved by
Egypt. Then suppose these weapons werereleased by design or accident and wiped everybody out? As
bad as slavery is, extinction is worse. Our generation, our century, our epoch needs to take the long view. We truly hold in ourhands the
precious gift of all future life. Empires may come and go, but who are the honored custodians of life on earth? Temporal politicians? Corporate competitors?
Strategic brinksmen? Military gamers? Inflated egos dripping with testosterone? How can any sane person believe that national sovereignty is more
our slogan should be "Where there is life, there is hope."
important than survival of the species? Now that extinction is possible,
No government, no economic system, no national pride, no religion, no political system can be placed
above human survival. The egos of leaders must not blind us. The adrenaline and vengeance of a fight mustnot blind us. The
game is over. If patriotism would extinguish humanity, then patriotism is the highest of all crimes.
T
Topicality – Energy Policy
Energy subsidies are not only a part of environmental policy, but are the “central theme in
discussion of environmental policy.”
Rezachek & Associates 98 Rezachek & Associates [an international energy and environmental engineering consulting group with its base of
operations located in Hawaii, USA. Rezachek & Associates provides consulting, research, and project management services to federal laboratories,
universities, government agencies, non-profit organizations and industry in a variety of renewable energy, energy conservation, and environmental areas.
Dr. David Rezachek is the principal consultant and owner of Rezachek & Associates. Dr. Rezachek has more than 25 years of experience in energy and
environmental systems research, design, demonstration, analysis and engineering and project management. He has been a registered professional
mechanical engineer in the State of Hawaii for more than 16 years. Dr. Rezachek has been the project manager for dozens of projects in the areas of
renewable and conventional energy, energy efficiency and conservation, electric and hybrid vehicles, alternative fuels, energy and engineering education,
and environmental engineering.], "Rezachek & Associates' Energy & Environmental Resources", Copyright © 1998,
http://www.sustainablehawaii.com/eipensp1.htm (HEG)
A Global Guide to the Subsidies Jungle Subsidies are often not merely economically misguided, but
also environmentally and socially counterproductive. They distort price relations and can lead to an
inefficient allocation of financial and natural resources. Subsidisation is therefore rightly becoming a
central theme in discussions of environmental policy.
Energy policy and environmental policy are “inextricably intertwined and must be addressed
together.”
Timoth Wirth, C. Gray & John Podesta 03 Timothy E. Wirth [President of the UN Foundation], C. Boyden Gray and John D.
Podesta [UN Foundation], “The Future of Energy Policies,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003, p. 132, L/N (HEG)
From the issue of local air pollution to those of regional acid rain and global climate change, energy
policy and environmental policy are inextricably intertwined and must be addressed together.
Topicality – Energy Subsidies / NEPA
NEPA, in addition to being an environmental act, establishes energy policy. Energy policy is under
environmental policy.
The California Energy Commission 08 The California Energy Commission [the state's primary energy policy and planning agency],
"Glossary of LNG-Related Terms & Definitions", Copyright © 1994-2009 California Energy Commission, June 18, 2008,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/glossary.html
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The environmental law that establishes federal energy
policy, sets goals, and provides means for carrying out the policy. A national policy for the purpose of
encouraging productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological
systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.
Reforming environmental policy has to include removal of subsidies.

Cees van Beers & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh 09 Cees van Beers [professor of innovation management at Delft University
of Technology] & Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh [ICREA professor at Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona and professor of environmental and resource
economics at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He was awarded the Royal/Shell Prize 2002 for research on ‘‘Sustain- able Development, Environment and
Resources,’’ and was a member of the Energy Council of The Netherlands. From 1997 to 2007 he was professor of environmental economics at Vrije
Universiteit], "Environmental Harm of Hidden Subsidies: Global Warming and Acidification", Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Ambio Vol. 38, No. 6,
page 339, September 2009 (HEG)
In debates on environmental policy the complementary need for removing environmentally harmful
subsidies has received little attention. Such subsidies typically increase the size and pollution intensity of economic activities, often
without clear, compensating social benefits. The environmental impact of direct or on-budget subsidies has been well
recognized (1–5). Indirect or off-budget subsidies, not visible in government budgets, are at least as important. Research on this topic is scarce (6–9).
We report findings on greenhouse gas (GHG) and acidifying emissions arising from off-budget subsidies in The
Netherlands and show that subsidies in agriculture, energy, and transport in particular contribute importantly to GHG emissions. Effective climate policy
therefore needs to consider removal of off-budget subsidies.
Topicality – Standards
Our argument here is that our interpretation of environmental policy including energy subsidies is
reasonable for two main reasons.
1. Upholds predictable limits

Predictable limits are key to an educational debate round. If neither side can predict what the other will
bring up, then neither side will be prepared and it won’t be the model round. We uphold predictable
limits because energy subsidies are a key element of environmental policy.
<insert Rezachek & Associates 98>
2. Legal interpretion
The original environmental policy act, NEPA 1969, actually established federal energy policy. In that
regard, we uphold the contextual meaning of the resolution, environmental policy, via legal
interpretation.
< insert The California Energy Commission 08>
Topicality – Voter
1. Not applicable.
Topicality is meant to check drastically unrelated cases that have nothing to do with the resolution or
only affect it, not an argument to be run against any case that deals with a different section of
environmental policy than most others. Compare passing universal healthcare to energy subsidies –
universal healthcare has nothing to do with the environment, but energy subsidies do.
2. Literature checks abuse.

If the negative team has literature on our case then this checks back all abuse. The reason topicality
exists is a way to check back abuse and uphold fairness. If they have literature on our case, then all
abuse has been checked back and fairness is completely upheld.
Topicality – FXT
1. More real world

Everything is judged by its effects in policymaking; policy is consequentialist even for topicality.
2. Context checks
If I have a card that says my plan is under environmental policy, that’s enough to be topical.5
3. Increases Education
We can learn more from effectual topicality by opening our eyes to alternative causation.
4. All cases are fxt

Effects always exists in the form of enforcement, that’s where fiat comes in and makes us topical by
assuming that all our claims happen
Topicality – Extra-T
1. Increases Education
It tells us about more things than having the same debate on a more limited area over and over
2. Not a reason to reject

Even if the plan takes more action than specifically mandated by the resolved, it isn’t exclusive. There
is no word such as ‘only’ in the resolution
3. Doesn’t hurt ground

Plan still support the resolved, so the neg still get their links, plan just does other stuff too.
4. More Real World

All bills do more than just a sentence of work, they have more than one advantage, or no one would pass
them. It’s more real world that way
5. We’re always X-T

Not a single case has zero action outside of resolved. For example, the president signing the bill and
hiring people for implementation is extra-topical, but every single affirmative case has to do it.
T is an RVI
1. Creates an unfair time- and stra-skew on the affirmative

By breathing the word topicality the neg forces us to overcover a disad (the disad being T) with a weak
link, that trades off with answering other positions and destroys any other strategies against their other
arguments I may have. That’s an unfair time- and strat- skew.
2. T trivialized
By blowing topicality out of proportion when its not a real issue (e.g. now), the neg decreases its respect
and value (value of T) when it is an issue, like against a universal health care case that has nothing to do
with the resolution.
3. Court analogy
A court holds a separate hearing to determine jurisdiction, by contesting T. the neg converts the round to
a jurisdictional hearing, if we win that then we should win the round.

Afghanistan Politics Aff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afghanistan Politics Aff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Will Malson Afghanistan Politics Aff Page 1 of 28

SQ #1: Obama is spending an unprecedented amount of political capital on alternative energy.

SQ #2: Obama is spreading his political capital too thin.

B. Giving up Afghanistan to the Taliban would result in a radicalization of nearby Pakistan.

Status Quo #1 XTs

A. Obama is spending political capital on funding alternative energy.

Status Quo #2 XTs

Obama is spreading himself ridiculously thin on too many fronts

Implication XTs (1/2)

A. Obama needs political capital to shore up support for Afghanistan plans.

B. Obama needs confidence to maintain troop increase in Afghanistan

C. Sustaining the fight in Afghanistan will require consistent political capital.

Implication XTs (2/2)

Impact A. / Troops Solvency XTs

A. U.S. tactics are improving chances for success

B. Overall, U.S. strategy has chance for success

U.S. strategy for 2009 has

New Delhi has appealed to

A. A radicalization of Pakistan would allow Al Qaeda to fire to up to 100 nuclear weapons.

B. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is at risk from Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgency.

Alan Robock’s credentials

Impact Weighing – Global Warming

Global Warming pales in comparison to the effects of an India-Pakistan nuclear war

Impact Weighing – Human Life

Topicality – Energy Policy

Topicality – Energy Subsidies / NEPA

Reforming environmental policy has to include removal of subsidies.

1. Upholds predictable limits

2. Literature checks abuse.

1. More real world

4. All cases are fxt

2. Not a reason to reject

3. Doesn’t hurt ground

4. More Real World

5. We’re always X-T

1. Creates an unfair time- and stra-skew on the affirmative

You might also like