**Hagel DA 1.

0 WSU

Hagel 1NC
<<Uniqueness>> <<Link>> Capital determines whether Obama nominates Hagel. The Hill, 12/30/2012 (Hagel plays waiting game as White House sits on nomination, p.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/274835-hagel-plays-waiting-game-as-whitehouse-sits-on-defense-nomination) Whether the president actually picks Hagel could depend on the White Houses appetite for a fight over the nomination. The Obama administration may not want to spend the political capital to win Hagels confirmation battle, particularly with other nominees Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter and former undersecretary of
Defense for policy Michele Flournoy are considered the other short-list candidates readily available. But after losing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice as a possible secretary of State choice, the White House may not want to back down on another choice for the presidents national security team. I think that Sen. Hagel and a lot of people were surprised and taken off guard by the venom and the velocity of the attacks, said Alan Elsner of J Street, the pro-Israel, pro-peace group that supports Hagels nomination. Right now, I

think that the debate is kind of irrelevant because its all down to President Obama , Elsner said. We have no doubt that Sen. Hagel would be confirmed if he was nominated.

Hagels key to foreign policy restraint that prevents unsustainable squandering of U.S. power---the alternative is Flournoy who would lock in a neocon foreign policy

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos 12-25, longtime political reporter for FoxNews.com and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, Washington correspondent for Homeland Security Today magazine, 12/25/12, Give Us Chuck Hagel for Christmas, http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2012/12/24/give-ushagel-for-christmas/ Now a Democratic President is reportedly mulling him for defense secretary and the same Republican automatons and
neoconservative harpies are pulling no punches to thwart it. They complain about his allegedly insufficient support of Israel (massaged, cajoled and translated for full-effect into charges of anti-Semitism), driven in part by his unwillingness to impose harsh economic sanctions or use of force against Iran. He also voted against designating Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and has encouraged open relations with Hamas in hopes of reanimating the corpse of the Middle East pace process. Furthermore, Hagels flagrant disdain (military

for the runaway MIC industrial complex), preemptive war, and senseless foreign occupation is such an aberration to the Washington establishment that when the bunker busters in Congress, American Israel supporters and rightwing 101st Keyboard
Brigade heard he might be nominated, their attack was so immediate and vicious itll likely serve as a model for smear efficiency for years to come. If the U.S. Army had deployed these superlative tactics in say, Afghanistan, they might have actually won the so-called war of perception over the Taliban 10 years ago. Too bad most of Hagels critics prefer calling the shots from over here, rather than putting their rearends in harms way over there. The War Against Hagel has hardly been decisive, however, at least as we near the end of the year, leaving some space for his supporters to mount a proper defense, which of this writing, is increasingly vigorous. There seems to be a common theme to every blog post and op-ed penned for his purpose: the man is a welcome independent thinker in the Era of the Borg and hes no phony, else he would have safely buzzed off with the rest of the political hive long ago. The Atlantics Jeffrey Goldberg, usually quite scornful of Realist foreign policy arguments especially concerning Iran said Thursday he worries about rightwing developments in Israel even more than Hagels purportedly soft approach on Iran, and suggested quite baldy that Hagels independence would be a help not a hindrance where it counts: What we need are American officials who will speak with disconcerting bluntness to Israel about the choices it is makingMaybe the time has come to redefine the term pro-Israel to include, in addition to providing support against Iran (a noble cause); help with the Iron Dome system (also a noble cause); and support to maintain Israels qualitative military edge (ditto), the straightest of straight talk about Israels self-destructive policies on the West Bank. Maybe Hagel, who is not bound to old models, could be useful in this regard. Many of us see Hagels impact in much broader terms than just the Israel question. Weve

had too many armchair generals and dutiful yes men at the levers of power, cleaving to an unsustainable post-9/11 orthodoxy that has militarized our foreign policy and politicized our military. The neoconservatism of the Bush years has bled literally into the so-called humanitarian interventionism of the Obama era, and for the first time, there is an opportunity to check that with the presence of a known Realist who, as Harvards Stephen Walt says, is opposed to squandering U.S. power , prestige, and wealth on misbegotten crusades, and is immune to the threat inflation both sides routinely engage in to justify lining the pockets of the defense industry. After nearly 12 years of constant war, Hagels references to Iraq and Afghanistan as a meat grinder to which weve wastefully sent too many of our own children, and his belief that he is the the real conservative because he actually calls for restraint , should be a refreshing prospect, and not feared by Americans
conditioned to accept there is a military solution for every problem. In a town dominated by often-unexamined conventional wisdom, the

appointment of Hagel to DoD would be a welcome relief, wrote Michael Cohen for The Guardian last week. Reached on the phone, Cohen told me that Hagel would be a transformational pick , but acknowledged that the challenges loom large for
a non-conformist now squared against not only members of his own party, but neoconservatives wielding their long knives, and the pro-war wing of the Democratic establishment, too. Look, he is not one of them, Cohen said, hes not a neoconservative nor a liberal hawk, he thinks there should be limits on American power. Although President Obama has, so far, not said a word about Hagel, the former senator who quietly spent the last four years chairing the moderate Atlantic Council, is enjoying an enthusiastic defense from myriad commentators across the mainstream, including Andrew Sullivan, Steve Clemons, Peter Beinart even Jim Judis at The New Republic. Several ambassadors including Bush-era Nick Burns and Ryan Crocker and three Israel representatives signed on to a letter encouraging his nomination. Meanwhile, The National Journal and The Washington Post have published biographical sketches emphasizing Hagels Vietnam War record and its impact on his post-war career and personal philosophy (this hardly makes up, however, for the Posts incoherent broadside published by its editorial page on Dec. 19). And of course, The American Conservatives Daniel Larison and Scott McConnell, not to mention our own Justin Raimondo, are astutely swatting away the haters at every turn of this increasingly torrid offensive. Michele Flournoy But while us here at Antiwar would

many of like a Hagel nomination for Christmas, the biggest concern (aside from his Swift Boating) is that we might find Michele Flournoy under the tree instead. For those who never heard of her, she founded the C enter for a N ew A merican S ecurity in 2007 in anticipation of a new Democratic White House. The think tank was designed to promote a more muscular Democratic military policy, which meant its top people supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as the U.S. counterinsurgency in Iraq, and then Afghanistan, known then as the Petraeus Doctrine. Once Obama won, it became the go-to policy shop for the White House and a revolving door to the Pentagon and State Department for its senior fellows. Flournoy went
on to take Doug Feiths position as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the No. 3 job at the Pentagon. What she actually did in the fabled ERing to advance policy or to help extricate the military from an increasingly disastrous war in Afghanistan, is anyones guess. But the hot policy wonk and top COINdinista apparently made all the right friends and greased all the right skids, and is now the favored pick by the

neocons, who see a kindred soul where Hagel is just heartburn ready to happen. So buttressed is Flournoy by the Washington elite that people like Paul Wolfowitz, who in all reality should be ignored completely for his role in one of the worst war blunders in American history, are rolling out to defend her (in Wolfowitzs case, maybe he should have cooled his wheels at home). After
admitting hes not deeply familiar with Michele Flournoys record at the Defense Department or with her overall qualifications to be Secretary of Defense, he says the fact 3,500 Afghan security forces have died this year (compared to 307 Americans) is proof enough she knows what she is doing. I say its proof enough that nothing has really changed since the Bush administration, except there are more troops in Afghanistan now (about 68,000) and the U.S. casualty count was much lower then - 117 in 2007 to be exact. When liberal flak Eleanor Clift wrote about the prospects of the first female defense secretary back in November, all she could muster in her favor was Flournoys Oxford pedigree, a stint in the lackluster Clinton Pentagon policy shop and quotes like these from former colleagues: she has spent a great deal of time thinking how to deploy our military instruments economically and effectively. Glad she was thinking about it before she left her post in February. Not much came out of if, however, if todays accounts of continuing bloat, waste and mission creep are any indication. Frankly, one hears a lot about Flournoy the team player but very little about her vision, ideas or actual accomplishments. The fact is, the team has been on a losing streak in Afghanistan since Obama took office, while her think tank, of which she continues to serve on the board of directors, has reaped all the benefits and influence as a conduit between the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, the White House and greedy defense industry. Shes

a safe pick, she will carry the water if you pick Hagel it would be saying I want to push the envelope a little bit on foreign policy, said Cohen, pushing it in a more realist direction than we have in the past. Perhaps that is why so
many of us here are excited about the prospect. There are some areas where Hagel and the readers on this page might diverge, particularly on domestic issues. Hes a solid pro-life social conservative. He voted for the Patriot Act (he later fought for broader constitutional safeguards, saying he took an oath to protect the constitution, not an oath of office to my party or my president). We dont know yet where he would stand on the controversial detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We have no idea whether he would stanch the flow of U.S. personnel and weapons into Africa or how he would deal with a newly inherited drone war. As for the Pentagon labyrinth itself, as University of Texas professor (and expert COIN critic) Celeste Ward Gventer tells me, the problems are systemic and largely exceed the decision or personality of one man, even if he is at the apex. Still, if

a Flournoy pick would signal an endorsement of the status quo, a Hagel nod would serve to challenge it. This inclination to question policy is quite attractive to observers like us
who are tired of living in a fake candy cane marshmallow bubble world when it comes to foreign policy and national security. As a senator, Hagel often addressed these issues realistically, with no regard to how it might hurt his chances for a presidential nomination, which turned out to be short-lived as a result (quite sad, considering the parade of ham-n-egger Republicans who ended up running, and losing, in the last two elections).

Restraints key to prevent war with Russia and China---defuses Georgia, Taiwan and the South China Seas Paul K. MacDonald 11, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Williams College, and Joseph M.
Parent, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Miami, November/December 2011, The Wisdom of Retrenchment: America Must Cut Back to Move Forward, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, No. 6 Curbing the United States' commitments would reduce risks , but it cannot eliminate them. Adversaries may fill regional power vacuums, and allies will never behave exactly as Washington would prefer. Yet those costs would be outweighed by the concrete benefits of pulling back . A focus on the United States' core interests in western Europe would limit the risk of catastrophic clashes with Russia over ethnic enclaves in Georgia or Moldova by allowing the United States to avoid commitments it would be unwise to honor. By narrowing its commitments in Asia, the United States could lessen the likelihood of conflict over issues such as the status of Taiwan or competing maritime claims in the South China Sea . Just as the United Kingdom tempered its commitments and accommodated U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere at the turn of the last century, the United States should now temper its commitments and cultivate a lasting compromise with China over Taiwan.

U.S. involvement in Georgia means conflict goes nuclear Guldseth 9, Adviser in Strategic Communication. Post graduate in "Media, Communication and ICT"
Russia's new military doctrine opens for first strike nuclear attacks in "local or regional wars", Eistein Guldseth, 10-14-2009
http://writern.blogspot.com/2009/10/russia-might-open-for-first-strike.html
The Russian newspaper Izvestia reports that Cremlin is working on a new military doctrine on first strike use of nuclear arms against aggressors. That must include Georgia according to President Medvedevs statement after the war in Georgia in 2008: The aggressor has been punished. Patrushev: Nuclear weapons could be used in case of a nuclear attack, but also in 'regional or even local wars.

According to Izvestia, Russia will insist on the right to pre-emptive nuclear strikes against aggressor countries in its new military doctrine, the head of the country's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said. A greater threat to Russia's neighboring countries This new doctrine is contrary to US nuclear military policy, which do not
allow for first strike attacks. This leads us once more to seriously wonder whats going on in the Cremlin. Such an aggressive move means a further treat to Russias bordering countries and serves no civilized purpose. As we have seen the later period, US reset has had no impact on the hawks in Moscow when it comes to serious cooperation on for instance Iran. Judging from this doctrine, one could on the contrary be led to believe that Russia today poses a significant greater danger to civilization than Iran: The of Stalin as "a great leader", Russia claiming

combination of Putins restoration a priveledged sphere of influence in the former Soviet space, and now the suggested doctrine of first strike use of nuclear arms against local/regional wars and "agressors" should really start to worry all governments in the modern world. Who's the target? Georgia certainly will have to seriously consider it self as a prime target for a nuclear attack from Russia . The latest Russian accusations of Georgia supporting and aiding Al Quaeda operations in Russia is a reminder of the fact that the war is not over. Russia uses all means available to portray Georgia as an aggressor, and thus threatens Georgia with first strike use of nuclear arms if
neccessary. Judging by Russias willingness to use excessive force in the attack on Georgia in 2008, this represents a real threat to Georgia and also Ukraine, where the situation on the Crimean peninsula is gradually heating up. In fact the whole of North Caucasus might be targeted due to uprise and intensivated terrorist attacs in several regions.

**Uniqueness

Uniqueness
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-15/politics/36385713_1_senator-hagel-senate-democratsconfirmation Despite all the sound and fury before and after his nomination, Chuck Hagel began his bid to lead the Pentagon as a favorite to win Senate confirmation. And he seems only to be gaining momentum. For sure, the Republican former senator
from Nebraska made his share of enemies during his two terms in the Senate, which now must consider his nomination as defense secretary, but he began

with two key advantages. One is traditional senatorial courtesy, which has almost always meant a relatively smooth confirmation process for any current or former senator chosen for a Cabinet or ambassadorial post. More important, almost every failed nomination of the past three decades has stemmed from key defections within the presidents own party, and so far Hagels opposition has come almost entirely from fellow Republicans. The prospect of significant Democratic defections grew more unlikely Tuesday when a pair of influential
Senate Democrats who had been cagey about their support for Hagel came out in support of his confirmation. Many of Hagels critics accused him of being hostile to Israels interests. But on Tuesday, Sens. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.), two of the most influential Jewish Democrats, issued lengthy testimonials to Hagels credentials to lead the Pentagon and accepted his assurances that he would support the Obama administrations policy of vigorously opposing Irans bid to obtain nuclear weapons. Senator Hagel could not have been more forthcoming and sincere, Schumer said Tuesday in a 676-word statement that covered every possible controversy of Hagels nomination. Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him. I needed comprehensive answers, Boxer told reporters Tuesday in a conference call, explaining that she demanded that Hagel follow up their phone discussion with a letter documenting his answers on Israel and Iran as well as issues related to gay rights and female soldiers access to reproductive services. Hagels

confirmation is still not a

certainty. He has only just begun the traditional process of making the rounds for face-to-face meetings with key
senators, and on Tuesday the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee announced his opposition. Unfortunately, as I told him during our meeting *Tuesday+, we are simply too philosophically opposed on the issues for me to support his nomination, said Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.). Inhofe said he was concerned about looming Pentagon spending cuts: Senator Hagels comments have not demonstrated that same level of concern about the pending defense cuts. The committee has yet to schedule a confirmation hearing, which is certain to be a lengthy session that could resemble the combative queries that former senator John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.) faced in January 2001 after he was nominated as attorney general.

Democrats United Now

its not about bipart its about dem unity Dems Unified now gives them leverage Lillis 1/3 (Pelosi consolidates support among House Democrats in Speaker vote http://thehill.com/homenews/house/275469-pelosi-consolidates-support-among-housedemocrats#ixzz2H5VdZzLt, THE HILL, Mike)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) entered

the 113th Congress on Thursday with a greater show of support from her Democratic troops than she had just two years ago. In Thursday's much-watched vote for House Speaker, all but
seven Democrats voiced their support for Pelosi a vast improvement over 2011 when 20 rank-and-file members declined to back the California liberal after the party was pummeled at the polls just a few months earlier. Five of the seven lawmakers are centrist Blue Dog Democrats who voted for other people. The remaining two Reps. John Lewis (Ga.) and Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) were both away from Washington to attend to family emergencies. Both Lewis and Blumenauer would have backed Pelosi had they been on Capitol Hill, their offices said Thursday. The vote was largely symbolic. Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who was widely expected to keep the Speaker's gavel, did just that. Nine Republicans defected, but Boehner will again lead the House in the 113th Congress. The larger show of support for Pelosi could have policy implications, however. Boehner's struggles to rally the support of his conservative conference throughout the 112th Congress have the potential to carry over into the 113th. Those dynamics give rare leverage to Pelosi and the Democrats, who will likely be needed to pass the fundamental spending bills that keep the government running. The

more unified the Democrats are, the more power

they'll have in those debates. Part of the heightened unity behind Pelosi is a simple function of a new roster. Of the 20 Democrats who
opposed her two years ago, only 11 returned to the 113th Congress. Of those 11, five Blue Dogs Reps. John Barrow (Ga.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Dan Lipinski (Ill.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.) and Mike McIntyre (N.C.) voted Thursday for others they would rather see in the Speaker's chair. McIntyre and Lipinski voted for Cooper; Barrow for Lewis; Matheson for Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.); and Cooper for former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Ron Kind (Wis.), Kurt Schrader (Ore.) and Michael Michaud (Maine) had all bucked Pelosi to vote for others two years ago, but reversed course to back her this time around. Rep. Sanford Bishop (Ga.), who voted present in 2010, also backed Pelosi on Thursday. And Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who remained in his district during the 2011 Speaker vote, voted for her as well.

plan saps capital getting them back together SKOCPOL AND JACOBS 10. [Theda, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard, former Director of the Center
for American Political Studies, Lawrence, Walter F. and Joan Mondale Chair for Political Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance in the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute and Department of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Reaching for a New Deal: Ambitious governance, economic meltdown and polarized politics in Obamas first two years Russell Sage Foundation -- October] Of necessity, Obamas

White House has repeatedly caucused with Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, looking for ways to coordinate agendas and move key bills through the many hurdles that mark todays legislative process, especially in the Senate. Even though the watching public might not understand why Democrats spend so much time negotiating among themselves, or why the President cant just tell Congress to get it done, the early Obama administration understandably devoted much effort to prodding and cajoling Congress in consultation with key Congressional Democrats. This happened not merely because Obama is a former Senator and thinks in legislative terms, and not only because his former
Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, is a seasoned wheeler-dealer from the House of Representatives (Bai 2010). More than that, Obama and his White House aides new that the 111th Congress is probably their only chance to further big legislative reforms. To take advantage of Congressional Democratic majorities that are sure to shrink, they

have had to work week by week, month by month with the Congressional leaders to assemble fragile and shifting coalitions. Congressional sausage-making
involving the President has been confusing and dispiriting for the public to watch, but the alternative would have been for an ambitious President Obama not to try for big legislative reforms. How can a leader who wants to use government to make America stronger not make such attempts?

Democrats are unified now

Strong 1/2 (Jonathan, ROLL CALL Pelosi Sees Newfound Unity Among House Democratic Caucus
http://www.rollcall.com/news/pelosi_sees_newfound_unity_among_house_democratic_caucus220507-1.html?pos=hln)
For House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, theres good news and bad news. The good news is that the California Democrats caucus

is showing newfound unity and a willingness to play hardball, putting Pelosi in a position to wield more influence on major bills such as the fiscal cliff deal. The bad news is that Republican redistricting victories in 2010 have Democrats facing a
steep climb to retaking control of the House, meaning that there is no apparent end to her stay in the minority. After months of vowing that Democrats would retake the House in 2012, Pelosi was forced to declare victory after the party racked up modest gains while prevailing in a surprising number of Senate races and the presidential election. Republicans say Pelosis decision to stay on as leader in the 113th signals that House Democrats have absolutely no interest in regaining the trust and confidence of the American people who took the speakers gavel away from Nancy Pelosiin the first place, said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Still, the fiscal cliff proved that Pelosi is still a player, as she successfully convinced President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to pull some structural reforms to entitlement programs off the table. The minority in the House has very few ways of getting things on the agenda, Don Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project at the Wilson Center, a former top staffer for the House Rules Committee and a CQ Roll Call contributing writer, said recently. But Pelosi

is beginning to maximize her leverage by keeping her troops unified, making Republicans find the votes for a majority in their own conference. There are few people as strategic as Nancy Pelosi. She
has expressed to her colleagues and to others that if Democrats are going to be asked to support something, the number of Democrats who will be able to support something depends on the something they are being asked to support, said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. If you need Democrats, you need to tell us whats in the deal, and if there is an appetite in the caucus, then the caucus will provide the votes. If there is no appetite in the caucus, then you cant count on us for the votes. Nobody knows how to get to 218 more than Nancy Pelosi, and so shes been applying herself to see how you get to 218 to get this solved in a way that is fair, Israel said. Throughout the fiscal cliff debate, Pelosi remained in close contact with Obama and Reid. Israel said that Obama would often call Pelosi during House Democratic leadership meetings. And a Democratic leadership aide said that Pelosi and Obama spoke at length on New Years Eve to review the final terms of a deal struck between Senate Minority LeaderMitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Pelosis clout was instrumental in pulling an increase to the Medicare eligibility age off the table in the failed talks between Boehner and Obama. After the talks between House Republicans and the president fell apart, Pelosi ensured that chained CPI, a proposal to change how Social Security payments are indexed for inflation

A2 Thumpers

A2 Climate

No ev Obama is pushing a specific piece of legislation, he just supports the environment generally

A2 Fiscal Cliff Thumper issue specific uniqueness timeframe distinction Presidential nominees only go through the Senate their thumper is about the House.

Carey 12. *Maeve, Analyst in Government Organization and Management, "Presidential Appointments, the Senates Confirmation Process,
and Changes Made in the 112 th Congress" Congressional Research Service Report -- October 9 -- www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41872.pdf]

The responsibility for populating top positions in the executive and judicial branches of government is one the Senate and the President share. The President nominates an individual, the Senate may confirm him, and the President would then present him with a signed commission. The Constitution divided the responsibility for choosing those who would run the federal government by granting the President the power of appointment and the Senate the power of advice and consent.

A2 Gun Control Thumper

Biden will head gun control not Obama. Mandel, 1/4/2013 (Seth, Obamas Immigration Dilemma, Commentary Magazine, p.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/01/04/obamas-immigration-dilemma/)
But whats the administrations excuse for delaying reform yet again? Its that they really, really wanted to do immigration reform early, but

Obamas timetable has been complicated by the prospect of another round of fiscal negotiations over the debt ceiling in February and the presidents pledge to support a gun-control bill in the wake of the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Of course the president cannot control events. And sure, man plans while God laughs, and all that. But this is a bit disingenuous . Judging by the way the fiscal cliff compromise was reached, Vice President Joe Biden is the White Houses negotiator with Congress, not the president who not only wasnt participating constructively in the last-minute dealmaking but was happy to demonstrate as much by holding a campaign-style photo op/standup comedy routine while Biden and the GOP leadership were busy working. And speaking of Joe Biden, hes the one in charge of the gun control issue
as well, with the

president designating Biden to lead a commission to figure out what

legislation, if any, is needed or politically possible in the wake of the shooting. Since Prime Minister Biden (as Jonathan so aptly dubbed him yesterday) is working on all the issues that are supposedly taking up the presidents time, Obama went back to finish his Hawaii vacation.

A2 PTC

PTC was already resolved---it was part of the fiscal cliff and didnt cost political capital

**Links

Nat Gas

Nat Gas

1NC Nat Gas Link

Plan wrecks capital Dicker 12 Daniel is a Senior Columnist at The Street. Why Isn't Natural Gas an Election Issue? 9/4,
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11684440/1/why-isnt-natural-gas-an-electionissue.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN Why has this opportunity towards increased reliance on natural gas been so obvious and yet so difficult for politicians of both parties to embrace? It hasn't been solely because 2012 is an election year. Boone Pickens
was on CNBC last week marking the fourth anniversary of his "Pickens Plan," the failed congressional effort to invest in truck natural gas engines and fuelling infrastructure to run them on. In fact, if

anyone wanted to see political partisanship in action slowing the real economic progress this nation could make, they'd find no better example than the history of the Pickens plan and other natural gas initiatives in Washington. Both radical wings of each party have made advocating natural gas use impossible. Democratic environmentalists are concerned about hydraulic fracturing and its possible impact to aquifers. Republicans are reluctant to approve further federal spending of any kind as well as risk a charge of "picking winners" in natural gas -- a charge they have made successfully against Democrats. Of course, both radical wings of both parties are wrong: Overwhelming
evidence from every independent research source has concluded that hydraulic fracturing of shale for natural gas has proven to be safe to our water supplies and is getting safer all the time. Republican

reticence to support natural gas expansion belies a long history of government incentives for developing new energy sources, from as far back as our development of coal
to our much discussed modern tax incentives for crude oil exploration and production. It is a fact that our government has been picking winners in energy for as long as there's been government. The advantages of natural gas conversion and greater use are obvious but bear repeating. Natural gas is a domestic source of energy and promises energy independence here in the U.S. Production, transport and building of infrastructure for natural gas would mean millions of new jobs. Natural gas prices are literally half that of competing oil and gasoline. Finally, carbon emissions for natural gas are about a third that for coal and other fossil fuels. What's not to like? But it seems both radical necessary energy policy.

wings

of each party continue to wield enormous influence. Neither candidate has made natural gas a cornerstone of a new and

2NC Nat Gas Links

The plans controversial---makes Obama seem in bed with natural gas Berman 12 Dan is a writer at Politico. When it comes to natural gas, Obama cant win, 5/16,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76402.html President Barack Obama talked up natural gas in his State of the Union address, his top aides have held dozens of meetings with natural gas industry leaders and his administration has given the industry what it wanted on two big regulatory issues. What hes gotten in return: a giant headache. Industry backers have hammered away at virtually all of the White Houses rule-making efforts while pouring millions of dollars into campaigns fighting Obamas reelection. At the same time, environmentalists and even some Republicans have complained that natural gas is too cozy with the White House. The gas industrys had plenty of access. This year, the White House Office
of Management and Budget held at least a dozen meetings on fracking with senior officials from companies like ExxonMobil, Anadarko and BP, as well as Republican congressional staffers, tribal leaders and industry lobby shops. But the White House seems unable to decide how close it wants to be to the industry. Obama and Cabinet officials like Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and EPA chief Lisa Jackson consistently praise natural gas. And recent headlines have trumpeted the newfound closeness; Bloomberg, for instance, went with Obama Warms to Energy Industry by Supporting Natural Gas while National Journal chose: White Houses Coziness With Big Oil Irks GOP. White House energy adviser Heather Zichal insisted Monday that the relationship isnt that simple. Its safe to say the notion that we rolled out the welcome mat or have this hunky-dory relationship where were all holding hands and singing Kumbaya is not exactly where were at today, Zichal said at an American Petroleum Institute event. What I can say is that we were in the middle of working on a number of regulations that directly impact the oil and gas industry, she added. There was no way for us to finalize a regulation that made sense without us actually engaging with the industry. The past several weeks have demonstrated the love-hate relationship with industry. On April 13, Obama signed an executive order meant to coordinate the administrations activities on natural gas and perhaps answer criticism that the administration is trying to end hydraulic fracturing. Industry lobbyists met that afternoon with Zichal. The White House press office even blasted out a release quoting supportive statements from places like the American Petroleum Institute, Business Roundtable and Dow Chemical. But when the EPA and Interior Department each rolled out their much-anticipated rules regarding fracking, they were hammered by the industry and its GOP allies. And when Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) started a media blitz using a two-year-old video of a regional EPA administrator saying he wanted to crucify law-breaking oil and gas companies, some of the same groups that had praised the executive order called for the person to be

environmentalists who are happy the agencies were tackling fracking in the first place complained that the rules were watered down. I agree it seems like theyre trying to
fired (he stepped down within five days). Making things worse for the White House, somehow make the industry happy, but we think that the White House absolutely should be holding the industry to a much higher standard, said Amy Mall of the Natural Resources Defense Council. We know the industry can operate with cleaner and safer methods.

Empirics prove the plans controversial Tom Barnes, Contributor, 12 *Natural gas extraction tax debated in House, Post-Gazette Harrisburg
Bureau, March 29, http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/natural-gas-extraction-taxdebated-in-house-265999/?print=1] HARRISBURG -- House Democrats and Republicans wrangled for five hours Tuesday in a bitter partisan debate over whether to enact a hefty new tax on extracting natural gas from Marcellus Shale, but the issue still has a long way to go. Democrats favored the measure, called Senate Bill 1155, while Republicans were generally opposed. It would impose a severance tax of 39 cents per thousand cubic feet (MCF) of natural gas extracted from the vast areas of underground shale in Pennsylvania. It would generate $120 million this fiscal year, $326 million next year, $408 million in 2012 and $495 million in 2013. But even the supporters said the bill was just "a first step," with difficult negotiations expected with the Republican-controlled Senate. Many senators favor a lower tax rate, like one in Arkansas, which has a 1.5 percent tax on the market value of the extracted gas for the first several years. The rhetoric over the bill was loud from both sides. "It's unconscionable that these gas drillers don't pay a severance tax," said Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware, adding that all other 24 states with Marcellus
drilling have a tax. "These [gas] people are making tons of money, billions in gross profits," he said. "They hired a former Pennsylvania governor for $900,000 [as a lobbyist]. They gave a [Republican] candidate for governor nearly $400,000. A rate of 39 cents per MCF is fair and reasonable. They can afford it." Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith, D-Chester, said, "We are the only shale state without a shale tax. People must think we have a big S on our forehead - for stupid." Rep. Bryan Lentz, D-Delaware, added, "If this tax is defeated, the headlines will read 'Corporations Win, People Lose.' If you vote against this bill you are doing the bidding of the gas industry, which can and should

Republicans strongly disagreed, claiming such a high tax will stifle the drilling industry as it gets going in the state, providing thousands of jobs and other types of taxes to the state and localities where drilling is going on. GOP legislators also objected that the bill was unconstitutional, because
pay its fair share." House Democrats on Monday had taken a measure on a different subject, which the Senate had already passed, and added totally new tax language to it. Republicans said that legally, revenue-raising bills must start in the House, not the Senate. Republicans also objected that the rewritten bill provides $97 million -- 80 percent of the $120 million expected from the tax in the first year -- to fill a state budget hole, rather than helping replenish the nearly

There's a firestorm sweeping across the nation and state. People don't want us to use this money to feed the Leviathan called state government." "To come in with the highest tax rate in the country is
bankrupt Environmental Stewardship Fund, which protects farmland and open space. "People are fed up with higher taxes," Rep. Scott Hutchinson, R-Venango said. " unbelievable," said Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry. "It will kill jobs in Pennsylvania." Rep. Matt Baker, R-Tioga, said, "Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, big state government preys on drillers and landowners. It will impede job creation. This is the wrong way to go. It's a monumental tax, the largest in the whole country." Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, insisted that contrary to what opponents said, states like Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Montana have higher gas taxes than what this bill contains. Other Democrats said that while the 39 cents per MCF may be the highest rate in the country, other taxes on drillers in Pennsylvania, such as income and property

Initially, 60 percent of the shale-tax revenue was to go to the state general fund and 40 percent was to be split several ways, including going to county and local governments, environmental improvements and the hazardous sites cleanup fund. But under an amendment by Rep. Kate
taxes, are lower, so the overall tax isn't the highest in the U.S. Harper, R-Montgomery, that passed Tuesday night, those percentages were reversed, with 40 percent going to the state. She said the original version of the bill didn't provide enough for local government or the Environmental

Everyone agreed that the bill is far from the final word on the subject of a shale gas tax. Erik Arneson, an aide to Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi, said the 39 cents per MCF "is not an approach that would win majority support in the Senate." But Democrats said Tuesday night's affirmative vote on
Stewardship Fund in the first year. the amendment at least keeps the process moving forward, with upcoming talks aimed at producing a bill that can pass both chambers and be signed by Gov. Ed Rendell before legislators go home in mid-October.

1NC Environmental Restrictions

Reducing environmental regulations triggers massive Congressional battles and requires PC expenditure Kraft and Vig 10 Michael Kraft is a Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs @ UWisconsinGreen Bay. Norman J. Vig is Winifred and Atherton Bean Professor of Science, Technology, and Society, Emeritus, at Carleton College. Environmental Policy over Four Decades, CQPress, http://www.cqpress.com/docs/college/Ch1-kraft-vig.pdf
Despite these notable pledges and actions, rising criticism of environmental programs also was evident throughout the 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century both domestically and internationally. So too were a multiplicity of efforts to chart new policy directions. For instance, intense opposition to environmental and natural resource policies arose in the 104th Congress (19951997), when the Republican Party took control of both the House and Senate for the first time in forty years. Ultimately, much like the earlier effort in Ronald Reagans

the antiregulatory campaign on Capitol Hill failed to gain much public support pitched battles over environmental and energy policy continued in every Congress through the 110th and they were evident as the Bush White House sought to rewrite environmental rules and regulations to favor industry and to dramatically increase development of U.S. oil and natural gas supplies on public lands.
administration, . 2 Nonetheless, (20072009), equally in the executive branch 3 Yet growing dissatisfaction with the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of environmental policies was by no means confin ed to congressional conservatives and the Bush administration. It could be found among a broad array of interests, including the business community, environmental policy analysts, environmental justice groups, and state and local government officials. 4 Since 1992, governments at all levels have struggled to redesign environmental policy for the twenty-first century. Under Presidents Bill Clinton and GeorgeW. Bush, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tried to reinvent environmental regulation through the use of collaborative decision making involving multiple stakeholders, public-private partnerships, market-based incentives, information disclosure, and enhanced flexibility in rulemaking and enforcement (see chapters 7, 9, and 10). 5 Particularly during the Clinton administration, new emphases within the EPA and other federal agencies and departments on ecosystem management and sustainable development sought to foster comprehensive, integrated, and long-term strategies for environmental protection and natural resource management (see chapter 8). 6 Many state and local governments have pursued similar goals, with adoption of a wide range of innovative policies that promise to address some of the most important criticisms directed at contemporary environmental policy (see chapters 2 and 11). The election of President Barack Obama in 2008 signaled the likelihood of even greater attention to innovative policy ideas in the years ahead as the nation demonstrated a new sense of urgency about climate change and a determination to address a range of environmental, energy, and resource challenges despite a poor economy. The precise way in which Congress, the states, and local governments will change envir onmental policies remains unclear. The

policy change rarely comes easily in the U.S. political system. Its success will likely depend on how policy actors stake out and defend their positions Political leadership, , will play a role, especially in reconciling deep divisions between the major political parties on environmental protection and natural resource issues. Political conflict over the environment is not going to vanish any time soon. it will likely increase as the United States and other nations struggle to define how they will respond to the latest generation of environmental problems
partisan gridlock of the past decade may give way to greater consensus on the need to act. Yet several key conditions: public support for change, the various on the issues, the way the media cover these disputes, the relative influence of opposing interests, and the state of the economy. as always Indeed, 1970s, their achievements to date, and the need for policy redesign and priority setting for the years ahead. The chapters that follow address in greater detail many of the questions explored in this introduction. The Role of Government and Politics The

. In this chapter we examine the continuities and changes in environmental politics and

policy since 1970 and discuss their implications for the early twenty-first century. We review the policymaking process in the United States, and we assess the performance of government institutions and political leadership. We give special attention to the major programs adopted in the

high levels of political conflict over environmental protection efforts during recent years underscores the important role government plays in devising solutions
to the nations and the worlds mounting environmental ills. Global climate change, population growth, the spread of toxic and hazardous chemicals, loss of biological diversity, and air and water pollution all require diverse actions by individuals and institutions at all levels of society and in both the public and private sectors. These actions range from scientific research and technological innovation to improved environmental education and significant changes in corporate and consumer behavior. As political scientists we believe government has an indispensable role to play in environmental protection and improvement. The chapters in this volume thus focus on environmental policies and the government institutions and political processes that affect them. Our goal is to illuminate that role and to suggest needed changes and strategies.

A2 Nat Gas Lobbies

The lobbys super weak Overby 11/23 Peter is an NPR reporter. With Little Clout, Natural Gas Lobby Strikes Out, 2012,
http://www.vpr.net/npr/113138252/ as Congress moves toward writing a new national energy policy, natural-gas lobbyists have been mostly missing in action.
There is almost a century's worth of natural gas in shale rock formations all over the country, enough to make a significant change in the debate about America's energy future. But "Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels," says Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute, a think tank that does environmental research. "I think nobody's ever argued that. The big thing, of course, that's changed is that shale gas has now opened up as this enormous resource." Natural gas emits half the carbon of coal. Flavin and some other top environmentalists want Congress to embrace natural gas as a transition fuel, to move the country away from coal and toward clean fuels that haven't yet come on the market. A Changing Landscape? "I'm actually hopeful that we will see a change in the whole landscape of the politics around natural gas as a result,"

change hasn't come yet on Capitol Hill. When the House passed its climate-change bill in June, the big winner was coal. The measure called Waxman-Markey for its two lead sponsors, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA) would give electric utilities longer deadlines to keep burning coal, and would commit millions of federal dollars to research new technologies that would reduce coal's carbon emissions. Waxman-Markey had no such incentives for natural gas, and those in the industry are frustrated. That's because about a century's worth of natural gas is available in shale
Flavin says. But the formations all over the country. "I know I had many conversations with representatives, trying to tell the natural gas story," says Steven Malcolm, CEO of Williams Companies, a big independent producer of natural gas. "I don't know why

we didn't fare better. I heard one representative say there wasn't a critical mass of natural gas represented." Soon after

Waxman-Markey passed, leaders of the natural gas industry met at an annual conference in Denver where former Sen. Tim Wirth chewed them out. Wirth used to represent Colorado and has long been an advocate of natural gas. Since 1998, he has been president of the United Nations Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works on climate change. Wirth told the industry leaders that on Waxman-Markey, they blew it. "Every industry was deeply engaged, except one: Yours," he said. "The natural gas industry, the industry with the most to gain and the most to offer, was not at the bargaining table." It's an especially harsh verdict because the Waxman-Markey bill was drafted only after high-profile negotiations with proponents of coal, nuclear, oil, wind, solar and other energy sources. What Kept Natural Gas Out? Three things kept natural gas away from that table. First of all: politics. The industry likes Republicans and historically has funneled most of its campaign contributions to the GOP. But now, of course, it's the Democrats who control Congress. The second problem: The natural gas industry has a lot of globalwarming skeptics. Fred Julander, president of Julander Energy Co. in Denver, isn't one of them, but he understands their perspective. "They want to be honest brokers," Julander says. "They don't want to take advantage of

the industry's third problem is size. It's made up mostly of medium to small companies that can't compete on
something they don't believe in, even if it improves their bottom line if it's based on a falsehood which is, I mean, is in some ways commendable, but in some ways is short-sighted." And

Capitol Hill.

Nuclear

Generic Nuclear

1NC Nuke Power

Nuclear debates cost capital. Schmid 11 Assistant professor in Science and Technology Studies at Virginia Tech
Ross Carper (rosscarper@gmail.com), a writer based in Washington state, is the founding editor of the creative nonfiction project BeyondtheBracelet.com. Sonja Schmid (sschmid@vt.edu) is an assistant professor in Science and Technology Studies at Virginia Tech. The Little Reactor That Could? Issues in Science and Technology, http://www.issues.org/27.4/carper.html
Historically, nuclear

energy has been entangled in one of the most polarizing debates in this country . Promoters and adversaries of nuclear power alike have accused the other side of oversimplification and exaggeration. For todays industry, reassuring a wary public and nervous government regulators that small reactors are completely safe might not be the most promising strategy. People may not remember much history, but they usually do remember who let them down before . It would make more sense to admit that nuclear power is an inherently
risky technology, with enormous benefits that might justify taking these risks. So instead of framing small reactors as qualitatively different and passively safe, why not address the risks involved head-on? This would require that the industry not only invite the public to ask questions, but also that they respond, evenor perhaps especiallywhen these questions cross preestablished boundaries. Relevant historical experience with small compact reactors in military submarines, for example, should not be off limits, just because information about them has traditionally been classified.

2NC Nuke Power

The plan is massively unpopular Mariotte 12 *Michael, Executive Director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Nuclear Power and Public Opinion: What the
polls say Daily Kos -- June 5 -- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/05/1097574/-Nuclear-Power-and-Public-Opinion-What-the-polls-say]

On new reactors, how one asks the question matters . Gallup and the Nuclear Energy Institute ask the same question: Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the U.S.? This question doesnt really get to the issue of support for new nuclear reactors , although NEI typically tries to spin it that way. Although a question of support for current reactors wasnt asked in any recent poll we saw, the public traditionally has been more supportive of existing reactors than new ones, and the question above could easily be interpreted as support for existing reactors, or even simple recognition that they exist. The results may also be skewed by the pollsters throwing nuclear in as one of the
Conclusion 3: ways, without a context of how large a way. Nonetheless, despite asking the same question, Gallup and NEI cant agree on the answer. NEI, for example, in November 2011 asserted that 28% of the public strongly favors nuclear power with an additional 35% somewhat in favor. NEI found only 13% strongly opposed and another 21% somewhat opposed. A May 2012 NEI poll did not publicly break down the numbers into strongly vs somewhat, but claimed a similar 64-33% split between support for nuclear power and opposition. Gallup, asking the same question in March 2012, found a narrower split. A smaller number was strongly in favor (23%, a drop of 5%) and a larger number strongly opposed (24%, increase of 3%)overall an 8-point anti-nuclear swing among those with strong opinions. Those in the middle were 34% somewhat favor vs 16% somewhat opposed. The 2012 numbers were slightly worse for nuclear power than the identical question asked in March 2011, just before Fukushima. But other polls Times reported on a

suggest that Gallup and NEI may be asking the wrong question. For example, the LA Yale-George Mason University poll in April 2012 that found that support for new nuclear power had dropped significantly, from 61% in 2008 to 42% today. Even Rasmussen in its May 2012 poll found that only 44% support building new reactors. That was good news for Rasmussen since it found that only 38%
oppose them, with a surprising 18% undecided (surprising because no other poll we saw had such a high undecided contingent for any nuclearrelated question). Meanwhile the

March 2012 ORC International poll found that: Nearly six in 10 Americans (57 percent) are less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States than they were before the Japanese reactor crisis, a nearly identical finding to the 58 percent who responded the same way when asked the same question one year ago. Those who say they are more supportive of nuclear power a year after Fukushima account for well under a third (28 percent) of all Americans, little changed from the 24 percent who shared that view in 2011. But perhaps the most telling, and easily the most interesting, poll comes from a March 2012 poll from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communications. Participants were asked, When you think of nuclear power, what is the first word or phrase that comes to your mind? 29% of those polled said disaster. Another 24% said bad. Only about 15% said good and that was the only measurable group that had anything positive to say. That poll also found that, only 47 percent of Americans in May 2011 supported building more nuclear power plants, down 6 points from the prior year (June 2010), while only 33 percent
supported building a nuclear power plant in their own local area.

Nuclear power is politically toxic the plan breaks Obamas radio silence. Elisa Wood September 13, 2012 What Obama and Romney Don't Say About Energy
http://energy.aol.com/2012/09/13/what-obama-and-romney-dont-say-about-energy/ Still, nuclear is unlikely to become a bigger slice of the energy pie in the US over the next two decades because of the high cost to build new plants, according the US Energy Information Administration. That may explain part of the campaign silence about nuclear. Another is lingering public worry about Fukushima, say industry observers. Even those who see nuclear as safe, say they understand why the candidates would want to steer clear of the discussion. Daniel Krueger, a managing director for Accenture's utilities generation and energy markets practice, described nuclear as politically "toxic," but added, "To me as an
industry guy, in my view Fukushima proved the safety of nuclear energy. We had a major plant which was hit by an earthquake and tidal wave,

and no one died as a direct result of radiation exposure. And the operator willingly sacrificed a plant worth tens of billions to protect the public. It was unimaginable what hit that plant."

2NC Link - Lobbies

Nuclear fuels held back because other energies will fight ADAMS 7 24 12 Pro-nuclear advocate with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. Former submarine Engineer Officer. Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc [Rod Adams, The Atomic Show #185 Is Thorium Superior to Uranium?,
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/07/the-atomic-show-185-is-thorium-superior-to-uranium.html]
On July 23, 2012, busy schedules aligned and I had the chance to talk with Richard Martin, the author of SuperFuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future and Kirk Sorensen, the co-founder and chief

technology officer of Flibe Energy, a start-up company formed to develop small modular reactors based on liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) technology. Kirk is
also the founder of Energy from Thorium. Thought I did not think of phrasing it in this manner until I sat down to post the show, the initial question we discussed was is thorium superior to uranium? Even if Martin and Sorensen were able to win that argument, the

more important question was determining whether the answer matters as much as the fact that both uranium and thorium (and their periodic table neighbor, plutonium) are atomic fission fuels that have serious advantages over combustion fuels in terms of energy density, total energy value and ability to produce power without pollution. We talked quite a bit about my solidifying theory that a major part of the long running battle against using any of the three available nuclear fission fuels has derived from the fact that the current kings of the energy hill do not want either one to take their market share away . As is often the case, my discussion opponents initially labeled my theory as a crackpot conspiracy theory; I
stubbornly continued explaining that pointing to a business strategy that includes efforts to raise the barriers of entry for formidable competitors should not be dismissed. It

is not a conspiracy theory to point out the enormous amount of capital that is invested in the global effort to locate, extract, transport, refine, distribute and market coal, natural gas and oil. It is not a conspiracy theory to point out that politicians and the advertiser supported media have numerous reasons to help their friends continue to capture trillions of dollars worth of revenue each year from suppling
industrial society with the fuels that keep it running at prices that are far higher than they would be if there were amply supplies of nuclear fission based machines being allowed to operate on a remotely level playing field.

2NC Link Picking Winners

Picking nuclear to win insures a fight NELSON & NORTHEY 9 24 12 E&E reporters [Gabriel Nelson and Hannah Northey, NUCLEAR
ENERGY: DOE funding for small reactors languishes as parties clash on debt, http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/09/24/3?page_type=print] That the grants haven't been given out during a taut campaign season, even as President Obama announces agency actions ranging from trade cases to creating new national monuments to make the case for his re-election, may be a sign that the reactors are ensnared in a broader feud over energy spending. Grant recipients would develop reactor designs with an eye toward eventually turning those into pilot projects -- and the loan guarantees that these first-of-a-kind nuclear plants are using today to get financing would be blocked under the "No More Solyndras" bill that passed the
House last week (Greenwire, Sept. 14). Congress has given the grant program $67 million for fiscal 2012, shy of the amount that would be needed annually to reach full funding. If the "sequester" kicks in at year's end and slashes DOE funding or the balance of power changes in Washington, the amount of money available could dwindle yet again. Even

the staunchest supporters of the federal nuclear program are acknowledging it is a tough time to promise a $452 million check. Former Sen. Pete
Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who pushed for new reactors as chairman of both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said during a brief interview Tuesday that well-designed loan guarantees won't cost too much because they get repaid over time. The cost could be borne by a "tiny little tax" on the nuclear industry, he said. But

when it comes to straight-up spending, like the grants that would support getting these cutting-edge reactors ready for their first demonstrations, the solution may not be so clear. While some Republicans remain staunch supporters of funding for the nuclear power industry, there are others who label the government subsidies as a waste of taxpayer dollars. "It's awful hard, with the needs that are out there and the debt that haunts us, to figure out how you're going to establish priorities," said Domenici, who has advocated for the deployment of new nuclear reactors as a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "I can't stand here and tell you that I know how to do that."

Link alone turns the case siting problems

C ivil S ociety I nstitute, 3/7/2012 (Survey: Americans Not Warming Up to Nuclear Power One Year After Fukushima, p. http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/030712release.cfm) Peter Bradford, former member of the U nited S tates Nuclear Regulatory Commission, former chair of the New York and Maine utility regulatory commissions, and currently adjunct professor at Vermont Law School on "Nuclear Power and Public Policy, said: "This survey is another piece of bad news for new nuclear construction in the U.S. For an industry completely dependent on political support in order to gain access to the taxpayers' wallets (through loan guarantees and other federal subsidies) and the consumers' wallets (through rate guarantees to cover even canceled plants and cost overruns), public skepticism of this magnitude is a near fatal flaw . The nuclear industry has spent millions on polls telling the public how much the public longs for nuclear power. Such polls never ask real world questions linking new reactors to rate increases or to accident risk. Fukushima has made the links to risk much clearer in the public mind. This poll makes the consequences of that linkage clear."

IFRs

1NC IFRs
IFRs cost capital. Elias 8 San Diego Tribune Staff, Political Commentator
(Thomas D. Elias, Why isn't this energy solution even on the table?, http://www.sddt.com/commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=109&SourceCode=20081010tza)
Remarkably, while proposals for renewed offshore oil drilling, new atomic power plants, expanded carbon trading and other proposed tactics abound in this year's presidential campaign, no one mentions the single most promising technique. This may be because its name contains the word "reactor." Combined with the fact that it depends on a sophisticated form of nuclear technology, that appears to make the

notion of power plants using the Integral Fast Reactor anathema to today's politicians. But it shouldn't. For this
technology is demonstrably safer than any existing nuclear power plant, depends almost completely on recycling for its fuel and would make virtually no contribution to worldwide climate change. Yes, there are serious problems with today's version of nuclear power. The most difficult to solve is waste disposal, with almost no one wanting his or her backyard to be a dumping ground for spent radioactive fuel rods that will stay "hot" for eons. There are longstanding worries about effects of nuclear plants or their waste on water tables and ocean water temperatures. There are terrorism concerns. And there's the possibility -- slim, but still present -- of a meltdown or explosion loosing clouds of radioactivity into the air for many miles around. This has never happened in an American-designed atomic plant, but that doesn't stop people or politicians from worrying. Meanwhile, no such concerns apply to the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), designed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois and its Idaho satellite facility during the 1980s and '90s at a cost of more than 1 billion taxpayer dollars. The design was shelved and a small prototype essentially deep-sixed in 1994, ostensibly because of concerns that it might lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons. Here are some of the advantages of the IFR, as listed by Steve Kirsch, a multimillionaire Silicon Valley software entrepreneur who has pushed the concept for several years: These reactors can be fueled entirely with today's used nuclear fuel, consuming virtually all of the long-lived radio-isotopes that make storage of spent fuel rods such a problem. It would take IFRs centuries to use up the supplies of uranium that have already been mined, in part because this design is about 100 times more efficient in milking energy from uranium than those in use today. IFRs require no enrichment of uranium, can be fueled with plutonium waste from other nuclear plants and emit almost no greenhouse gases. Such reactors would be cooled with liquid sodium, so they would not require massive water supplies and therefore can be located almost anywhere (read: isolated, desolate areas far from the large populations that might use the energy they produce). The

main disadvantage -- the one that killed the idea back in the mid-'90s -- is the fear that it would lead to proliferation of weapons-grade uranium because it is a form of "breeder" reactor that could theoretically produce more fissionable material than it uses. But that's a matter of choice, making the breeder issue a red herring, an objection raised even though it has little merit only because it will alarm large numbers of people. For IFRs can be designed to use just as much fuel as they create, or more. In
fact, it is today's thermal reactors that are large producers of ultra-dangerous plutonium. The other problem with IFRs -- this one legitimate -is that the liquid sodium cooling them could catch fire. But the scientists who developed the IFR design insisted that adding an extra cooling loop to each reactor would likely prevent this. Kirsch maintains the

IFR project was killed because it threatened oil companies, uranium mines, coal mines and natural gas companies. Which it would. But George Stanford, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who helped create the IFR design at Argonne, believes the main reason was fear of proliferation. "Well-meaning but ill-informed people claiming to be experts confused the issue and convinced many administrators and legislators the IFR was a threat," he said in a remarkable 2001 essay that can be
accessed at nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html. There is no doubt that American ingenuity has solved innumerable problems and won several wars. That same creativity also produced a power plant idea that could solve many of today's energy problems while doing little or no harm to citizens or the environment.

NRC

1NC NRC Restrictions

The NRC is highly politicized and scrutinized by Congress Energy and Commerce Committee 7/17 Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of
Representatives. NRC Commissioners Set to Testify Next Tuesday, 2012, http://energycommerce.house.gov/press-release/nrc-commissioners-set-testify-next-tuesday Since the start of the 112th Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee has been actively conducting oversight of the NRC with a focus on how the actions of former NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko politicized the Commission, undermining its ability to effectively execute its safety and licensing mission. Moving forward, the committee will continue its oversight efforts to determine any steps that need to be taken to restore the commissions integrity and make sure history doesn't repeat itself.

SMRs

1NC SMRs
Aff is politically nuclear. Fairley 10 IEEE Spectrum
(Peter, May, Downsizing Nuclear Power Plants, spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/downsizing-nuclear-powerplants/0)
However, there well increase

are political objections to SMRs. Precisely because they are more affordable, they may the risk of proliferation by bringing the cost and power output of nuclear reactors within the reach of poorer countries. Russias first SMR, which the nuclear engineering group Rosatom expects to complete next year, is of particular concern. The Akademik Lomonosov is a floating nuclear power plant sporting two 35-MW reactors, which Rosatom expects to have tethered to an Arctic oil and gas operation by 2012. The reactors portability prompted Greenpeace Russia to call this floating plant the worlds most dangerous nuclear project in a decade. SMRs may be smaller than todays reactors. But, politically at least, theyre just as nuclear.

Renewables

Generic Renewables

1NC Renewables
Plan requires lots of capital Congressional engagement key to Obamas renewable agenda Businessweek, 9/6 (Renewable Energy Is Obama Goal for Next Term, Aide Says,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-06/renewable-energy-is-obama-goal-for-next-term-aidesays) President Barack Obamas effort to develop renewable power sources and persuade Congress to adopt a long-term energy policy will be priorities should he win a second term, his top climate and energy aide said. Clean-energy programs and efficiency initiatives will be a focus for the president if hes re-elected in November, Heather Zichal, Obamas deputy assistant for energy and climate change, told reporters today in Washington. The big issue will remain engagement with Congress , she said. The president has talked continuously about the need for a longterm energy policy, and I think that will be something that he will obviously remain focused on in the second term. As a candidate in 2008, Obama pledged to create 5 million green jobs over 10 years by investing in renewable sources such
as solar and wind power. He promoted alternatives to fossil fuels as a way to cut U.S. dependence on imported fuel. The 2009 economicstimulus plan spent a record $90 billion on clean energy, creating 225,000 green jobs after one year, according to the White House.

Republicans have used U.S. support for Solyndra LLC, the solar-panel maker that collapsed two years after getting a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, to depict Obamas policies as a failure by meddling in the free market. Mitt Romney,
the Republican presidential nominee, said federal regulation of oil and gas limit U.S. energy development.

TERA

1NC TERA
Plan leads to backlashthe existence of the law proves the link Miles 06 (Andrea, JD Candidate, TRIBAL ENERGY RESOURCE AGREEMENTS: TOOLS FOR ACHIEVING
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRIBAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY OR AN ABDICATION OF FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES. 30 Am. Indian L. Rev. 461, Lexis) Opponents, including some environmental groups, have expressed concern that Title V will eliminate the federal guarantees of public participation and environmental review from energy development decisions in Indian Country. n78 Further, opponents state that the "language also undercuts the federal trust [*471] responsibility to Tribes by providing a waiver for the federal government of all liability from
energy development." n79 Additionally, "other governments - state, local and foreign - are not required to conduct a NEPA review of actions they approve." n80 Some

claim that the bill releases the federal government from its traditional trust responsibility to ensure the protection of the health, environment, and resources of Tribes and undermines federal environmental laws such as NEPA for energy development projects on Indian lands, resulting in a
rearrangement of the federal- tribal relationship. n81 For example, during a congressional oversight hearing on NEPA, Zuni tribal member Calbert Seciwa stated "that NEPA was a vital tool in the Zuni Salt Lake Coalition's successful fight to block development of a coal mine near the

Environmentalists also criticize the new language. The National Resources Defense Council argued that the provisions remove the federal guarantee of environmental review and public participation. n83 Sharon Buccinio, an attorney for the NRDC argues Title V could remove the application of federal laws,
sacred lake south of Gallup." n82 such as NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act, from energy development decisions on tribal lands. The bill affects land both on and off the reservation. It provides that once the Secretary of the Interior approves a [TERA] providing a process for making energy development decisions, individual energy projects would proceed without federal approval. Since no federal action would occur, the existing guarantees of environmental review and public participation under NEPA would be lost. Concerned tribal community members and communities adjacent to the project would lose the mechanism that they now have to make their voices heard. n84 [*472]

Because of the ongoing

concern

that TERA tribes could ignore NEPA, Congress

added a tribal environmental review process to the TERA.

n85 The environmental review process must provide for the identification and evaluation of all significant environmental effects, including effects on cultural resources, identify proposed mitigation measures, and incorporate these measures into the TERA agreement. n86 In addition, the Tribe must ensure that the public is informed of and has the opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposed action, provide responses to relevant and substantive comments before tribal approval of the TERA agreement, provide sufficient administrative support and technical capability to carry out the environmental review process and allow Tribal oversight of energy development activities by any other party under any TERA agreement to determine whether the activities are in compliance with the TERA and applicable federal environmental law. n87

Wind

1NC Offshore Wind

Plans massively unpopular---triggers public and Congressional backlash---tied into the broader green energy debate Sperry 12 Todd is a writer for CNN. Wind farm gets US approval despite controversy, Aug 16,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/us/wind-farm-faa/index.html Washington (CNN) -- A massive offshore wind farm planned for Cape Cod that has generated fierce political and legal controversy has cleared all federal and state regulatory hurdles. The Federal Aviation Administration said Wednesday the Cape Wind project, the first of its kind in the United States, would not interfere with air traffic navigation and could proceed with certain conditions. Previous agency approvals were challenged in court, including a ruling last year that forced the latest FAA safety evaluation. A leading opposition group said another legal challenge was possible. The Obama administration first approved the power generating project, which has now been on the books for more than a decade, in April 2010 despite opposition from residents. Opponents over the years have included the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts whose family compound is in Hyannis Port. 125 years of wind power Critics claim the wind farm with its 130 turbines would threaten wildlife and aesthetics of Nantucket Sound. Some local residents also fear it will drive down property values. The administration has pushed a "green energy" agenda nationally as a way to create jobs and lessen U.S. dependence on oil imports. That effort, however, has been sharply criticized by congressional Republicans who have said certain high-profile projects are politically driven. They also have skewered certain Energy Department programs that extended millions in taxpayer loans and other aid to alternative energy companies or projects that faltered or did not meet expectations. The Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the political assertions around Cape Wind as part of a broader review of "green energy" projects supported by the administration.

2NC Offshore Wind

Offshore wind empirically triggers massive controversy DiMugno 12 Laura is a writer for North American Wind Power. With latest FAA ruling, is it full steam
ahead for Cape Wind? Aug 17, http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/08/17/with-latest-faa-ruling-isit-full-steam-ahead-for-cape-wind/ Despite this latest decision, it remains to be seen whether the controversy surrounding the proposed offshore wind farm will finally come to a close. Several groups still oppose the project the most vocal of which has been APNS and aviation concerns are only one component of their argument against Cape Wind. Recently, APNS went so far as to claim that there were political motivations behind the FAAs decision. Cape Wind continues to face serious and growing problems, with investigations being launched into the projects political maneuvering, four federal lawsuits pending, and a recent federal court decision to revoke Cape Winds aviation safety permit, the group stated on its website. (The last claim has been negated with this latest FAA decision.)

Obama will get blame for the plan and it will sap capital Delamaide 10 Darrell is a writer at Oil Price.com. U.S. Approval of Cape Cod Offshore Wind Project
Will Not End Controversy, April 30, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/U.S.-ApprovalOf-Cape-Cod-Offshore-Wind-Project-Will-Not-End-Controversy.html The Obama administration approved the controversial Cape Wind project, which calls for a wind farm of 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound and will be the first offshore wind project in the country. The announcement Wednesday was not a complete surprise after President Barack Obama on Tuesday toured the factory in Iowa that will supply the blades for the Cape Wind turbines. But it is sure to generate more controversy as opposition was voiced by everyone from environmental groups to Native American tribes to Cape Cod residents, who are disturbed at the prospect that they will see the wind turbines as specks on the horizon. The turbines will be five miles from shore at their closest point, and
14 miles and their most distant.

Plan causes controversy---empirically proven---GOP will accuse Obama of cheating Colman 12 Zack is a writer for The Hill. Long-delayed offshore wind farm gets approval despite
political pushback, 8/16, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/243979-offshore-wind-farm-getsapproval-despite-political-pushback A large proposed wind farm off the Massachusetts coast gained regulatory approval Wednesday amid complaints from GOP lawmakers that the White House inappropriately pushed for its acceptance. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) determined the 130-turbine Cape Wind project, located in the Nantucket Sound, posed no danger to air travel. The project has been in the planning process for more than a decade. This FAA Determination of No Hazard is extremely robust, comprehensive and complete, Mark Rodgers, spokesman for Cape Wind, told The Hill on Thursday. We are pleased that the FAA was able to ignore political pressure of project opponents and that they did their job in a professional way reaching the same decision they have on three other occasions including twice under the Bush Administration to approve this project. Rodgers said the FAA ruling means Cape Wind is now fully permitted. He noted it is the only U.S. offshore wind farm with federal and state approval, a commercial lease and a construction and operations plan. It also has power purchase agreements with Massachusetts electric

GOP lawmakers is uncertain. They want to investigate possible administration pressure on the agency to approve the project despite safety concerns from some FAA employees. Republicans Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
utilities. But whether FAAs ruling quiets some Chairman Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Cliff Stearns (Fla.), a subcommittee chairman on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, all have called for a probe of Cape Wind. They say internal FAA documents show hesitancy about the projects ability to avoid interfering with low-flying planes. The

lawmakers allege the Obama administration used its influence to hush

those fears.

A2 Obama Doesnt Push

A2 Obama Doesnt Push

Plan requires Obama to push it---their solvency evidence Giddings 11 JD Candidate @ The George Washington University Law School [Nathaniel C. Giddings,
Go Offshore Young Man! The Categorical Exclusion Solution to Offshore Wind Farm Development on the Outer Continental Shelf, JOURNAL OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, Winter 2011
In his speech on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, President Barack Obama declared that increased production of alternative energy sources was necessary to prevent

the President can encourage federal agencies to create incentives for the development of clean energy resources right now.156 In particular, the President could encourage BOEMRE to create a categorical exclusion for development of offshore wind farms on the Outer Continental Shelfa decision that would likely withstand judicial review. The current approval process, requiring two environmental reviews, is redundant and unnecessary. Not only do offshore wind farms have a proven track record of being environmentally sound, measures in current federal law already ensure environmental protection. In
future environmental disasters of this nature.155 Instead of waiting for Congress to act, which seems unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future, particular, the consultation provisions of environmental statutes such as the ESA require oversight where threatened or endangered species are potentially impacted. Moreover, the

CER process would ensure that where there are extraordinary circumstances, an EA would be completed to ensure that environmental impacts are properly assessed. Requiring two environmental reviews with these protective measures already in place is unnecessary and needlessly slows down the development of offshore wind farms on the Outer Continental Shelf. A categorical exclusion for offshore wind farms would allow the United States to tap a resource that could provide large amounts of power to high-demand centers, create jobs, and protect the environment.
Moreover, if the concerns associated with global climate change are in fact a reality, the need to reduce our reliance on greenhouse gas emitting sources of energy is of pressing importance. Offshore

wind promises to deliver clean energy to the areas that need it most while having minimal environmental impacts. The only question that remains is whether the Obama administration has the political willpower to turn words into action.

A2 Link Args

A2 Agency Shield
Makes them not topical voting issue for jurisdiction The means all parts
Encarta 9 (World English Dictionary, The, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861719495) 2. indicating

generic class: used to refer to a person or thing considered generically or universally Exercise is good for the heart.
She played the violin. The dog is a loyal pet.

Government is all three branches

Blacks Law 90 (Dictionary, p. 695) *Government] In the United States, government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in addition to administrative agencies. In a broader sense, includes the federal government and all its agencies and bureaus, state and county governments, and city and township governments.

2ac Clarification is a voting issue should have been in the 1ac normal means debates are inhibit so the only predictable standard is holding them to USFG in the plan text which is key to any and all negative ground. Agencies dont shield and no risk of a turn---Obama is velcro and will only get blamed--no credit Nicholas & Hook 10 Peter and Janet, Staff Writers---LA Times, Obama the Velcro president, LA
Times, 7-30, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcro-presidency-20100730/3 If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through two terms, Reagan eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and additional public exposure. They are also crafting new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama remains the colossus of his administration to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to solve. The president is on the hook to repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape What's not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have been fleeting.
Instead, voters are measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it

Reagan was able to glide past controversies with his popularity largely intact. He maintained his affable persona as a small-government advocate while seeming above the fray in his own administration. Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as
hasn't translated into dinner table conversations." the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving members of his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most of the blame fell on lieutenants. . In a revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he reminded Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He told residents in Grand Isle, La., that he is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comic-book superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and plug the hole. "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said. But as a candidate in 2008, he set sky-high expectations about what he could achieve and what government could accomplish. Clinching the Democratic nomination two years ago, Obama described the moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless" and "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Those towering goals remain a long way off. And most people would have preferred to see Obama focus more narrowly on the "good jobs" part of the promise. A recent Gallup poll showed that 53% of the population rated unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important

Obama lately has tried to rip off the Velcro veneer

problem. By contrast, only 7% cited healthcare a single-minded focus of the White House for a full year. At every turn, Obama makes the argument that he has improved lives in concrete ways. Without the steps he took, he says, the economy would be in worse shape and more people would be out of work. There's evidence to support that. Two economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, reported recently that without the stimulus and other measures, gross domestic product would be about 6.5% lower. Yet, Americans aren't apt to cheer when something bad doesn't materialize. Unemployment has been rising from 7.7% when Obama took office, to 9.5%. Last month, more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in various stages of foreclosure up from 1.7 million when Obama was sworn in. "Folks just aren't in a mood to hand out gold stars when unemployment is hovering around 10%," said

Insulating the president from bad news has proved impossible. Other White Houses have tried doing so with more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the blame, shielding the boss. But the Obama administration is about one man . Obama is the White House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and negotiator. No Cabinet secretary has emerged as an adequate surrogate . Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy Secretary Steven Chu is prone to long, wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to end. So, more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro effect: Everything sticks to him . He has opined on virtually everything in the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron
Paul Begala, a Democratic pundit. James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Few audiences are off-limits. On Wednesday, he taped a spot on ABC's "The View," drawing a rebuke from Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who deemed the appearance unworthy of the presidency during tough times. "Stylistically he creates some of those problems," Eddie Mahe, a Republican political strategist, said in an interview. "His favorite pronoun is 'I.' When you position yourself as being all things to all people, the ultimate controller and decision maker with the capacity to fix anything, you set yourself up to be blamed when it doesn't get fixed or things happen." A new White House strategy is to forgo talk of big policy changes that are easy to ridicule. Instead, aides want to market policies as more digestible pieces. So, rather than tout the healthcare package as a whole, advisors will talk about smaller parts that may be more appealing and understandable such as barring insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.

But at this stage, it may be late in the

game to downsize either the president or his agenda.

Requires Congressional authority

Lovell 2k Assistant Professor of Government, College of William and Mary (George, 17 Const. Commentary 79, AG)
An initial problem with this complaint is that it is not entirely accurate. Even in a world with delegation, voters can usually trace regulatory decisions to "yes" or "no" votes cast by their representatives in Congress. It is true that members

of Congress do not cast "yes" or "no" votes on particular rules created by agencies, but they do quite often need to go on record with "yes" or "no" votes that make agency activities possible. Legislators must cast votes to establish executive branch agencies and to give those agencies the authority to make regulatory decisions. The democratic controls created by such votes weaken over time. (Most of the voters who voted for the legislators who passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act are now dead). But members of Congress need to take at least one vote per year (on the relevant appropriations bill) in order for any regulatory program to continue, and circumstances sometimes force members to cast additional votes on particular programs. Since no regulatory program can operate without being created and continually authorized by Congress, there is nothing about delegation that prevents an unhappy electorate from holding members of Congress accountable for regulatory power exercised by the agencies. Opponents of incumbents are certainly free to make such votes an
issue in the next campaign, and they sometimes do. Representative George Nethercutt (R-Washington) recently found this out the hard way from an ad sponsored by some of his political opponents. Nethercutt probably did not know that he had voted for the Endangered [*91] Species Act twelve times until he saw an ad that recounted his votes on various appropriations and authorizations items. 21

Obama will be blamed for agency action Wallison 3 Resident Fellow @ A.E.I. A Power Shift No One Noticed, AEI Online, 1-1,
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15652/pub_detail.asp
To be sure, the president had appointed the chairman and the other members of the SEC, but that in itself would not make him blameworthy unless one assumed that he was also directly responsible for how the SEC acted

That is the nub of the important but largely unnoticed change that has occurred: the unchallenged assumption on the part of all parties--in Congress, in the media, among the public, and even in the White House itself--that the president was fully accountable for an agency that has always been viewed as independent. The significance of this change in the grand government scheme of things can hardly be overstated. Without legislation or judicial decision, the president has suddenly become electorally responsible for the decisions of bodies that were considered to be within the special purview of Congress, susceptible only to congressional policy
before, and after, the scandals erupted. direction. Of course, this functional revolution did not give the president any new powers with respect to the independent regulatory agencies. But the die is now cast. The way the American people look at the president's

that will affect the attitude of Congress. If the American people believe that the president should be responsible for the actions of the SEC, it will be difficult to convince them otherwise . Significantly, since Harvey Pitt's resignation
responsibilities apparently is changing, and as SEC chairman in November, the media have routinely referred to the president's choice to head the SEC, investment banker William H. Donaldson, as a member of the Bush "economic team."

Every SINGLE MOVE Obama makes is hotly contested and intensely debatedtheres only risk of a link TVNZ 10/8 (Jon Johansson, 10/8/09, "A presidential chess game", http://tvnz.co.nz/worldnews/presidential-chess-game-3060277) While only his most serious chess matches have been mentioned here, numerous other games are continually taking shape, demanding his study and his response. Every single move Obama makes, in whichever game he plays, is hotly contested and intensely debated. There is no let up for him.

Obama will take the fall Politico, 1-7-10, p. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31259.html

Taking a decidedly different tack from his predecessor in the face of a government failure, President Barack Obama on Thursday took the blame for shortcomings that led to a failed Christmas Day bombing plot, saying, The buck stops with me. Aides to Obama signaled that he was consciously seeking to be the antiBush, airing the administrations dirty laundry and stepping up to take his share of the responsibility. The president also wanted to do something, I think, unusual today, National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said during a webchat after Obamas speech. Not only was this a very quick accounting, not only did the president accept responsibility for it, but the president also wanted to do this as transparently as possible. Quick, transparent, willing to take the blame all things Obama has said President George W. Bush was not.

A2 Executive Shields
Executive action links Fine and Warber 12 Jeffrey A. Fine is an assistant professor of political science @ Clemson
University. He has been published in the Journal of Politics, Political Research Quarterly, and Political Behavior. Adam L. Warber is an associate professor of political science @ Clemson University. He is the author of Executive Orders and the Modern Presidency. Circumventing Adversity: Executive Orders and Divided Government, Presidential Studies Quarterly 42, no. 2 (June), Wiley Although presidents can use their unilateral powers to shape the policy process directly, in reality they are rarely in a position to exercise them at will. As with other presidential powers, they are limited in their ability to command by decree and must be strategic in how they use them (see Neustadt 1990). Presidential decisions regarding when and what types of unilateral powers to exercise are shaped by a variety of conditions in the political environment, especially the president's political relationship with Congress . With respect to executive orders, we expect that chief executives will likely sign directives when they perceive that
conditions in the political environment will garner them more political payoffs rather than costs. In certain circumstances, conditions might be ripe for presidents to pursue executive orders that initiate significant policies. At other times, there may be less political incentive to act unilaterally resulting in presidents pursuing policy success through the traditional legislative route in Congress. What is it about the president's political relationship with Congress that might lead him to eschew the legislative process in favor of unilateral action? The literature typically focuses on divided government, as it serves as a proxy for periods when the president and Congress might disagree on policy solutions (e.g., Deering and Maltzman 1999; Howell 2003; Mayer 2001). However, scholars have not yet fully tested the underlying theory behind why divided government should affect presidents' decisions to use executive orders. The presence of divided government should matter because (1) it is often harder for presidents to assemble a sufficient number of votes to achieve policy success through the legislative process because their party holds fewer seats, and (2) the policy preferences of presidents and legislators are more likely to diverge when different parties control these institutions. These are distinct components that are associated with party control, and we should assume that each will influence executive order activity. From the president's perspective, larger seat majorities in Congress should make it easier to achieve his preferred policies. When the president has a majority of seats in the House and a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, as the Democratic party possessed in 2009 and 2010, it is easier (though by no means a certainty) for his party to usher in major policy change through the legislative

presidents also might be more reticent to use executive orders to achieve significant policies for fear that such actions might be viewed by Congress as an assault on the legislative process. This approach could backfire by disrupting the cooperative relationship that a president might enjoy with his party in Congress.
process. Thus, presidents will have less need to issue major executive orders to achieve policy success since Congress may be more receptive to their policy proposals. During these conditions,

**Internal Links

Hagel K2 Foreign Policy

Hagels key AHell drive internal change at the Pentagonthats Vlahosonly SecDef thatll challenge the militarist consensus Greenwald 1/5Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian, 1/5/13, Chuck Hagel and liberals: what are the
priorities? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/hagel-liberals-gays-israeldemocrats All of the Democratic alternatives to Hagel who have been seriously mentioned are nothing more than standard foreign policy technocrats , fully on-board with the DC consensus regarding war, militarism, Israel, Iran, and the Middle East. That's why Kristol, the Washington Post and other neocons were urging Obama to select them rather than Hagel: because those neocons know that, unlike Hagel, these Democratic technocrats pose no challenge whatsoever to their agenda of sustaining destructive US policy in the Middle East and commitment to endless war.

BCritical to effective diplomacyprevents escalations Goodsell 1/6Paul Goodsell, Omaha World Herald, January 6, 2013, Chuck Hagel's record suggests
his approach to military, budget, http://www.omaha.com/article/20130106/NEWS/701069941/1707 The U.S. secretary of defense today is a high-stakes actor in international diplomacy , said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Hagel, Crocker said in an open letter in the Wall Street Journal, is an experienced statesman who understands world challenges and would work well with Obama's nominee for secretary of state, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry. Crocker said Hagel sees the advantages of a nuanced, strategically patient approach in dealing with the world, using both pressure and support to influence other countries. Feaver said Hagel's value to the Obama administration would be that he, like the president, favors a restrained approach to using military force . Hagel voted in favor of the Iraq War but later came to oppose it. In the current debate over Iran's development of nuclear weapons, Hagel has said he favors a negotiated solution rather than military intervention.

CFrames options for the President Frum 1/8David Frum, contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast and a CNN contributor,
1/8/13, Hagel's Views Do Matter, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/08/hagel-s-views-domatter.html Savor that, "As head of the Pentagon, Hagel would not determine foreign policy." No, he would not. But he would have substantial control over the information, advice, and policy options available to the person who does determine foreign policy. Suppose a president were to request an assessment of a hypothetical strike on Iran. Suppose the secretary of defense delivers to him a plan requiring the insertion of US ground forces into Iranian cities to be sure of destroying relevant facilities. That "plan" is as much a veto of a strike as any decision. Donald Rumsfeld enabled the Iraq war by producing estimates it could be won with as few as 135,000 troops. Had he instead on 300,000, the war would not have occurred: it would have seemed too heavy a lift. (As indeed it proved.) A Secretary Hagel could similarly thwart

policies he disapproved of by magnifying their cost and difficulty. That's why his views matter, and that's
why it's so disingenuous to claim they do not.

DGives Obama cover to push for restraint Thompson 1/7Mark Thompson, 1-7-2013, President Obama To Tap Ex-GOP Senator Chuck Hagel
to Run Pentagon, Time, http://nation.time.com/2013/01/07/president-obama-to-tap-ex-gop-senatorchuck-hagel-to-run-pentagon/ Hagel would be the first Defense Secretary since the late Caspar Weinberger, Defense chief in the Reagan Administration, to have worn a U.S. military uniform in combat and the first enlisted man. That gives him instant credibility . Hagel led an infantry squad in Vietnam during the bloody fighting following the Tet offensive, Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta said of him at a Memorial Day service last May. Like millions of our generation, he demonstrated bravery, patriotism and heroism on the battlefield. With his Hagel pick following Panettas Democratic interregnum, Obama

gets Republican cover to try to retool the Pentagon. That will include its missions as well as its business dealings. If he wants to, with Hagel in charge of the Defense department, Obama will be able to press for more substantial changes than he could with a Democrat sitting in that huge E-ring office. (Atlantic contributing editor Yochi Dreazen recently wrote about this strange state of
affairs.) But Hagel has never seemed to harbor a sense that it is the mission of the U.S. or its military to spread democracy around the world. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations, he wrote in 2006. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation regardless of our noble purpose. That echoes Obamas thinking on the topic. Former Senator Cohen applauds Obamas pick and dismisses concerns that he will make bad policy. You want a Secretary of Defense to be strong-minded, Cohen says. But he has to understand that this is not about Chuck Hagel, because he is not going to determine policy in the Middle East or with Iran. Thats the call of the President. Cohen, a onetime GOP Senator from Maine, embraces the idea of having a Republican Defense Secretary in a Democratic Presidents Cabinet, especially when military spending cuts are looming. Youre

picking the best person to handle the job who can build a consensus on Capitol Hill, basically, he says of the key
challenge Hagel faces. Having a Republican when youre downsizing sends the message that were going to do this on a nonpartisan basis, with this man who has a military background, a war hero, Purple Hearts, etc. Cohen adds that while the Democratic Party is unfairly portrayed as

the Hagel nomination gives Obama some political cover . Having a Republican there when youre downsizing really takes away the issue of, There go the Democrats again, he says.
being weak on defense,

EFailed Hagel nomination sends a global signal of Obama weakness FT 12-27 Financial Times, Hagel for defence, 12/27/12, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ad8eba06503d-11e2-9b66-00144feab49a.html#axzz2HN0WCy5a Whoever succeeds Leon Panetta will have to oversee the exit of US troops from Afghanistan and manage the potentially explosive relations with Iran. He will also have to preserve Americas strategic global dominance while implementing the steep cuts that are bound to hit the Pentagon. This is a very tough brief. Top of the White Houses shortlist is Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator. The decorated Vietnam veteran would offer an injection of fresh thinking into the defence establishment. During his time on the Senates armed services committee, Mr Hagel demonstrated good judgment in
opposing the Iraq war. His belief that the US must try hard to find a negotiated solution with Iran is right and realistic. The military option, while open, can never be the first choice, given the real risk that any conflict could result in a cure worse than the disease. Yet ever since Mr

Hagel emerged as the clear frontrunner, he has come under a barrage of criticism. Sadly, his critics have mostly overlooked his
sensible views on the future of the US military and focused on some remarks he made several years ago about the Jewish lobby. These comments may have been ill-judged but there is nothing in Mr Hagels record on Israel that suggests bias or hostility, still less anti-Semitism. He has shown support for a two-state solution which Israel also favours and the necessity for the US to play an even-handed role in fostering it. The whispering campaign against him is obnoxious. By appointment. He would also show

choosing Mr Hagel, Mr Obama would not just make a welcome bipartisan some political muscle . While he has not yet nominated Mr Hagel, the White House has floated his name for weeks. Were the US president to prompt Mr Hagel to withdraw his name now, it would signal a big retreat . It would also come just weeks after Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN, stepped aside in the race for secretary of state despite being the presidents preferred candidate. Two successive withdrawals would send a message at home and abroad that Mr Obama lacks resolve .

Makes great-power war inevitable Christopher Fettweis 4, Professor at the U.S. Army War College, December 2004, Resolute Eagle or
Paper Tiger? Credibility, Reputation and the War on Terror, online: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p67147_index.html The credibility of a state forms the basis of its reputation, which is little more than an impression of fundamental national character that serves as a guide for others trying to anticipate future actions .12 The loss of credibility can lead to reputations for weakness, fecklessness, and irresolution, which, the thinking goes, emboldens enemies and discourages the loyalty of allies . Credibility can be damaged in many ways, depending on the situation and the observer, but perhaps the surest is to fail to rise to a challenge or to pursue a goal with sufficient resolve . By doing so, a state may earn a reputation for irresolution, which can encourage more aggressive actions by revisionist powers .13 Threats made by a state without credibility may not be believed, inspiring the aggressor to press his advantage, which may lead to a challenge to an interest that is truly vital making a major war unavoidable . Thus the credibility imperative is also intimately related to the post-war American obsession with
appeasement, which is of course a code word for a show of weakness that inadvertently encourages an aggressor.

Political Capital Key

Presidential leadership shapes the agenda Kuttner 11 (Robert, Senior Fellow Demos and Co-editor American Prospect, Barack Obama's
Theory of Power, The American Prospect, 5-16, http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power)
As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his classic work, Presidential Power, a book that had great influence on President John F. Kennedy, the

essence of a presidents power is the power to persuade. Because our divided constitutional system does not allow the president to lead by commanding, presidents amass power by making strategic choices about when to use
the latent authority of the presidency to move public and elite opinion and then use that added prestige as

clout to

move Congress . In one of Neustadts classic case studies, Harry Truman, a president widely considered a lame duck, nonetheless
persuaded the broad public and a Republican Congress in 1947-1948 that the Marshall Plan was a worthy idea. As Neustadt and Burns both observed, though an American chief executive is weak by constitutional design, a

president possesses several points of

leverage . He can play an effective outside game, motivating and shaping public sentiment, making clear the differences between his values and those of his opposition, and using popular support to box in his opponents and move them in his direction. He can complement the outside bully pulpit with a nimble inside game, uniting his legislative party, bestowing or withholding benefits on opposition legislators, forcing them to take awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support of interest groups to pressure Congress, and use media to validate his framing of choices. Done well, all of this signals leadership that often moves the public agenda .

A2 Energy Not Key

-Energy. Weber 1/1 Fox News Analyst [Joseph Weber, Guns, immigration, fiscal issues emerge as top
priorities for Obama, new Congress, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/01/gun-controlimmigration-reform-fiscal-issues-emerge-as-top-issues-for-new/] The president on Sunday said energy issues are also on his high-priority list, specifically how the country can produce more energy in environmentally conscious ways, and mentioned 15 times in an interview with NBC News the need for further deficit reduction. Congressional leaders appeared reluctant over the lame duck session to say what will be their top priorities. A spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, whose office plays a major role in setting the
agenda, said lawmakers were focused on solving the fiscal crisis.

A2 Fiat Solves
Hoses groundall core generics are based on some facet of implementation, politics, spending, tradeoff are key. No it doesntthe immediate post-implementation setting doesnt shield blame, people would backlash for not debating the plan or the debates over the plan would also be immediate

A2 Intrinsicness
The disad is intrinsic---announcement of the plan necessarily would cause backlash. Intrinsicness is a voting issue---makes the aff a moving target and kills all neg link ground because the USFG could take action to solve almost any disad.
Politics disads are good: - Key to current events education thats useful immediately and promotes political engagement - Theyre a vital neg generic on this topic because theres no limiting word in the resolution - Most real world---politicians must always assess political consequences of advocating any bill--the real inherent barrier to the plan is political opposition

A2 No PC Now
Yes capital Hennessey 12/29 Kathleen, LA Times, 2012, www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-fiscalcliff-vote-20121228,0,2652554.story The move was meant to increase the political heat on Republicans, who opposed Obamas plan to allow taxes to rise on top
earners. If no deal is reached, Republicans could find themselves in the position of blocking the legislation that would prevent the tax hike for most taxpayers. Obama delivered the same message Friday night, after a meeting with congressional leaders at which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) agreed

to work together to try to reach a last-minute compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff. Theres not much time, but theres still time to act, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), in the GOP address. The president will never have more political capital than he does right now , and the next few days will begin to define his second term. He was elected to lead.

A2 PC Not Real
Political scientists and experts agree its relevant. Beckman 10 Professor of Political Science @ UC-Irvine
(Matthew N., 2010, Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in U.S. Lawmaking, 1953-2004, pg. 50)
However, many

close observers of the presidentialcongressional relationship have long cited prevoting bargaining across Pennsylvania Avenue as being substantively important . For example, discussing President Eisenhowers legislative record in 1953, CQ staffers issued a caveat they have often repeated in the years since: The Presidents leadership often was tested beyond the glare spotlighting roll calls. . . . Negotiations off the floor and action in committee sometimes are as important as the recorded votes. (CQ Almanac 1953, 77) Many a political scientist has agreed . Charles Jones (1994), for one, wrote, However they
are interpreted, roll call votes cannot be more than they are: one form of floor action on legislation. If analysts insist on scoring the president, concentrating on this stage of lawmaking can provide no more than a partial tally (195). And Jon Bond and Richard Fleisher (1990) note that even if they ultimately are reflected in roll-call votes, many important decisions in Congress are made in places other than floor votes and recorded by means other than roll calls . . . (68).

Capital is the greatest predictor of agenda success. Light 99 Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service, New York University; Founding Director,
Brookings Center for Public Service; Senior Adviser, National Commission on the Public Service; Senior Adviser, Brookings Presidential Appointee Initiative
(Paul C., The Presidents Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, 3 Edition, p. 24-25)
rd

Call it push, pull, punch, juice, power, or clout they all mean the same thing. The most basic and most important of all presidential resources is capital. Though the internal resources time, information, expertise, and energy all have an impact on the domestic agenda, the President is severely limited without capital. And capital is directly linked to the congressional parties. While there is little question that bargaining skills can affect both the composition and the success of the domestic agenda, without the necessary party support, no amount of expertise or charm can make a difference. Though bargaining is an important tool of presidential power, it does not take place in a neutral environment. Presidents bring certain advantages and
disadvantages to the table.

Politicians believe capital matters, so it does. Schier 11 Professor of Political Science at Carleton College
(Dorothy H. and Edward C., Professor of Political Science at Carleton College, The Contemporary Presidency: The Presidential Authority Problem and the Political Power Trap, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Volume 41, Issue 4, pages 793808, December 2011)

The concept of political capital captures many of the aspects of a president's political authority . Paul Light defines several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the president's conduct of his job, the president's electoral margin, and patronage appointments (Light 1999, 15). Light derived this list from the observations of 126 White House staff members he interviewed (1999, 14). His indicators have two central uses. First, Light's research reveals that they are central to the players' perspective in Washington. That is, those in the game view these items as crucial for presidential effectiveness . Second, they relate to many central aspects of political authority as defined by Skowronek. So on both theoretical and practical levels, the components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. The data here will reveal that presidents over the last 70 years have suffered from a trend of declining levels of political capital,
a trend that is at the heart of their political authority problem. Many scholars have examined particular aspects of presidential political capital,

from congressional support (for example, Bond and Fleisher 1992, 2000; Mayhew 2005; Peterson 1993) to job approval (Brace and Hinckley 1991; Kernell 1978; Nicholson Segura and Woods 2002). From these, we know that presidential job approval is influenced by economic performance, tends to drop over time, and that divided government can boost job approval. Also, job approval and control of Congress by fellow partisans boosts presidential success in floor votes but does not produce more important legislation than does periods of divided government. These micro

findings, however, comport with a macro trend of declining presidential political capital over time. This analysis explores that macro trend and relates it to previous micro findings.

A2 Giroux/Politics DAs Bad

A. Ignoring political tradeoffs is totalitarian
Dean Richard Villa, Political Theory UC Santa Barbara, 96 (Arendt and Heidegger: The Fate of the Political, p. 246-7)
Arendt appropriates Heideggers genealogy of the technical sense of action in order to highlight the traditions persistent attempt to overcome plurality, the politically most relevant expression of the finitude of the human condition. Subjecting praxis to the rule of

an end-

representing reason makes it possible to exchange the nonsovereign freedom of plural political actors for the command and control exercised by the artisan. The Platonic translation of acting into the idiom of making established the pattern for deriving action from first philosophy or theory, a pattern that offered an escape from the irreducible relativity
which besets the realm of human affairs. The substitution of making for acting initiates a paradigm of correspondence that, as Lyotard notes, delimits the Western tradition of political philosophy. Within the tropological space opened by this substitution, politics

is viewed as

the means or techn by which the fashioning of a people according to the idea or ideal of just beingtogether is accomplished.27 So long as political philosophy sees its task as the articulation of first principles with which actions, peoples, and institutions must be brought into accord, it reiterates the Platonic schema; moreover, it perpetuates the idea that politics resembles a plastic art. Arendts critique of the Platonic tradition
reveals the drive to conflate political and artistic categories at the core of Western political theory, underlining the stubborn persistence of the state as artwork/politics as techn tropes. The strength of these figures is measured by the fact that the closure of the tradition barely shakes the logic of justification institutionalized by the Platonic separation of theory and practice. Western political theory, as Schrmann points out, has always demanded that action be grounded in some extrapolitical first (the cosmic order, natural or divine hierarchy, Reason and natural right, History, the greatest good for the greatest number, the emancipatory interest of the discursive community).28 As a result, it never really abandons the view that politics is

a kind of plastic art, the fashioning, more or less violent, of a people in conformity with an ideal. The persistence of this trope is explained by its efficacy for reducing plurality and difference, and by its ability to represent violence and coercive power as right.29 Arendts theory of nonsovereign,
agonistic action smashes this figure, breaking the circuit of justification through the liberation of action from the rule of grounding principles and pregiven ends.30 The essentially normative function of political theory that is, the theoretical specification of the conditions for the legitimate exercise of power is suspended.31 In its place Arendt develops a phenomenology of action and a narrative approach to the closure of the public realm in modernity, an approach designed to keep the memory of an agonistic public sphere alive. With this bracketing of the legitimation problematic, a new appreciation of spaces and practices not typically viewed as political becomes possible.32 Moreover, the Arendtian liberation of action throws the antipolitical, not to say the inhuman, consequences of the traditions conflation of artistic and political categories into sharp relief. The teleocratic concept of action may be seen as the primary and most enduring expression of this conflation. With the collapse of transcendental grounds for the political, the logic of correspondence and justification built into this concept turns inward. The result is that the fashioning or fictioning of the community in conformity with an ideal of Justice is transformed into an exercise in selfproduction.33 And with this transformation, the threshold of modernity is traced. We can see this transformation at work in the emergence of the Hobbesian problematic: the construction of the Leviathan needed to overawe its subjects is the work of those very subjects, in their natural, presubjected, and radically dissociated state.14 The example of Hobbes clearly demonstrates how, once the art of politics is deprived of its natural ground (once techn can no longer be seen as the completion or accomplishment of physis), a paradoxical and impossible logic asserts itself. The conundrum is simply put: the people, who do not yet exist as a people, must somehow always already be enough of a subject in order to author or fashion themselves qua community. The answers to this riddle proposed by the social contract tradition Hobbess pact of association, which is simultaneously a transfer of power to a designated sovereign; Lockes presupposition of what Laslett has called natural political virtue; the Rousseauian mechanism of the total alienation of individual rights and powers by which a communal, sovereign power is formed have all been unconvincing, to say the least.35 Romanticism can be seen as the attempt to escape this paradox by radicalizing it. Instituting what Jean-Luc nancy has called an immanentist logic of communal self-formation, romanticism elides the distinction between process and end: the subject is redefined as work in the double sense of self-formative activity and product.36 As Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe notes, in the romantic vision the community at work creates and works itself, thereby accomplishing the subjective process par excellence, the process of self-formation and self-production.37 The aim of the community of beings becomes in essence to produce their own essence as community.38 With this move, a peculiarly modern version of the traditional conflation of art and politics is created. The organicity of the political, origincally laid down by Platos Republic, takes a new and extreme form: the figure of the subject who is simultaneously artist and work absorbs that of the aesthetically integrated state.

This subjectivization of the state as artwork trope culminates in the totalitarian will to self-effectuation: the will to the self-creation of a people characterized by full actualization, complete self-presence.39 The only community capable of achieving such self-presence is one from which

plurality, difference, mediation, and alienation have been expunged: a community, in other words, that is not a political community at all.

Ignoring tradeoffs is unrealistic.

Thomas G. Weiss, Presidential Professor of Political Science - Graduate Center CUNY, 99 (Ethics and International Affairs 13.1, Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action) However, if impacts beyond the immediate intervention are as or more important than the immediate relief of suffering, then a painful process of questioning should begin. Classicists are obliged to take adequately into account the results of the realpolitik calculations by states, factional politics within war zones and partisan politics in donor countries, and outcomes of international public policy debates.
Honest questions should be asked about engagement and disengagement. Rushing immediately to the scene of a disaster is not preordained.

Doing nothing is an option. Reflections and not reflexes are required because, in David Riefls words, despite the best intentions of aid workers, and at times because of them, they become logisticians in the war efforts of warlords, fundamentalists, gangsters, and ethnic cleansers. 4* The 1998 background document for the
second off-the-record Wolfsberg Humanitarian Forum organized by the ICRC was less poignant but similar in its conclusion: Aid in complex emergencies is always determined by a highly politicized context and has political implications itself, whether as a direct consequence of its provision or by way of intentional or unintentional side-effects.43 The good Samaritan figures prominently in ICRC documentation, and many humanitarians agree implicitly or explicitly with Sommarugas biblical interpretation and his perennial praise for apolitical humanitarianism as an act of charity. 44Pauls First Letter to the Corinthians praises charity as the greatest of virtues, but John Hutchinson has criticized the champions of charity on the grounds that they helped make war more palatable.45 In light of substantial evidence of the counterproductive effects of wellintentioned humanitarian action, there are still other reasons to question visceral charity. Altruism should infuse debate but not constitute policy. It

is impermissible to cede to virtue if it hinders rather than helps a political solution, leads to more violence and conflict, supports unduly the growth of a war economy, or undermines local coping capacities. Classical humanitarianism may seem unequivocally noble, but counterproductive efforts are uncharitable. Benign motivations are insufficient if the results are dreadfuljust as selfish motivations are sufficient if the results are beneficial. Alain Destexhe, former secretary-general of the international office of MSF and now president of the International Crisis Group and member of the Belgian Senate, argues: Humanitarian action is noble when coupled with political action and justice. Without them, it is doomed to failure and . . . a consciencesalving gimmick. 46

A2 Vote No
Counter-interpretation---the judge is deciding whether or not Congress should debate and pass the plan. Otherwise the negative never gets to defend the status quo and the aff could read losers lose as an advantage. Politics disads are good: - Key to current events education thats useful immediately and promotes political engagement - Theyre a vital neg generic on this topic because theres no limiting word in the resolution - Most real world---politicians must always assess political consequences of advocating any bill---the real inherent barrier to the plan is political opposition

A2 Winners Win
Winners win debate: No uniqueness post election where the president looks like a winner already. Discount their evidence that does not assume the current political environment. Their evidence is about large wins on closely divided and hugely significant issues like health care and the stimulus not the plan.

Energy policies overload the agenda. Mann 9 Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings
(Thomas E., From Campaigning to Governing: Politics and Policymaking in the New Obama Administration)
New presidents who get off to a good start almost always have agenda control. They

focus on a limited number of issues, keep extraneous matters from stepping on their priorities, and avoid overloading the circuits in Congress. Carter sent a flood of proposals to Capitol Hill with little concern for priority or sequencing. He reaped little in the way of
legislative harvest from them and the public began to wonder if he was up to the job. Reagan focused relentlessly on cutting taxes and spending, ultimately succeeding in shifting policy for decades. Clinton allowed the issue of gays in the military to overwhelm his policy priorities at the outset of his administration and then misjudged the market for a small economic stimulus in the Senate and suffered a humiliating

Obama identified stabilizing the financial markets and shortening the recession as his highest initial priority. His early efforts to ensure the release of $350 billion in TARP funds, pass a large economic stimulus bill, and develop a new strategy for dealing with the troubled banking system reflected that priority. Nonetheless, he was widely criticized for diluting his focus on economic crisis management by linking it to reform of health policy, energy and education. Critics argued that his economic recovery leadership and proposals were not up to the seriousness of the crisis, that the staggering costs of the recession and bailout made health, energy and education reform wildly
defeat.

unrealistic , and that his huge agenda would overwhelm the capacity of Congress to deliver on its central components. Obama insisted that the linkage was essential to long-term economic security and prosperity and refused to back
down. At his insistence, the stimulus bill contained very generous allocations for health technology, renewable energy and education.

And energy policy is a no win issue. Light 99 Paulette Goddard Professor of Public Service, New York University; Founding Director,
Brookings Center for Public Service; Senior Adviser, National Commission on the Public Service; Senior Adviser, Brookings Presidential Appointee Initiative
(Paul C., The Presidents Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, 3 Edition, p. 34)
In the final chapter, I will take a deeper look at recent changes which have altered the domestic agenda process. The Presidency of the 1980s is
rd

The political and economic costs of domestic programs have escalated, with no corresponding increase in the President's ability to absorb the "inflation." At least five explanations arise. First, Congress has become more competitive in the search for scarce agenda space whether because of changes in congressional membership and norms or because of a steady growth in the institutional resources for program initiation. Second, Congress has become more complex. The evolution of
quite different from the Presidency of the 1960s. subcommittee government during the late 1960s increased the sheer number of actors who wield influence in the domestic policy process and tangled the legislative road map. Though there are fewer single obstacles to passage of the President's program, there are many more potential dead ends and delays. Third, as Congress has become more competitive and complex, the congressional parties have weakened. The dispersion

of congressional power has, in turn, reduced the President's potential influence over domestic legislation. As we shall see, party is no longer the "gold standard" of presidential influence. Unfortunately, Presidents must still cling to their party as the source of their political capital. Fourth, Presidents must now conduct domestic policy under increasing congressional and media surveillance. I will suggest that this atmosphere of

the basic issues that fuel the domestic policy process have changed since 1960. We have witnessed the rise of a new group of " constituentless " issues, issues that generate remarkably little congressional support and considerable single-interest-group opposition. Energy, social-security financing, welfare reform, and hospital-cost control are all examples of a new generation of constituentless issues. Separately these five trends have created difficult problems for the President's agenda. Together they have contributed to the rise of a no- win presidency in domestic affairs. We will return to the concept of a No Win Presidency in chapter 9. For now, it is important to note that the domestic
suspicion has reduced the opportunities for effective presidential leadership in domestic policy. Finally, and perhaps most important, policy process continues to shift. In the few short years since Kennedy and Johnson occupied the Oval Office the Presidency has undergone a dramatic era of change. As one Johnson aide remarked, "This office is nothing like it used to be. It might look similar, but the relationships have all changed.

Replenishment takes too long. Lashof 10 Director of the Climate Center at NRDC
(Dan, Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda: Lessons from Senate Climate Fail, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/coulda_shoulda_woulda_lessons.html)

Lesson 2: Political capital is not necessarily a renewable resource. Perhaps the most fateful decision the Obama administration made early on was to move healthcare reform before energy and climate legislation. Im sure this seemed like a good idea at the time. Healthcare reform was popular, was seen as an issue that the public cared about on a personal level, and was expected to unite Democrats from all regions. White House officials and Congressional leaders reassured environmentalists with their theory that success breeds success. A quick victory on healthcare reform would renew Obamas political capital, some of which had to be spent early on to push the economic stimulus bill through Congress with no Republican help. Healthcare reform was eventually enacted, but only after an exhausting battle that eroded public support, drained political capital and created the Tea Party movement. Public support for healthcare reform is slowly rebounding as some of the early benefits kick in and people realize that the forecasted Armageddon is not happening. But this is occurring too slowly to rebuild Obamas political capital in time to help push climate legislation across the finish line.

Impacts

Afghanistan

1NC Afghanistan
Political signal of commitment to fast withdrawals key to successful Taliban negotiations---builds in U.S. leverage---and no offense, maintaining presence inevitably fails Daniel Serwer 12, professorial lecturer and senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of
Advanced International Studies and a scholar at the Middle East Institute, 3/13/12, Time to Go, http://www.peacefare.net/?p=7801
Is there anyone still out there who thinks we can achieve our goals in Afghanistan? Yes is the short answer. Michael OHanlon for example. So Ill try to reiterate why I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we need to get out as quickly as possible , without however destabilizing the situation. Far be it from me to suggest that the homicidal behavior of a single American staff sergeant should determine what we do, or dont do, in Afghanistan. The fact however is that incidents like the one Sunday, in which 16 Afghans appear to have been murdered by a single American, really do have a broader significance. It is just no longer possible for manyperhaps mostAfghans to support the effort we have undertaken supposedly for their benefit. The

Afghan parliament has said plainly that patience is

running out. Wait until they realize how long it will take before the alleged perpetrator is tried and punished! Of course we left
Afghanistan to its own devices once before, after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. That did not work out well, for us or for them. The risks are great that the scenario will be repeated. Im not sure President Karzai will last as long the Soviet-installed President Najibullah, who managed three years. But I trust Karzai will not stay on in Kabul if the Taliban appear at its gates, as Najibullah did. The Taliban castrated him and dragged him to death with a truck, then hung his body on a lamp post. I

doubt the Taliban, who would certainly gain control of at least parts of Afghanistan upon American withdrawal, would again make the mistake of inviting in al Qaeda. There isnt much in it for them: al Qaeda is a pan-national movement with pretensions to uniting all Muslims in a revived caliphate. As Rory Stewart notes, we are not going to be able to get the support we need from Pakistan or create the kind of government in Afghanistan that can gain the confidence of the Afghans. The only thing weve got going for us is that the Afghans hate
the Taliban more than they hate us, but that is cold comfort. It may also be in some doubt: the Taliban are having at least some success in governing areas they control. Their courts dispense justice, private and even state schools use their curriculum, and some nongovernmental organizations are allowed to operate. The Taliban district and provincial governors operate with increasing visibility and some degree of legitimacy. To

combat this kind of capillary presence of the Taliban, we would need to continue to distribute Americans widely in the countryside. It just isnt going to be possible . With U.S. troops already withdrawing, the risk
to Americans embedded in Afghan villages and ministries is going to rise sharply. Last months attacks on advisors embedded in the Interior Ministry, and the rising frequency of Afghan security force attacks on Americans, make that clear. Like many Iraqis, at least some Afghans will come to regret U.S. withdrawal. The Pushtuns will not like dealing with the Northern Alliance, which defeated the Taliban in 2001 with help from the U.S., better than dealing with us, and many in the Northern Alliance would already prefer that we stay. Womenstill not treated equally with menstand to lose some of the enormous gains that they have made since the Talibans fall. It

would be a mistake to await the outcome of the negotiations with the Taliban , which could drag on for a long time. Better to go into these negotiations stating a willingness to withdraw by the end of this year if feasible, or shortly thereafter provided a satisfactory political solution can be agreed. That could actually accelerate the diplomacy rather than hinder it . And in any event the Taliban will know full well that public and political support for the war is fading in the United States.

Effective negotiations key to Afghan stability Stefan Wolff 11, Professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham, England, UK,
6/19/11, Negotiating with the Taliban: A Promising Exit Strategy?, http://www.stefanwolff.com/notebook/negotiating-with-the-taliban In this sense, the strategy of negotiating with the Taliban is right. It is also correct in insisting on conditions as to who can
participate in negotiations without closing the door to those who may not (yet) meet themthis is the precise meaning of the listing and delisting in UN Security Council Resolution 1989(2011). As with the Northern Ireland peace process where participation in the negotiations that led to the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement were conditional upon acceptance of the Mitchell Principles of Non-violence,

demanding that those Taliban who want be part of a future peaceful Afghanistan renounce violence is

only logical. Similarly, the

Sunni insurgency in Iraq was brought to an end, in part, because those supporting and participating in it were simultaneously pressured and incentivised to turn away from, and on, al-Qaeda and encouraged to participate in a political process. While a comparison between Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan with
Sunni insurgents in Iraq, let alone Republicans (and Loyalists) in Northern Ireland, is not straightforward, and perhaps not even sensible, the particular strategy of dealing with the problem that they pose(d) makes sense: the

demands of these groups are to a significant degree negotiable (which fundamentally distinguishes them from al-Qaeda and its affiliates). Clearly, not all among the
Taliban will easily and quickly warm to the compromises and concessions that will be necessary for a settlement to be possible, nor will all in the current Afghan political establishment necessarily do so either. The more negotiations progress, the more spoilers will come to the fore groups and individuals who will benefit more from a continuation of the conflict than from its end. That is why ISAF must stay the course and continue fighting its counter-insurgency campaign against those unwilling to participate in a genuine search for a political settlement and demonstrate to them the futility of pursuing the illusion a military victory over the Afghan government and its international supporters. International support must also continue to build a local Afghan security capacity that can eventually lead this campaign as necessary. Yet in

the same way in which there can be no unconditional negotiations with the Taliban, there cannot be unconditional support of an Afghan government which presides over unbelievable levels of corruption and whose president lacks democratic legitimacy. A political settlement will only be possible with international support for its negotiation and implementation. It will only be sustainable if both sides, the Afghan government and the Taliban alike, commit to it credibly and if institutions are put in place that offer transparent, participatory,
and accountable mechanisms for dealing with the multitude of challenges that will undoubtedly face Afghanistan on the way to and after the negotiations have succeeded. Such success may seem rather far-fetched at present, but not

to give good-faith negotiations a fair chance now would block any kind of exit for the foreseeable future.

Afghan success prevents global nuclear war Carafano 10 James Jay is a senior research fellow for national security at The Heritage Foundation
and directs its Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Con: Obama must win fast in Afghanistan or risk new wars across the globe, Jan 2 http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fastafghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/ We can expect similar results if Obamas Afghan strategy fails and he opts to cut and run. Most forget that throwing South Vietnam to the wolves made the world a far more dangerous place. The Soviets saw it as an unmistakable sign that America was in decline. They abetted military incursions in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Latin America. They went on a conventional- and nuclear-arms spending spree. They stockpiled enough smallpox and anthrax to kill the world several times over . State-sponsorship of terrorism came into fashion. Osama bin Laden called America a paper tiger. If we live down to that moniker in Afghanistan, odds are the world will get a lot less safe. Al-Qaida would be back in the game. Regional terrorists would go after both Pakistan and Indiapotentially triggering a nuclear war between the two countries. Sensing a Washington in retreat, Iran and North Korea could shift their nuclear programs into overdrive, hoping to save their failing economies by selling their nuclear weapons and technologies to all comers. Their nervous neighbors would want nuclear arms of their own. The resulting nuclear arms race could be far more dangerous than the Cold Wars two-bloc standoff. With multiple, independent, nuclear powers cautiously eyeing one another, the world would look a lot more like Europe in 1914, when precarious shifting alliances snowballed into a very big, tragic war . The list goes on. There is no question that countries such as Russia, China and Venezuela would rethink their strategic calculus as well. That could produce all kinds of serious regional challenges for the United States. Our allies might rethink things as well. Australia has already hiked its defense spending because it cant be sure the United States will remain a responsible security partner. NATO might well fall apart.
Europe could be left with only a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations.

China War

1NC China War

Restraints key to the legitimacy of U.S. power---avoids great power war and prevents hostile China rise Kevin Fujimoto 12, Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army, January 11, 2012, Preserving U.S. National Security
Interests Through a Liberal World Construct, online: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Preserving-US-National-SecurityInterests-Liberal-World-Construct/2012/1/11 With a credible threat to its leading position in a unipolar global order , the United States should adopt a grand strategy of investment, building legitimacy and capacity in the very institutions that will protect our interests in a liberal global construct of the future when we are no longer the dominant imperial power . Similar to the Clinton era's grand strategy of enlargement,2 investment supports a world order predicated upon a system of basic rules and principles, however, it differs in that the United States
should concentrate on the institutions (i.e., United Nations, World Trade Organization, ASEAN, alliances, etc.) that support a world order, as opposed to expanding democracy as a system of governance for other sovereign nations. Despite its claims of a benevolent expansion,

China is already executing a strategy of expansion similar to that of Imperial Japan's Manchukuo policy during the 1930s.3 This
three-part strategy involves: (i) (providing) significant investments in economic infrastructure for extracting natural resources; (ii) (conducting) military interventions (to) protect economic interests; and, (iii) . . . (annexing) via installation of puppet governments.4 China has already solidified its control over neighboring North Korea and Burma, and has similarly begun more ambitious engagements in Africa and Central Asia where it seeks to expand its frontier.5 Noted political scientist Samuel P. Huntington provides further analysis of the motives behind China's imperial aspirations. He contends that China (has) historically conceived itself as encompassing a Sinic Zone'. . . (with) two goals: to become the champion of Chinese culture . . . and to resume its historical position, which it lost in the nineteenth century, as the hegemonic power in East Asia.6 Furthermore, China holds one quarter of the world's population, and rapid economic growth will increase its demand for natural resources from outside its borders as its people seek a standard of living comparable to that of Western civilization. The

rise of peer competitors has historically resulted in regional instability

and one should

compare the emergence of China to the rise of. . . Germany as the dominant power in Europe in the late nineteenth century.7 Furthermore, the

rise of another peer competitor on the level of the Soviet Union of the Cold War ultimately threatens U.S. global influence , challenging its concepts of human rights, liberalism, and democracy; as well as its ability to co-opt other nations to accept them.8 This decline in influence, while initially limited to the Asia-Pacific region, threatens to result in significant conflict if it ultimately leads to a paradigm shift in the ideas and principles that govern the existing world order . A grand strategy of investment to address the threat of China requires investing in institutions, addressing ungoverned states, and building legitimacy through multilateralism . The United States must build capacity in the existing institutions and alliances accepted globally as legitimate representative bodies of the world's governments. For true legitimacy, the United
States must support these institutions, not only when convenient, in order to avoid the appearance of unilateralism, which would ultimately undermine the very organizations upon whom it will rely when it is no longer the global hegemon. The United States must also address ungoverned states, not only as breeding grounds for terrorism, but as conflicts that threaten to spread into regional instability, thereby drawing in superpowers with competing interests. Huntington proposes that the greatest source of conflict will come from what he defines as one core nation's involvement in a conflict between another core nation and a minor state within its immediate sphere of influence.9 For example, regional instability in South Asia10 threatens to involve combatants from the United States, India, China, and the surrounding nations. Appropriately, the

United States, as a global power, must apply all elements of its national power now to address the problem of weak and failing states, which threaten to serve as the principal catalysts of future global conflicts. 11 Admittedly, the application of American power in the internal affairs of a sovereign
nation raises issues. Experts have posed the question of whether the United States should act as the world's enforcer of stability, imposing its concepts of human rights on other states. In response to this concern, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty authored a study titled, The Responsibility to Protect,12 calling for revisions to the understanding of sovereignty within the United Nations (UN) charter. This commission places the responsibility to protect peoples of sovereign nations on both the state itself and, more importantly, on the international community.13 If approved, this revision will establish a precedent whereby the United States has not only the authority and responsibility to act within the internal affairs of a repressive government, but does so with global legitimacy if done under the auspices of a UN mandate.

Any effort to legitimize and support a

liberal world construct requires the United States to adopt a multilateral doctrine which avoids the precepts of the previous administration: preemptive war , democratization, and U.S. primacy of unilateralism ,14 which have resulted in the alienation of former allies worldwide . Predominantly Muslim
nations, whose citizens had previously looked to the United States as an example of representative governance, viewed the Iraq invasion as

the seminal dividing action between the Western and the Islamic world. Appropriately, any future American interventions into the internal affairs of another sovereign nation must first seek to establish consensus by gaining the approval of a body representing global opinion,

and must reject military unilateralism as a threat to that governing body's legitimacy. Despite the longstanding U.S. tradition of a liberal foreign policy since the start of the Cold War, the famous liberal leviathan, John Ikenberry, argues that the

post-9/11 doctrine of national security strategy . . . has been based on . . . American global dominance, the preventative use of force, coalitions of the willing, and the struggle between liberty and evil .15
American foreign policy has misguidedly focused on spreading democracy, as opposed to building a liberal international order based on universally accepted principles that actually set the conditions for individual nation states to select their own system of governance. AnneMarie Slaughter, the former Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, argues that true

Wilsonian idealists support liberal democracy, but reject the possibility of democratizing peoples . . .16 and reject military primacy in favor of supporting a rules-based system of order. Investment in a liberal world order would also set the conditions for the United States to garner support from noncommitted regional powers (i.e., Russia, India, Japan, etc.), or swing civilizations, in countering China's increasing hegemonic influence .17 These states reside within close proximity to the Indian Ocean, which will likely
emerge as the geopolitical focus of the American foreign policy during the 21st century, and appropriately have

the ability to offset

China's imperial dominance

in the region.18 Critics of a liberal world construct argue that idealism is not necessary, based on the

assumption that nations that trade together will not go to war with each other.19 In response, foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman rebukes their arguments, acknowledging the predicate of commercial interdependence as a factor only in the decision to go to war, and argues that while

globalization is creating a new international order, differences between civilizations still create friction that may overcome all other factors and lead to conflict .20 Detractors also warn that as China grows in power,
it will no longer observe the basic rules and principles of a liberal international order, which largely result from Western concepts of foreign relations. Ikenberry addresses this risk, citing that China's leaders already recognize that they will gain more authority within the existing liberal order, as opposed to contesting it. China's leaders want the protection and rights that come from the international order's . . . defense of sovereignty,21 from which they have benefitted during their recent history of economic growth and international expansion. Even United States overestimates a Sinic threat to its national security interest, the

if China executes a peaceful rise and the emergence of a new imperial power will challenge American leadership in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region. That being said, it is more likely that China, as evidenced by its military and economic expansion, will displace the United States as the regional hegemonic power. Recognizing this threat now, the United States must prepare for the eventual transition and immediately begin building the legitimacy and support of a system of rules that will protect its interests later when we are no longer the world's only superpower.

Unchecked Chinese rise risks global nuclear war C. Dale Walton 7, Lecturer in International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading,
2007, Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the 21st Century, p. 49 Obviously, it is of vital importance to the United States that the PRC does not become the hegemon of Eastern Eurasia. As noted above, however, regardless of what Washington does, China's success in such an endeavor is not as easily attainable as
pessimists might assume. The PRC appears to be on track to be a very great power indeed, but geopolitical conditions are not favorable for any Chinese effort to establish sole hegemony; a robust multipolar system should suffice to keep China in check, even with only minimal American intervention in local squabbles.

The more worrisome danger is that Beijing will cooperate with a great power partner, establishing a very muscular axis. Such an entity would present a critical danger to the balance of power, thus both necessitating very active American intervention in Eastern Eurasia and creating the underlying conditions for a massive, and probably nuclear, great power war. Absent such a "super-threat," however, the demands on
American leaders will be far more subtle: creating the conditions for Washington's gentle decline from playing the role of unipolar quasi-hegemon to being "merely" the greatest of the world's powers, while aiding in the creation of a healthy multipolar system that is not marked by close great power alliances.

Hagel is key to Obamas pivot on Asia

Brown 1/8/13 (Chuck Hagel and the Asia Pivot) http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/01/08/Chuck-Hagel-and-the-Asia-pivot.aspx

Importantly, Hagel is engaged with global issues. At school he was teased for subscribing to TIME magazine so he could read world news. As a Senator, he was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

and part of the Executive Committee concerned with relations with China. He seems keen to learn more, calling for a deeper contextual understanding of foreign policy ('America will require a wider lens view of how the world sees us, so that we can better understand the world, and our role in it.') and better education for Americans on international issues ('Americans must be educated about the realities of the global economy and the commitments of global leadership. Our education policies should emphasize foreign languages, culture, and history, and create more incentives and programs for study abroad.') Hagel's views on strategic competition with China are moderate. This may give succour to Australian defence leaders (including the Minister and the CDF, General Hurley) concerned that US rhetoric on China has been overblown. Hagel called US rhetoric on China 'overheated' eight years ago and though he's no stranger to standing up to bullies, he has called for a more nuanced approach to China which deemphasises military competition: 'We are far more likely to live peacefully and influence China if we are bound by strong economic ties and mutual geopolitical interests'. Hagel's combat experience in Vietnam and his status as the first enlisted soldier to be Secretary of Defense will reassure a US military soon to go through morale-sapping austerity measures and a transition from Afghanistan. Military service is becomingly increasingly rare in US political life. Just 19% of the 113th Congress are veterans, the lowest percentage since the end of World War II. Hagel has spoken often on misunderstanding the threat of war ('Very few people know much about war, very few are touched by it') and his views on the limitations of military force are widely known. Hagel is likely to enthusiastically pursue burden sharing in Asia with allies that have mutual security goals. He has emphasised 'development of seamless networks of intelligence gathering and sharing, and strengthening alliances, diplomatic cooperation, trade and development'. That puts him broadly in sync with Obama's plans for the US pivot to Asia. What is uncertain is just how tough Hagel might be on allies who don't pull their weight in burdensharing arrangements. In his role as Atlantic Council chairman, Hagel often spoke glowingly of the values-based alliances forged between the US and allied powers during and after World War II. This might make him partial to an expansion of ANZUS, based as it is on common values and shared history. Turns the china adv Kemp 10 Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asias Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-5 A third scenario, Asian Balance of Power, assumes that while economic growth on a global level resumes and India, China, and Japan continue to show economic strength, the overall prosperity of the Western worldparticularly of the United Statesweakens. That leads to increasing domestic pressures for the United States and Europe to pay less attention to security problems in the Middle East and Asia, given the high price that they already paid for intervention in the 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century. While the Western World still has an interest in stable energy markets, there is less inclination to intervene and play the role of policeman. In the United States, there is an equivalent of the East of Suez debate that took place in Britain in the 1960s, when Britain decided to draw down its military presence in both the Indian Ocean and the Gulf. With the unilateral decision by the United States to draw down its presence, the major Asian powersgiven that they continue to have unresolved problems among themselvesexpand their own military forces, particularly their nuclear and maritime capabilities, ultimately leading to a triangular Asian arms race among India, China, and Japan. Under those circumstances, Japan is likely to obtain nuclear weapons, especially if the crisis on the Korean peninsula remains unresolved, and the security of the region

ultimately will be in the hands of the Asian powers themselves. The sorts of alliances and arrangements that they make with the Gulf states and other Middle East countries would be uncertain. In all probability, India would play a key role, particularly in the Gulf. Indeed, India would be most assertive if it felt that China was encroaching on a region in which India believes that it should have hegemonic control. A fourth scenario, International Cooperation, assumes that while the world economic situation may not be as rosy as outlined in the first scenario, there nevertheless remains a strong interest on the part of all the major industrial powers in ensuring secure energy supplies; as a result, the price of energy is kept at a reasonable level. The United States does not go through an East of Suez moment and continues to play a responsible and significant role in the maritime peacekeeping operations in the region. However, there is more pressure on the regional powers to share more of the burden and to participate in joint security operations ranging from sea control missions to cooperative ventures to curb terrorism, proliferation, and radicalism. Under these circumstances, the presence of the United States is seen as beneficial and reduces the tendency of the Asian powers to compete among themselves. While the U.S. commitment is not open ended, it serves longterm U.S. interests, in much the same way that the U.S. presence in Europe today continues to serve U.S. national interests. In this cooperative environment, local conflicts are easier to manage since it is in the interests of the all major powers to resist the forces of radicalism and proliferationparticularly nuclear terrorism.

A2 No China War
Economic interdependence doesnt solve---miscalc Medcalf & Heinrichs 11 - Rory Medcalf is Director of the International Security Programme at the
Lowy Institute, Sydney. Raoul Heinrichs is Sir Arthur Tange Scholar at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, and editor of the Lowy Institute Strategic Snapshot series, June 27, 2011, Asias Maritime Confidence Crisis, online: http://thediplomat.com/2011/06/27/asia%E2%80%99s-maritime-confidence-crisis/?print=yes To the casual observer, recent security tensions in Asian waters might seem a storm in a Chinese teacup.
The spectacle of opposing vessels often motley flotillas of civilian patrol boats, fishing trawlers and survey ships jostling near contested reefs, rocks and islets in the South and East China seas is the kind of activity that was likened back in Cold War days to a game of nautical chicken. Surely,

in an age of

economic interdependence
such

and nuclear weapons, this petty posturing

wouldnt lead to great-power war? Yet

wishful thinking ignores the real dangers of Asias China-centric maritime incidents . In the absence of effective mechanisms for crisis-management and confidence-building, these events are increasing in frequency and intensity. The
harassment by Chinese civilian vessels of the USNS Impeccable in 2009 presaged a serious set of encounters in 2010, including North Koreas sinking of the Cheonan and a diplomatic crisis between China and Japan over the ramming of a Japanese customs vessel near the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Though major power tensions have eased somewhat in 2011, encounters have continued. Chinese helicopters have continued to buzz Japanese naval units, even in the sensitive period following Japans earthquake and tsunami. In March, a Philippine survey ship was shadowed and harassed by Chinese patrol boats, eliciting formal diplomatic protests from Manila. More recently, in May and June, Chinese patrol boats have allegedly severed seismic cables aboard Vietnamese vessels operating near disputed territories in the South China Sea. Washington has weighed in, particularly with signals of reassurance to its ally Manila prompting Chinese warnings about fanning flames and getting burned. At the weekend, Sino-US and Sino-Vietnamese talks seem to have put a lid on the simmering tensions. And the chance that such incidents will lead to major military clashes shouldnt be overstated. But each

encounter involves risks, however small, of miscalculation and casualties. As the number and tempo of incidents increases, so does the likelihood episode will escalate to armed confrontation, diplomatic crisis or
possibly even

that an

conflict . An accumulation of

incidents could also play into a wider deterioration of relations among major powers, with

dangerous implications for regional peace

and stability .

Offensive intent Maginnis 11 Robert Maginnis, retired Lt. Col., US Army, national security and foreign affairs analyst,
August 31, 2011, Pentagon Report Exposes China Menace, online: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45871 First, Chinas intentions are global and offensive . Constantine Menges wrote in China: The Gathering Threat, In the traditional Chinese
view, the world needs a hegemonor dominant stateto prevent disorder. The Communist Chinese regime believes China should be that hegemon. That view was echoed in 2010 by Liu Mingfu, a Chinese senior colonel and author of The China Dream. Liu said Chinas big goal in the 21st century is to become world No. 1, the top power, Reuters reported. The Pentagons report stops short of that forecast but admits the regime anticipates becoming a world-class economic and military power by 2050. Chinas latest defense White Paper provides evidence of its global ambitions. The paper, according to the Pentagon report, introduces the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) to new global missions intended to grow Chinas influence, such as international peacekeeping efforts, counter-piracy operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. These other-than-war operations are made possible by Chinas

new investments in large amphibious ships, a hospital ship, long-range transport aircraft and improved logistics. Such assets extend Chinas global influence and provide the PLA important expeditionary know-how and capabilities for future operations. Chinas
global ambitions are also evidenced by its increased liaison with foreign militaries and increased joint exercises. Last year, China expanded relations to 150 different militaries, which reflects an effort to collect information and build partnerships. Beijings foreign outreach includes more joint exercises. In 2010, the PLA participated in 32 joint exercisesup from eight in 2009to increase its influence, enhance ties with partner states, and provide opportunities to improve capabilities and gain operational insights from more advanced militaries. Chinas

White Paper also announces the regimes active defense security strategy, which pretends to focus on defense and promises to attack only if attacked. But Mosher says Chinas use of the term active defense is just a euphemism for the PLAs determination to strike first in the event of a crisis. He concludes active defense is not defensive at all, but is a strategy of offense and expansion .

Iran

1NC Iran Scenario

Hagel bolsters Obamas foreign policy --- prevents war with Iran. McGovern, 1/2/2013 (Ray former Army officer and veteran of the CIAs analysis division, Obama
needs Hagel in the Pentagon, Baltimore Sun, p. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-02/news/bsed-hagel-20130102_1_pentagon-generals-robert-mcnamara) During his first year in office, President Barack Obama encountered similar insubordination when the Pentagon pigeonholed his order to serve up options (plural) on Afghanistan. In the end, they came up with one singularly
ineffective and costly option, namely, the "surge" of 40,000 (or "only" 30,000, if that's all they could get) additional troops that was the brainchild of generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal. Mr. Obama

had tasked then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to give him options (plural). But Mr. Gates' assessment of the relative power of the generals vis--vis the president persuaded him that Mr. Obama didn't even have to be "slow rolled." He could be simply ignored . The contrast between Robert McNamara and Robert Gates raises a key question with respect to what role Mr. Hagel would play, if our trialballoon-fan president were to summon the courage to actually nominate him to head the Pentagon . Chuck Hagel is his own man . There is even some chance his example might prompt Mr. Obama to be more his own man . Clearly, the president needs all the backbone strengthening he can get, if he is to stick to his plan to exit Afghanistan and face down supporters of hard-right Israelis itching for war on Iran . Mr. Obama's better-late-than-never, Kennedy-like decision to pull almost all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by 2014 has already drawn
fire from neocon pundits like Max Boot, who argue for keeping major U.S. bases near key cities like Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taliban and the most populous Afghan city after Kabul. Who remembers General McChrystal's cringe-worthy promise to pacify Marja, some 100 miles from Kandahar, as a dress rehearsal for taking Kandahar itself? In early February 2010, he proudly told The New York Times, "We've got a government in a box, ready to roll in." Right. Mr. Obama

will be offered more hare-brained schemes like that. Mr. Hagel

would likely recognize them for what they are . He has "been there, done that," having volunteered for Vietnam, with two
purple hearts to prove it.

Iran strikes escalates to a nuclear world war. Chossudovsky, 12/26/2011 (Michel, Preparing to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons, Global
Research, p. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28355) An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an all out regional war from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia, potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario. The Obama Administration constitutes a nuclear threat. NATO constitutes a nuclear threat Five European "non-nuclear states" (Germany, Italy, Belgium,
Netherlands, Turkey) with tactical nuclear weapons deployed under national command, to be used against Iran constitute a nuclear threat. The Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only constitutes a nuclear threat, but also a threat to the security of people of Israel, who are misled regarding the implications of an US-Israeli attack on Iran. The complacency of Western public opinion --including segments of the US anti-war movement-- is disturbing. No

concern has been expressed at the political level as to the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israel attack on Iran, using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Such an action would result in "the unthinkable": a nuclear holocaust over a large part of the Middle East.

Internal Consensus
Hagel confirmation breaks the Washington consensus on Iran Gray and Miller, writers for Buzzfeed, 1/6/2013
(Rosie and Zeke, Obama Upends Iran Debate By Picking Chuck Hagel, http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/obama-updends-iran-debate-by-picking-chuck-hagel) Their hope and their foes fear is that Hagels confirmation could mean that views outside what is considered the mainstream on Israel and Iran begin to replace the more hawkish Washington consensus. A Hagel confirmation could change the terms of the debate on the Middle East by challenging the Republican Party with the views of one of its own. And Hagel, a Republican whose views were altered by the Iraq war, has the potential to affect the prospect of a war with Iran , some argue. Administration officials, in public and in private, do not make this case,
though they say theyre eager to engage the debate. If the Republicans are going to look at Chuck Hagel, a decorated war hero and Republican who served two terms in the Senate, and vote no because he bucked the party line on Iraq, then they are so far in the wilderness that theyll never get out, said one administration official. The official also contested the notion that the choice Hagel who voted in the Senate against Iran sanctions means anything in particular about the Administrations policy on Iran. Senator Hagel supports the President's sanctions regime on Iran, and has always said that all options should be on the table, including military force as a last resort, the official said, also saying that Hagel will continue to carry out President Obamas unprecedented security cooperation with Israel. But

the way in which the lines have been drawn means that whatever Hagels role in making policy the fight over his confirmation will shape it . A bipartisan coalition of pro-Israel members of Congress and activists, as well as allies with other agendas,
helped derail the nomination of a career diplomat with friendly relationship with Arab regimes, Chas Freeman, to an obscure intelligence advisory council. If

you aren't listening closely, it can be difficult to detect the gaps between Barack Obama's eagerness to avoid the use of force with Iran; the somewhat noisier concerns of Senate Democrats about Iran's nuclear program; and the sense among some Republicans and some Israeli leaders that American bombs should start falling now.

That avoids Middle East war and economic meltdown Hussain, writer and analyst on Middle East politics, 9/12/2012
(Murtaza, Why war with Iran would spell disaster, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291194236970294.html)
After a decade of exhausting and demoralising conflict between the United States and two of the weakest, most impoverished countries in the world, Iraq and Afghanistan,

many within the US political establishment are calling for the country to engage in yet another conflict; this time with a relatively powerful enemy in Iran. In the past week alone, top Republican figures such as John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have called for increasing belligerence towards the Iranian regime, bringing the two countries closer to the brink of armed conflict. The heightening standoff with Iran over its nuclear programme, curious in
itself for its recent rapid escalation given that leading American and Israeli intelligence estimates have both concluded that Iran has neither developed nor is planning to develop nuclear weapons, is leading to increasingly belligerent rhetoric out of Washington calling for war with Iran. Leading members of the House and Congress from both parties as well as the closest advisers to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney have called for attacking Iran, with some high-ranking GOP advisers even suggesting that the time is now for a Congressional resolution formally declaring war on the country. Romney and many other leading Republican figures have called for pre-emptive war against Iran, and have continually upped the ante in terms of threats of military action throughout the election campaign. This alarming and potentially highly consequential rhetoric is occurring in a context where the American people are still recovering from the disastrous war in Iraq and winding down the US occupation of Afghanistan, while at the same time coping with the worst economic drought since the Great Depression. Public

statements claiming that the extent of the conflict would be limited to targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are utterly disingenuous, ignoring the escalating cycle of retribution that such "limited" conflicts necessarily breed. As did the war in Libya start off with calls only for a benign "no-fly zone" to protect civilians and seamlessly turned
into an all-out aerial campaign to topple Muammar Gaddafi, any crossing of the military threshold with Iran would also likely result in a far bigger conflagration than the public has been prepared for by their leaders. War senior political and military figures have pointed out it would

with Iran would be no quick and clean affair, as many make the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which cost trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of soldiers and civilians, seem like "a cakewalk". The fact that it is becoming increasingly likely, inevitable in

the eyes of many, and that it is high on the agenda of so many leading political figures warrants exploration of what such a conflict would really entail. Conflict on an unprecedented scale Not a war of weeks or months, but a "generations-long war" is how no less a figure than former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy describes the consequences of open conflict with Iran. In comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries with relatively small populations which were already in a state of relative powerlessness before they were invaded, Iran commands the eighth largest active duty military in the world, as well as highly trained special forces and guerilla organisations which operate in countries throughout the region and beyond. Retired US General John Abizaid has previously described the Iranian military as "the most powerful in the Middle East" (exempting Israel), and its highly sophisticated and battle-hardened proxies in Lebanon and Iraq have twice succeeded in defeating far stronger and better funded Western military forces. Any

attack on Iran would assuredly lead to the activation of these proxies in neighbouring countries to attack American interests and would create a situation of borderless war unprecedented in any past US conflicts in the Middle East. None of this is to suggest that the United States would not
"win" a war with Iran, but given the incredibly painful costs of Iraq and Afghanistan; wars fought again weak, poorly organised enemies lacking broad influence, politicians campaigning for war with Iran are leading the American people into a battle which will be guaranteed to make the past decade of fighting look tame in comparison. A recent study has shown that an initial US aerial assault on Iran would require hundreds of planes, ships and missiles in order to be completed; a military undertaking itself unprecedented since the first Gulf War and representative of only the first phase of what would likely be a long drawn-out war of attrition. For a country already nursing the wounds from the casualties of far less intense conflicts and still reeling from their economic costs, the sheer battle fatigue inherent in a large-scale war with Iran would stand to greatly exacerbate these issues. Oil shocks and the American economy The

fragile American economic recovery would be completely upended were Iran to target global energy supplies in the event of war, an act which would be both catastrophic and highly likely if US Iran hawks get their way. Not only does the country itself sit atop some of
the largest oil and natural gas reserves on the planet, its close proximity to the shipping routes and oil resources of its neighbours means that in the event of war, its

first response would likely be to choke off the global supply of crude; a tactic for which its military defences have in fact been specifically designed. The Strait of Hormuz, located in the Persian Gulf is the
shipping point for more than 20 per cent of the world's petroleum. Iran is known to have advanced Silkworm missile batteries buried at strategic points around the strait to make it impassable in the event of war, and has developed "swarming" naval tactics to neutralise larger, less mobile ships such as those used by the US Navy. While Iran could never win in straightforward combat, it has

developed tactics of asymmetrical warfare that can effectively inflict losses on a far stronger enemy and render the strait effectively closed to naval traffic. The price of oil would immediately skyrocket, by some estimates upwards several hundred dollars a barrel,
shattering the already tenuous steps the US and other Western economies are taking towards recovery. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has said a war with Iran could drag out years and would have economic consequences "devastating for the average American"; but these facts are conspicuously absent in public discussion of the war. Every conflict has blowback, but if US politicians are attempting to maneouver the country into a conflict of such potentially devastating magnitude, potentially sacrificing ordinary Americans' economic well-being for years to come, it would behoove them to speak frankly about these costs and not attempt to obfuscate or downplay them in order to make their case. Conflict across borders Finally, a war

with Iran would be not be like conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya where the fighting was constrained to the borders of the country in question. Despite
widespread resentment towards the country due to the perception of it as a regionally imperialist power as well sectarian animosity towards it as Shia Muslim theocracy, Iran

maintains deep links throughout the Middle East and South Asia and can count on both popular support as well as assistance from its network of armed proxies in various countries. In a report for Haaretz, Ahmed
Rashid noted that an attack on Iran would likely inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the region, across both Shia and Sunni Muslim communities. Despite Iran's poor human rights record and bellicose leadership, polls have consistently shown that Iranian and Iranian-backed leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hassan Nasrallah remain among the most popular figures throughout the Arab and Muslim world. This popularity comes not necessarily out of respect for Iranian ideology, but from a perception that Iran is the only assertive power in the region and is the target of aggression from the United States and its allies. In Rashid's analysis, both

the Middle East and South Asia would become unsafe for American citizens and their interests for years to come; popular anger would
reach a level which would render these area effectively off-limits and would cause grave and immediate danger to both American businesses and troops based in the region. Again, this would be a situation quite different from the other wars of the past decade, fought against isolated regimes without the ability to call upon large and often well-funded numbers of regional sympathisers; a fact also rarely mentioned by war advocates. Not a political game Going to war with Iran would be an elective decision for the United States, but it is for too grave and consequential a choice to be left up to the whims of politicians seeking to win the approval of lobby groups and one-up each other to appeal to influential campaign donors who would like to see a war with Iran. Make no mistake, the

possibility of war is very real and has become eminently more so in recent months. Many of the same politicians and political advisers responsible for engineering
the Iraq War have returned to public life and are at the forefront of pushing a new American conflict with Iran.

Internal Israel Lobby

Obama winning the Hagel fight over the Israel lobby is a litmus test for its power over US foreign policy Stephen Walt (Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University) December 14, 2012 Top five reasons Obama should pick Chuck Hagel for SecDef
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/13/top_five_reasons_obama_should_pick_chuck_hagel_f or_secdef Having lost out on Susan Rice, Obama is unlikely to put forward a nominee he's not willing to fight for or whom he thinks he might lose. So if Hagel is his pick to run the Pentagon, you can bet Obama will go to the mattresses for him. And what better way for Obama to pay back Benjamin Netanyahu for all the "cooperation" Obama received from him during the first term, as well as Bibi's transparent attempt to tip the scale for Romney last fall? For what it's worth, I hope Obama nominates Hagel and that AIPAC and its allies go all-out to oppose him. If they lose, it might convince Obama to be less fearful of the lobby and encourage him to do what he thinks is best for the country (and incidentally, better for Israel) instead of toeing AIPAC's line. But if the lobby takes Hagel down, it will provide even more evidence of its power, and the extent to which supine support for Israel has become a litmus test for high office in America.

Now is pivotal strengthening Israeli Lobby clout ensures broad war with Iran otherwise peaceful negotiations will solve Kaveh L Afrasiabi (former political science professor at Tehran University, Boston Universityand
Bentley College. He has been a visiting scholar at Harvard University, UC Berkeley, Binghamton University, Center For Strategic Research, Tehran and Institute for Strategic Studies in Paris) December 22, 2012 Middle East peace hinges on will http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NL22Ak05.html The cause of peace is predicated on the propensity of decision-makers to opt for peaceful resolution of conflicts. While there are nearly always a host of historical and political factors that trigger conflicts, the optimal necessity for bringing those conflicts to an end always revolves around the will towards peace, an important ingredient often missing in the Middle East. By all indications, 2013 will be a pivotal year for war and peace in the Middle East.
The questions of who will gain the upper hand and whether the region will experience positive or negative development are difficult if not impossible to predict, but trends are unmistakable and tabulating them individually helps to decipher the evolving dynamics. To begin with, we can safely assume that the tumults of state-building in post-Arab Spring countries will continue in Tunisia and Egypt, and that Bahrain and Jordan will likely experience a continuation of the political struggle for change. It seems clear that the Kurdish issue in Iraq will grow more prominent and that Baghdad will be more beset with problems of terrorism and political factionalism. It can also be assumed that the Saudis will continue to struggle with issues of succession, and internal and regional instability; that regime change will rear as an issue in Syria; and that Israel's expansionism will be left unchecked by the US and other Western powers. The

Iran nuclear standoff will still likely dominate the foreign policy agenda of the second Obama administration, particularly if the "Israel Lobby" has its say. But there are also doubts in the year. For example, what are the chances that the Syrian regime will survive in 2013? Or the Saudi-backed
Bahraini regime, or Egypt's Mohamed Morsi administration? Is it feasible that the US, led by a new secretary of state, could start pressing Israel for a viable peace process, as well as for a peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear standoff? The fundamental ambiguity surrounding such questions stems from our inability to predict the nature of policies that will be adopted and pursued by the multiple actors, given the welter of policy options that individually or collective can tip the balance towards or away from war or peace. Geopolitically, the struggle over Syria will be the dominant issue in the coming year, in light of the country's strategic significance. Should Damascus falls to the Western and Saudibacked rebels, this would create a significant shift in the regional balance. The trend is toward a re-enactment of the Libya scenario, where parts of Syria are declared a North Atlantic Treaty Organization-protected "no fly zone". However, any regime change process could be accelerated by the introduction of chemical warfare, considered the US's "red line". A United Nations peacekeeping force may be stationed in a de facto partitioned Syria, but that would require a more durable rebel advance and an ability to retain zones of control, which may or may not happen in the coming months, given the conflict's fluidity. For those seeking genuine peace in Syria, there is no doubt that in 2013 that much more attention must be given to the role of the UN special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, who insists on the need for a political dialogue between the

embattled government and the opposition. A new peace process There is broad consensus in policy circles around the world that a push for a new Middle East peace process is urgently called for. The week-long Gaza war in October and the subsequent Israeli announcement of new settlement expansions - as well as Palestine's acension to observer status at the UN - have breathed new impetus into pursuing what is needed and yet continues to be ignored by Washington. Obama will lose face in the world if he ignores this priority any further. He should appoint a new special envoy, direct his new secretary of state to pursue another Camp David meeting with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, and send clear signals to Israel that it must halt land-grab actions that defy international law. Most likely, Israel

will placate such US demands to some extent but only on the condition of a much tougher US approach toward Iran. The problem with this request, however, is that it militates against the improving conditions for fruitful nuclear talks. If Iran is handed such a setback in Syria, this could derail talks over Tehran's nuclear program, as it would result in
heightened national security concerns. Syria has afforded both Russia and more recently Iran a Mediterranean foothold that is too valuable in the strategic realm to give up without a big fight, given the global spread of US and NATO power, so it is a given that Tehran and Moscow will do all they can to prevent Assad's demise. On the other hand, should Iran take a proactive role in shaping an orderly post al-Assad Syria - akin to the part it played at the 2001 Bonn summit on Afghanistan - then this may ease Iran-US tensions. What is clear, however, is that Iran is strongly opposed to foreign intervention in Syria and will likely increase its military assistance to Damascus in parallel with increased foreign meddling.

A greater proxy war throughout the Middle East is thus anything but foreclosed, particularly if the US steps up its counter-Iran strategy. This brings us to a consideration of the chance for Iran nuclear talks succeeding in 2013. Prospects for Iran nuclear talks It is likely we will witness a major breakthrough in the Iran nuclear standoff in 2013. Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are making decent progress to
reach a new modality for cooperation (see Iran nuclear talks produce a litmus test, Asia Times Online, December 18, 2012 ) and this should set a positive tone for the multilateral talks between Iran and the "5 +1" nations (the United Nations Security Council's permanent five members plus Germany). Guarded optimism is therefore not out of place, since Iran's nuclear program remains under the IAEA's supervision and Tehran has backed away from certain steps that could be deemed provocative, such as amassing a high volume of 20% enriched uranium. It has instead displayed concrete signs of its willingness to build confidence with the West, reaching out to sections of the Syrian opposition and playing a more active role in regional conflict management. But

will Israel and its powerful lobby in Washington succeed in torpedoing the potential for a breakthrough in the nuclear crisis? This crucial question hinges on the ability of the White House to devise a sound Middle East policy in 2013 that does not cater to Israel's warmongering. Already, there are serious efforts by the Jewish Lobby under way to ensure that after the "fiscal cliff", the US's highest priority should be "preventing a nuclear Iran", to paraphrase a policy article in Wall Street Journal, dated December 17, penned by Charles Webb, Dennis Ross and Michael Makovsky. A clue to the absurd nature of Iranophobic discourse in the US, this seminal article makes a strong pitch for Obama's prioritization of the Iran threat by describing the fictitious scenario of a "Saudi-Iran nuclear exchange". Unfortunately, no matter how absurd, the pro-Israel lobbyists are busy at work in Washington and it remains to be seen if Obama can withstand their pressure. Lest we forget, the first Obama administration's Iran
engagement policy was a dismal failure, due mainly to contradictory and half-hearted mini-steps poorly articulated at the strategic level, and not the least because of the influence of such ardent voices of Israel within the administration such as Dennis Ross. Whether second Obama administration can

or not the improve and diversify its Iran policy skills is an important question that will have significant implications for the broader US Middle Eastern policy. A new foreign policy team determined to reach out for genuine dialogue with Tehran is desperately needed in Washington, and in the coming weeks and months we will have a clearer picture that would shed lights on the answer to this question.

Impact Uniqueness
Iran is not focused on pursuing hard power. Eisenstadt, August 2011 (Michael - director of the Military & Security Studies Program at the
Washington Institute for Near East Policy, The Strategic Culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran, MES Monographs, No. 1, p. 6)
It may seem surprising that the IRI has not built a large, capable conventional military commensurate with the image of itself as a regional power. While

U.S. pressure on potential suppliers and economic constraints may account partly for that, Iran could have afforded to build a larger conventional military, given the size of its foreign currency reserves and the amount of money spent annually on food and gas subsidies. That it has not done so probably reflects not only its concerns about domestic stability, but the fact that its approach to national security places greater emphasis on guile than on brute force,20 and on soft power than on hard power .21

-- Iran wont be aggressive too many checks in the system Boroujerdi 7 (Mehrzad, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Middle Eastern
Studies Program, Iranian Nuclear Miasma, Syracuse Law Review, 57 Syracuse L. Rev. 619, Lexis) The potential for groupthink miscalculations is also thwarted by the existence of multiple consensus-based decision bodies within the overall multilayered structure. 18 While this complex process can sometimes make Iranian policy confusing and contradictory, it does not necessarily lend itself to high risk behavior. Even if one agent makes a hasty decision or issues an aggressive policy statement, it may be immediately contradicted by another
authority. 19 Individual leaders also have difficulty muting [*623] criticism within the regime and forcing all agents to agree on one course of action. While miscalculations and hasty behavior may be the rule at the micro-level, at

the macro-level hasty action is checked by the competing nodes of power. While this structure could admittedly be problematic with regard to the nuclear program depending on what form of command and control system to control accidents and illicit transfer is established, it makes the prospect of Iran engaging in a boldly offensive or miscalculated action less realistic.

Impact Econ

Iran war causes natural gas volatility --- turns the economy. Blas, 10/4/2012 (Javier, Energy: Corridor of Power, Financial Times, p.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b4f57138-0ca7-11e2-b175-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HJcfCqeZ) It is hard to overstate the waterways role in energy markets. Cyrus Vance, former US secretary of state, once called it the jugular vein of the global economy . Strangling that jugular would push oil and natural gas prices to levels that would endanger economic growth worldwide . David Goldwyn, a US state departments top diplomat for oil affairs, says the strait is at the top of the risk list for energy and military planners. It is one of the single, largest
Washington-based consultant and, until recently, the

oil supply. Last year, roughly 17m b/d of oil produced in the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran passed through the channel. Moreover, about 2tn cubic feet per year of liquefied natural gas or supercooled gas turned into a liquid so it can be shipped sailed through the strait, equal to almost 20 per cent of global LNG trade . Trade on such a scale hands preponderant leverage to the Iranian military. Only last month, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, head of the Revolutionary Guards, said: If war occurs in the region and [Iran] is involved, it is natural that the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the energy [market], will face difficulties. Last
year, one admiral quipped Iran could close the strait more easily than drinking a glass of water.

vulnerabilities

that we have in terms of

Impact Heg

Strikes would bolster Iranian support for the mullahs crush US international image and increase global terrorism McFaul et al 7 (Michael McFaul and Abbas Milani, Fellows and Coordinators of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution,
and Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Washington Quarterly, A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran, 30:1, Winter, L/N) Moreover, because

Iran's facilities are spread out and located in urban areas, a preventive military strike could kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iranians and destroy ancient buildings of historical and religious importance.
Isfahan is the central headquarters of Iran's nuclear program, but it is also Iran's most beautiful city and home to many precious civilizational landmarks. Widespread

air attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and other military assets -- they would have to be massive and the Iranian people around the mullahs, strengthen the regime, and undermine the considerable admiration and goodwill Iranians now feel for the United States. Whatever time such strikes purchased in setting back Iran's nuclear program would be more than offset by the extended lease on life they would give to the regime. Needless to say, a unilateral strike against Iran would only further damage the United States' standing in the world at a time when U.S. prestige internationally is at an alltime low. Finally, such a strike would provide ammunition to the arsenal of fanatics in the Muslim world, including some in the Tehran regime, who see an ongoing "crusade" by the JudeoChristian West against the Muslim East. The Iranian government has often threatened that, in the case of an attack, it would mobilize its militia and terrorist proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, and the rest of the Middle East to attack U.S. forces and interests around the world, including Iraq No doubt this would include Afghanistan, where there are already signs of
widespread to have any chance of success -- would rally escalating Iranian mischief.

Impact Prolif

Strikes lead to breakout prolif Logan 6 (Justin, Foreign Policy Analyst @ Cato, Policy Analysis #583, The Bottom Line on Iran: The costs and benefits of Preventive War,
12-4, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa583.pdf)

The United States would likely also suffer serious unintended consequences if it were to attack Iran. These would include causing even more nuclear proliferation, as Washingtons adversaries concluded that nuclear weapons were the only way of deterring a U.S.-led regime change; causing large-scale civilian
casualties, which would further pollute Americas image in the world; and damaging the already limited prospects for political and economic liberalization inside Iran. On the issue of proliferation, since the end of the Cold War, the United States has embraced a transformative foreign policy that has focused on fundamentally altering the international order. This approach is seen as inherently dangerous to many countries, given U.S. military action against Serbia and Iraq, among other nations, as well as loose talk about regime change in certain target states, and support for regime-changing color revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. In addition, after the September 11 attacks, President Bush identified a list of enemy states, and explicitly put them on notice in the infamous axis of evil speech. Of those countries, the one that the United States suspected of having nuclear weapons, North Korea, has been essentially untouched. The one country we were certain did not have nuclear weapons, Iraq, was invaded. As Kenneth Pollack has pointed out, The Iraq

example coupled with the North Korea example probably is part of the motivation for some in Iran to get a nuclear weapon. 79 In addition, Iran lives in a notoriously rough neighborhood: Both India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, as does Russia, just to the regions north. Turkey rests under the NATO umbrella, and Israel possesses nuclear weapons of its own. In the end, attacking Iran would only further underscore the dilemma faced by states that find themselves on Washingtons hit list. Without nuclear weapons, there is no assurance that the United States will not attackother than supine acquiescence to Washingtons various demands. 80 As Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling has pointed out, the perverse fact is that Americas counterproliferation policy is a prime driver of proliferation.

Impact Russia

Draws in Russia. Tarpley 5 (Webster Griffin,- activist and historian, 8/29/

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=743 )
In the case of Iran, the use of nuclear weapons by the US would have a dangerous complication:

Iran is an important neighbor and trading partner of the Russian Federation, which is helping with Irans nuclear power reactor program. The threatened US/Israeli raid on Iran might kill Russian citizens as well. Such a US attack on Iran might prod the Russian government into drawing its own line in the sand , rather than sitting idle as the tide of US aggression swept closer and closer to Russias borders, as one country after another in central Asia was occupied. In other words, a US attack on Iran bids fair to be the opening of World War III , making explicit was already implicit in the invasion of Iraq. The Iran
war project of the neocons is the very midsummer of madness, and it must be stopped.

Impact Terrorism
Strikes would bolster Iranian support for the mullahs crush US international image and increase global terrorism McFaul et al 7 (Michael McFaul and Abbas Milani, Fellows and Coordinators of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution,
and Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Washington Quarterly, A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran, 30:1, Winter, L/N) Moreover, because

Iran's facilities are spread out and located in urban areas, a preventive military strike could kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Iranians and destroy ancient buildings of historical and religious importance.
Isfahan is the central headquarters of Iran's nuclear program, but it is also Iran's most beautiful city and home to many precious civilizational landmarks. Widespread

air attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and other military assets -- they would have to be massive and widespread to have any chance of success -- would rally the Iranian people around the mullahs, strengthen the regime, and undermine the considerable admiration and goodwill Iranians now feel for the United States. Whatever time such strikes purchased in setting back Iran's nuclear program would be more than offset by the extended lease on life they would give to the regime. Needless to say, a unilateral strike against Iran would only further damage the United States' standing in the world at a time when U.S. prestige internationally is at an alltime low. Finally, such a strike would provide ammunition to the arsenal of fanatics in the Muslim world, including some in the Tehran regime, who see an ongoing "crusade" by the JudeoChristian West against the Muslim East. The Iranian government has often threatened that, in the case of an attack, it would mobilize its militia and terrorist proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, and the rest of the Middle East to attack U.S. forces and interests around the world, including Iraq No doubt this would include Afghanistan, where there are already signs of
escalating Iranian mischief.

A2 No Impact
AIPAC influence guarantees war with Iran Gary Leupp (writer for Counterpunch) February 2007 AIPAC Demands "Action" on Iran
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/02/24/aipac-demands-quot-action-quot-on-iran/ In other words, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee is the main political force urgingindeed, demandingU.S. action. Thats the AIPAC already under scrutiny for receiving classified information about Iran from Lawrence
Franklin, former Defense Department subordinate of Douglas Feith. (Thats the neocon Feith who supervised the Office of Special Plans headed by Abram Shulsky, the neocon specialist on Leo Strauss who currently heads up the Iran Directorate at the Pentagonthat shamelessly cherry-picked intelligence to support the Iraq attack. Thats the Franklin who worked in the OSP, and was sentenced last month to 13 years in prison. Feith has not been indicted on any charge and continues to insist in defiance of reason and even a Pentagon internal investigation finding it "inappropriate" that his offices disinformation project was "good government." Small wonder Gen. Tommy Franks, formerly head of the U.S. Central Command, famously called Feith "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth." Congressional investigations are just now getting underway into Feiths role in facilitating the invasion of Iraq.) Thats the AIPAC embarrassed by the indictment of its policy director Steven Rosen and senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman for illegally conspiring to pass on classified national security information to Israel.

Despite the already intimate ties between Israeli and U.S. intelligence (documented by Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski among others) it seems the Israelis felt obliged to spy on the Pentagon to learn just how inclined the Americans were to oblige them by attacking Iran. Now, as Israeli calls for a U.S. attack on Iran become more shrill by the day, AIPAC recognizes that the American people profoundly distrust Vice President Cheney and the nest of neocon liars he has sheltered. The
Bush-Cheney war machine has been pretty well exposed, and that must worry the warmongers within the group. Israeli Defense Force chief artillery officer Gen. Oded Tira has griped that "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," adding

that since "an American strike in Iran is essential for [Israel's] existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iran issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure." Tira urges the Lobby to turn to
"potential presidential candidates. . . so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran," while Uri Lubrani, senior advisor to Defense Minister Amir Peretz, tells the Jewish Agencys Board of Governors that the US "does not understand the threat and has not done enough," and therefore "must be shaken awake." Many Americans would find such statements deeply offensive in their arrogance and condescension. President Bush has indeed been weakened by the "Iraq failure" Tira acknowledges, arising from a war that the Lobby once endorsed with enormous enthusiasm. (As Gen. Wesley Clark put it way back in August 2002, "Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." Recall that that weapon was imaginary.) So

now, the Israeli war advocates aver, the U.S. president needs to be helped to do the right thing and attack Iran by lobbyists who will use their power to force the fools in the Democratic Party, especially presidential candidates. Because Americans dont
understand and have to be shaken out of their current skeptical mode. By who? By AIPAC, of course! The confidence expressed by these gentlemen (in the second most powerful political action committee in the country) is quite extraordinary. But alas, maybe its warranted. Giraldi dispassionately concludes: "Knowing

that to cross the Lobby is perilous, Congressmen from both parties squirm and become uneasy when pressured by AIPAC to protect Israel, even if it means yet another unwinnable war for the United States. The neocons know full well that if a war with Iran were to be started either inadvertently or by design, few within Americas political system would be brave enough to stand up in opposition."

Israel lobby push for war with Iran guarantees wider Middle East war and collapses the economy Muhammad Sahimi (writer for Anti-War.com) December 31, 2012 The War Party and the Israel
Lobby Wish for War With Iran in 2013 The War Party and the Israel Lobby Wish for War With Iran in 2013 As we begin 2013, the War Party and its ally, the Israel lobby, are pushing hard to make sure that they get their wish for the New Year, namely , a devastating war with Iran . To them, it is not enough that the illegal unilateral

sanctions that the United States and its allies have imposed on Iran are ruining the lives of tens of millions of ordinary Iranians. It is not enough that the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iranians are being threatened with life-threatening illnesses, who cannot get the medicine they need, partly because of economic sanctions. It is not enough that the arts and culture of Iran, particularly a renowned movie industry, are seriously threatened by a lack of funds brought about by the sanctions. The War Party and Israel

lobby will be satisfied only if Iran is attacked and destroyed, which will inevitably lead to a much wider war in the entire Middle East . The push is coming from several fronts. The Party and the Lobby have staged an all-out attack to sabotage the possible nomination of former senator Chuck Hagel as defense secretary. His sin? Among other things, Hagel has stated in the
past that I am a United States senator, I am not an Israeli senator, and that when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) comes knocking with a pro-Israel letter, youll get 80 or 90 senators on it. I dont think Ive ever signed one of the letters because they were stupid. But, most importantly, the unforgivable sin of Hagel has been opposing sanctions on Iran and advocating diplomacy and negotiations, which Likud-led Israel rejects. A top Senate Republican aide has threatened, Send us Hagel *as the nominee for defense secretary+, and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite. Even gay Republicans got into the act. In a full-page ad in The New York Times, Log Cabin Republicans proclaimed that Hagel is wrong on gays rights, wrong on Iran, wrong on Israel. In another front, retiring Sen. Joe bomb-Iran-forIsraels-sake Lieberman is using his last days in the Senate to push President Obama to attack Iran. Led by him and Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a letter was sent to the president, signed by 57 senators, urging him to be prepared for war with Iran and asking him to reiterate your readiness to take military action against Iran if it continues its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon. Never

mind

that there is no evidence of weaponization of Irans nuclear program. Even the totally politicized International
Atomic Energy Agency reports time and again that it has found no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials from peaceful to non-peaceful purposes, nor has it found any evidence for a secret parallel military program in Iran. While pushing the president to attack Iran, the letter also stated, We urge you to expand Americas outreach and support to the Iranian people and support of the cause of human rights and democracy in Iran. The current government of the Islamic Republic of Iran will eventually end up in the ash heap of history, not because of the efforts of the United States, but because of the desire of the Iranian people to enjoy the basic freedoms that are their universal right, and that many of their neighbors increasingly are demanding. Iranians living in Iran have not asked the Party and the Lobby to speak on their behalf. But on the one hand, the Party and the

Lobby advocate war and sanctions that will destroy Iran and kill hundreds of thousands of its citizens, if not more, and on the other hand, they support democracy and human rights for Iran amid the
destruction that they are advocating. This support for the Iranian people, in addition to the unilateral sanctions and the misery that they have brought, is offered while it has become increasingly difficult, for example, for Iranian students to receive visas to come here to study. In the latest round of imposing even more restrictions on Iranian students, those who wish to study in the energy field, such as oil and natural gas, are refused visas. This restriction is in addition to those already imposed on those who wish to study nuclear engineering, nuclear physics, biology, etc. In the universe of the Party and the Lobby, the meanings of democracy and human rights are totally different from ours. In theirs, the prerequisites to democracy in a nation such as Iran are destroying the country and its historical and cultural heritage (as happened in Iraq), killing its people, taking control of its resources, and only then giving them democracy and human rights. The most fundamental human rights of every human being are living in peace and having the minimum for a decent life. The sanctions are denying such fundamental rights of the Iranian people, and war will destroy their nation and the rest of the Middle East, yet the Party and the Lobby want to bring misery in the name of human rights and democracy. The Party and the

Lobby are also hard at work to convince the public that war with Iran is inevitable. In a gala at the research arm of the AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Dennis Ross and Elliott Abrams, two of the most trusted Lobby men, and the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffrey, insisted that the president will attack Iran in 2013 if diplomacy does not succeed. Ross, the Middle East envoy during the Clinton administration and until
November 2011 President Obamas adviser on Iran in the National Security Council, said, I think theres the stomach in this administration, and this president, that if diplomacy fails to use force *against Iran+. Jeffrey said, I think *Obamas+ first choice will be a negotiated settlement. Failing that, I think that were going to strike. One way or the other, these guys *the Iranians+ are either going to stop their program or, before were halfway through 2013, theyre going to have enough *enriched nuclear materiel+ to go critical in a few weeks, adding, I think if we dont get a negotiated settlement, and these guys are actually on the threshold [of weaponization capability], as Obama said during the campaign, then the president is going to take military action. This is while the Iranians have been converting as they had said they would their enriched uranium at 19.75% to fuel plates for use in the Tehran Research Reactor, which provides medical isotopes for 850,000 patients every year, hence making it practically impossible to use that uranium for bombs, even if they wanted to. Then, during discussion with Ross and Abrams halfway through the gala, WINEP director Robert Satloff asked the two, Will either America or Israel employ preventive military action against Irans nuclear program yes or no? The two replied, Yes. Satloff then asked, Will this happen in 2013? Ross said, Yes, and Abrams added, Yes, I agree. In another piece of sheer nonsense propaganda, former senator Charles Robb, Ross, and Michael Makovsky of the Bipartisan Policy Center cooked up another absurd scenario in order to encourage war on Iran. In a piece published by the Wall Street Journal, the trio considered the possibility of a Saudi-Iran nuclear exchange and the effect that it would have on the supply and price of oil and concluded that, As American and other policy makers contemplate what it will take to thwart Irans nuclear ambitions, they must not dwell exclusively on the potential short-term impacts of economic pressure or military action. Over the medium and long term, the economic costs of a nuclear Iran may be no less real and far more enduring. The idea that an Islamic country may attack Saudi Arabia, which houses Islams two holiest sites, with nuclear weapons is beyond absurd, but it goes to show that the

Party and the Lobby are willing to say anything to provoke a war. The authors did not, of course, ask the crucial question: If Saudi Arabia is going to have a nuclear
exchange with Iran, who will supply it with nuclear technology? The West, of course, and in particular France and the U.S. So, why should the Saudis be given nuclear technology, if there are true concerns about a Saudi-Iran nuclear exchange and nuclear proliferation? Is it enough that the Kingdom is already buying close to $100 billion worth of weapons from the West, weapons that in all likelihood it will never need or use? Will John Kerry, as the new secretary of state, make a difference in U.S. policy toward Iran? It remains to be seen, but he is certainly more

moderate than Hillary Rodham Clinton, who threatened to obliterate Iran. Documents released by WikiLeaks indicate that Kerry wants to resolve the dispute with Iran through negotiations. Many Iranian-Americans supported his bid for the presidency in 2004. He has said in that past that, his own intention, had he been elected president *in 2004+, was to pursue front channel and back channel contacts with the Iranian regime. He also told Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Qatars king, that the United States recognizes Irans ambitions to be a regional player, and wants a dialogue about what sort of power it will be. War

with Iran will benefit no one but the Party, the Lobby, and the far right in Israel. It will not only destroy the Middle East and kill hundreds of thousands, if not more, it will also lead to a decades-long war of attrition between Muslims and the West that will also destroy the Wests economy. The only
solution to the standoff over Irans nuclear program is patient and sincere diplomacy, in which every step that Iran takes to address the concerns over its nuclear program is reciprocated by the U.S. and its allies, who could at least suspend some of their illegal sanctions, which would provide relief for tens of millions of Iranians. Then, and only then, can we talk sincerely about democracy and human rights for the Iranian people.

Hagel key to prevent war with Iran Michael Brn (visiting assistant professor of Economics at the Illinois State University) December 30,
2012 Israel lobby should not have veto over US president's cabinet http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121230652285915.html Now comes Chuck Hagel, a Republican Senator who would normally also be easy to confirm in the Senate, as Obama's choice for Secretary of
Defence. But unlike in the case of Susan Rice, there are real, substantive objections to real substantive positions he has held: he was an early critic of the Iraq war; he wants to get out of Afghanistan, soon; he does

not want a war with Iran; and he has supported cuts in

military spending. This makes him neocon enemy number one, someone who must be crushed. Of course, the neocons have their voices like the Weekly Standard and the Washington Post editorial board, but for those who may have noticed they have lost a lot of influence since they led us into that ugly war that nobody wants to remember in a place called Iraq. In fact, even George W Bush had to be careful about listening to them during his second term. So on their own, the neocons couldn't really get in the way of a nomination like this one, a decorated Vietnam veteran, and a Republican no less. But

the neocons joined up with a powerful ally - the most

powerful lobby in the country, the Israel lobby. And that is no exaggeration: the Washington Post reported a few years ago that the annual AIPAC dinner in Washington, DC, was attended by the majority of the Senate and a big chunk of the US House. The pharmaceutical and insurance industries have some pretty formidable lobbies and they may be able to set the boundaries for healthcare reform, but they are not going to get 51 senators to show up at an annual dinner, no matter how fine the cuisine. It's almost not worth mentioning the smears that the Israel lobby has managed to get taken seriously, since they are not worth dignifying. So, Hagel once said he was a US senator and not a senator in the Israeli government. And for this he has been vilified. This really completes my argument. Is there any other country in the world where a legislator can be denounced for not being sufficiently loyal to a foreign government? This is worse than the McCarthy era; at least back then you had to swear loyalty to the US government. And he

once used the term "Jewish lobby" instead of "Israel lobby", thus denying credit where credit is due, to right-wing evangelical Christians and other fine citizens who also would like to see a war with Iran and fight for the foreign policy agenda of Israel's far right. This is a bit like
taking someone to task for referring to the "Florida Cuban-American lobby", thus leaving out right-wing Nicaraguans, Venezuelans and other haters who want to see the Castro brothers dead and the US on its way to re-possessing the island. Last week, Eliot Engel became the first important Democratic Congressman to attack Chuck Hagel and oppose his nomination as Secretary of Defence. Engel is part of the Israel lobby and unfortunately he is now the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs committee. One of his first acts after being elected to Congress was to sponsor a resolution declaring Jerusalem to be the undivided capital of Israel, an extremist position even by US State Department standards. Promoting the Israel lobby Engel is a good example of how the

Israel lobby, in alliance with the much weaker neocons, influences much more of US foreign policy than just the Middle East. Until the Democrats lost the House in 2010, he
was Chair of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. What was he doing there, since his main interest is Israel? He was there to use the Committee to try to advocate for Israeli foreign policy in this hemisphere. Of course, he had allies among neocon Republicans like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, fanatical Cuban-born Florida right-winger who is the current (outgoing) Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Though the Republicans were more extreme, Engel shared their hostility toward left governments - now governing the majority of Latin America - that didn't fall into line. This included of course avowedly socialist governments such as Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela; but in 2010, when Brazil, together with Turkey, tried to broker a nuclear fuel swap arrangement with Iran, in an attempt to defuse the escalating confrontation between the US and Iran, Engel was quick to publicly denounce and threaten Brazil for doing, actually, what Washington had asked them to do. It is important to understand that Engel's commitment to the foreign policy of Israel is not the result of Jewish voters in New York's 17th Congressional district. Jews are less than 14 percent of his district, which is majority African-American and Latino. And most American Jews do not agree with the extremist policies of the Israeli government, which Engel represents. This

is a problem of an ideological and political commitment of someone working with a powerful lobby to influence US foreign policy. Engel was one of 81 House Democrats who went against the majority of their party in the House and
voted to authorise George W Bush's invasion of Iraq. Most of these 81 Democrats had strong ties to the Israel lobby, distinguishing them from the Democrats who voted against the war. Would Congress have authorised that war without the influence of the Israel lobby? It's

difficult to say, just as it is difficult to say how much their influence will be decisive if we end up going to war

with Iran - a cause that Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has lobbied for on national US TV and that the Israel lobby is eager to promote. But this country can no longer afford to have this kind of influence on such important decisions. The fight over the Hagel nomination, which would never have been a fight if not for the Israel lobby, is just the latest example. Hagel's presence in the Obama cabinet could easily , in some circumstances, make the difference between war and peace . But Obama, it seems, only won the first battle with his re-election in November. He now has a tougher battle against people who nobody elected.

Hegemony

1NC Diplomacy Internal

Strong diplomacy agenda key to hegemony. Gen. Michael W. Hagee and Adm. James M. Loy, 3-27-2012, What it takes to keep U.S. safe today,
Politico, p. www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74509.html
The challenges we face today as a nation are far more complex and nuanced than the clear enemies of decades past. Consider the Arab Spring or the global financial meltdown.. As former military leaders, we know that we

must deploy all our tools of development and diplomacy, alongside a strong defense, to ensure U.S. leadership in the 21st century. Stark budgets and
unsustainable debt require an honest look at how we are spending taxpayer dollars. But we should not sacrifice the fraction of the budget that ensures U.S. leadership in this turbulent world. Our

military can rise to meet whatever challenges may come but not without our civilian partners. The nations security depends on Congress support of a strong international affairs budget. Our
men and women in uniform alone cant solve the myriad challenges ahead. The development and diplomacy programs are a critical part of our national security. Even as our policy leaders work to put our fiscal house in order, we cannot leave this vital investment out in the cold. At

slightly more than 1 percent of the federal budget, these programs are effective and efficient ways to confront the multifaceted threats we face today. Not just in terms of dollars, but more important, in lives saved. Tuesday, we are joining
more than 80 of our fellow retired three and four-star general and flag officers in sending a letter urging Congress to enhance our civilian tools to keep Americans safe and protect the hard-fought gains made by our troops. Development and diplomacy, we write, keep

us safer by addressing threats in the most dangerous corners of the world and by preventing conflicts before they occur. With the military drawdown in Iraq and the coming transition to a civilian-led mission in Afghanistan, these civilian programs are even more essential to preserving peace and preventing these countries from falling back to tyranny and terrorism. Other trouble spots around globe have
shown that civilian-led tools can diffuse threats and prevent them from becoming conflicts that require us to put our troops in harms way.

From enduring poverty to endemic diseases to severe food insecurity, these programs address the roots of so many of todays security challenges. Military leaders together with national security experts from both
Republican and Democratic administrations have repeatedly underscored the importance of robust funding for the State Department and other nonmilitary agencies. As Defense

Secretary Leon Panetta recently said, Strong national security is dependent on having a strong diplomatic arm, a strong development arm. And former Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted, Development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers.

Heg is good Kagan 2/11 (2/11/12, Robert, PhD, Senior Fellow of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution,
Former Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Cofounder of the Foreign Policy Initiative, adjunct professor of history at Georgetown University, Why the World Needs America, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203646004577213262856669448.html)
History shows that world orders, including our own, are transient. They rise and fall, and the institutions they erect, the beliefs and "norms" that guide them, the economic systems they supportthey rise and fall, too. The downfall of the Roman Empire brought an end not just to Roman rule but to Roman government and law and to an entire economic system stretching from Northern Europe to North Africa. Culture, the arts, even progress in science and technology, were set back for centuries. Modern history has followed a similar pattern. After the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century, British

control of the seas and the balance of great powers on the European continent provided relative security and stability. Prosperity grew, personal freedoms expanded, and the world was knit more closely together by revolutions in commerce and communication. With the
outbreak of World War I, the age of settled peace and advancing liberalismof European civilization approaching its pinnaclecollapsed into an age of hyper-nationalism, despotism and economic calamity. The once-promising spread of democracy and liberalism halted and then reversed course, leaving a handful of outnumbered and besieged democracies living nervously in the shadow of fascist and totalitarian neighbors. The

collapse of the British and European orders in the 20th century did not produce a new dark age though if Nazi Germany and imperial Japan had prevailed, it might havebut the horrific conflict that it produced was, in its own way, just as devastating. Would the end of the present American-dominated order have less dire
consequences? A surprising number of American intellectuals, politicians and policy makers greet the prospect with equanimity. There is a general sense that the end of the era of American pre-eminence, if and when it comes, need not mean the end of the present international

order, with its widespread freedom, unprecedented global prosperity (even amid the current economic crisis) and absence of war among the great powers. American

power may diminish, the political scientist G. John Ikenberry argues, but "the underlying foundations of the liberal international order will survive and thrive." The commentator Fareed Zakaria believes that even as the balance shifts against the U.S., rising powers like China "will continue to live within the framework of the current international system." And there are elements across the political spectrumRepublicans who
call for retrenchment, Democrats who put their faith in international law and institutionswho don't imagine that a "post-American world" would look very different from the American world. If all of this sounds too good to be true, it is. The

present world order was largely shaped by American power and reflects American interests and preferences. If the balance of power shifts in the direction of other nations, the world order will change to suit their interests and preferences. Nor can we assume that all the great powers in a post-American world would agree on the benefits of preserving the present order, or have the capacity to preserve it, even if they wanted to. Unfortunately, they might not be able to help themselves. The creation and survival of a liberal economic order has depended, historically, on great powers that are both willing and able to support open trade and free markets, often with naval power. If a declining America is unable to maintain its long-standing hegemony on the high seas, would other nations take on the burdens and the expense of sustaining navies to fill in the gaps? Even if they did, would this produce an open global commonsor rising tension? China and India are building bigger navies, but the result so far has been greater competition, not greater security . As Mohan Malik has noted in this newspaper, their "maritime rivalry could spill into the open in a decade or two," when India deploys an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean and China deploys one in the Indian Ocean. The move from American-dominated oceans to collective policing by several great powers could be a recipe for competition and conflict rather than for a liberal economic order. And do the Chinese really value an open economic system? The Chinese economy
soon may become the largest in the world, but it will be far from the richest. Its size is a product of the country's enormous population, but in per capita terms, China remains relatively poor. The U.S., Germany and Japan have a per capita GDP of over $40,000. China's is a little over $4,000, putting it at the same level as Angola, Algeria and Belize. Even if optimistic forecasts are correct, China's

per capita GDP by 2030 would still only be half that of the U.S., putting it roughly where Slovenia and Greece are today .
As Arvind Subramanian and other economists have pointed out, this will make for a historically unique situation. In the past, the largest and most dominant economies in the world have also been the richest. Nations

whose peoples are such obvious winners in a relatively unfettered economic system have less temptation to pursue protectionist measures and have more of an incentive to keep the system open. China's leaders, presiding over a poorer and still developing country, may prove less willing to open their economy. They have already begun closing some sectors to foreign competition and are likely to close others in the future. Even optimists like Mr. Subramanian believe that the liberal economic order will require "some insurance" against a scenario in which "China exercises its dominance by either reversing its previous policies or failing to open areas of the economy that are now highly protected." American economic dominance has been welcomed by much of the world because, like the mobster Hyman Roth in "The Godfather," the U.S. has always made money for its partners. Chinese economic dominance may get a different reception. Another problem is that China's form of capitalism is heavily dominated by the state, with the ultimate goal of preserving the rule of the Communist Party. Unlike the eras of British and American pre-eminence, when the leading economic powers were dominated largely by private individuals or companies, China's system is more like the mercantilist arrangements of previous centuries. The government amasses wealth in order to secure its continued rule and to pay for armies and navies to compete with other great powers. Although the Chinese have been beneficiaries of an open international economic order, they could end up undermining it simply because, as an autocratic society, their priority is to preserve the state's control of wealth and the power that it brings. They might kill the goose that lays the golden eggs because they can't figure out how to keep both it and themselves alive. Finally, what about the long peace that has held among the great powers for the better part of six decades? Would it survive in a post-American world? Most commentators who welcome this scenario imagine that American predominance would be replaced by some kind of multipolar harmony. But multipolar systems have historically been neither particularly stable nor particularly peaceful. Rough parity among powerful nations is a source of uncertainty that leads to miscalculation. Conflicts erupt

as a result of fluctuations in the delicate power equation. War among the great powers was a common, if not constant, occurrence in the long periods of multipolarity from the 16th to the 18th centuries, culminating in the series of enormously destructive Europe-wide wars that followed the French Revolution and
ended with Napoleon's defeat in 1815. The 19th century was notable for two stretches of great-power peace of roughly four decades each, punctuated by major conflicts. The Crimean War (1853-1856) was a mini-world war involving well over a million Russian, French, British and Turkish troops, as well as forces from nine other nations; it produced almost a half-million dead combatants and many more wounded. In the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), the two nations together fielded close to two million troops, of whom nearly a half-million were killed or wounded. The

peace that followed these conflicts was characterized by increasing tension and competition, numerous war scares and massive increases in armaments on both land and sea. Its climax was
World War I, the most destructive and deadly conflict that mankind had known up to that point. As the political scientist Robert W. Tucker has observed, "Such stability and moderation as the balance brought rested ultimately on the threat or use of force. War remained the essential means for maintaining the balance of power." There is little reason to believe that a return to multipolarity in the 21st century would bring greater peace and stability than it has in the past. The era of American predominance has shown that there is no better recipe for great-power peace than certainty about who holds the upper hand. President Bill Clinton left office believing that the key task for America was to "create the world we would like to live in when we are no longer the world's only superpower," to prepare for "a time when we would have to share the stage." It is an eminently sensible-sounding proposal. But can

the rules and institutions of international order rarely survive the decline of the nations that erected them. They are like scaffolding around a building: They don't hold the building up; the building holds them up. Many foreign-policy experts see the present international
it be done? For particularly in matters of security,

order as the inevitable result of human progress, a combination of advancing science and technology, an increasingly global economy, strengthening international institutions, evolving "norms" of international behavior and the gradual but inevitable triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of governmentforces of change that transcend the actions of men and nations. Americans certainly like to believes that our preferred order survives because it is right and justnot only for us but for everyone. We assume that the triumph of democracy is the triumph of a better idea, and the victory of market capitalism is the victory of a better system, and that both are irreversible. That is why Francis Fukuyama's thesis about "the end of history" was so attractive at the end of the Cold War and retains its appeal even now, after it has been discredited by events. The idea of inevitable evolution means that there is no requirement to impose a decent order. It will merely happen. But international order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over othersin America's case, the domination of free-market and democratic principles, together with an international system that supports them. The present order will last only as long as those who favor it and benefit from it retain the will and capacity to defend it. There was nothing inevitable about the world that was created after World War II. No divine providence or unfolding Hegelian dialectic required the triumph of democracy and capitalism, and there is no guarantee that their success will outlast the powerful nations that have fought for them. Democratic been and

progress and liberal economics have can be reversed and undone. The ancient democracies of Greece and the republics of Rome and Venice all fell to more powerful forces or through their own failings.

If American power declines, the institutions and norms that American power has supported will decline, too. Or more likely, if history is a guide, they may collapse altogether as we make a transition to another kind of world order, or to disorder. We may discover then that the U.S. was essential to keeping the present world order together and that the alternative to American power was not peace and harmony but chaos and catastrophewhich is what the
The evolving liberal economic order of Europe collapsed in the 1920s and 1930s. The better idea doesn't have to win just because it is a better idea. It requires great powers to champion it. and when world looked like right before the American order came into being.

Restraint Good Cards

Foreign policy restraints key to the legitimacy of U.S. power and global liberal norms--avoids great power war and builds coalitions to ensure China rises peacefully Kevin Fujimoto 12, Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army, January 11, 2012, Preserving U.S. National Security
Interests Through a Liberal World Construct, online: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Preserving-US-National-SecurityInterests-Liberal-World-Construct/2012/1/11 With a credible threat to its leading position in a unipolar global order , the United States should adopt a grand strategy of investment, building legitimacy and capacity in the very institutions that will protect our interests in a liberal global construct of the future when we are no longer the dominant imperial power . Similar to the Clinton era's grand strategy of enlargement,2 investment supports a world order predicated upon a system of basic rules and principles, however, it differs in that the United States
should concentrate on the institutions (i.e., United Nations, World Trade Organization, ASEAN, alliances, etc.) that support a world order, as opposed to expanding democracy as a system of governance for other sovereign nations. Despite its claims of a benevolent expansion,

China is already executing a strategy of expansion similar to that of Imperial Japan's Manchukuo policy during the 1930s.3 This
three-part strategy involves: (i) (providing) significant investments in economic infrastructure for extracting natural resources; (ii) (conducting) military interventions (to) protect economic interests; and, (iii) . . . (annexing) via installation of puppet governments.4 China has already solidified its control over neighboring North Korea and Burma, and has similarly begun more ambitious engagements in Africa and Central Asia where it seeks to expand its frontier.5 Noted political scientist Samuel P. Huntington provides further analysis of the motives behind China's imperial aspirations. He contends that China (has) historically conceived itself as encompassing a Sinic Zone'. . . (with) two goals: to become the champion of Chinese culture . . . and to resume its historical position, which it lost in the nineteenth century, as the hegemonic power in East Asia.6 Furthermore, China holds one quarter of the world's population, and rapid economic growth will increase its demand for natural resources from outside its borders as its people seek a standard of living comparable to that of Western civilization. The

rise of peer competitors has historically resulted in regional instability

and one should

compare the emergence of China to the rise of. . . Germany as the dominant power in Europe in the late nineteenth century.7 Furthermore, the

rise of another peer competitor on the level of the Soviet Union of the Cold War ultimately threatens U.S. global influence , challenging its concepts of human rights, liberalism, and democracy; as well as its ability to co-opt other nations to accept them.8 This decline in influence, while initially limited to the Asia-Pacific region, threatens to result in significant conflict if it ultimately leads to a paradigm shift in the ideas and principles that govern the existing world order. A grand strategy of investment to address the threat of China requires investing in institutions, addressing ungoverned states, and building legitimacy through multilateralism . The United States must build capacity in the existing institutions and alliances accepted globally as legitimate representative bodies of the world's governments. For true legitimacy, the United
States must support these institutions, not only when convenient, in order to avoid the appearance of unilateralism, which would ultimately undermine the very organizations upon whom it will rely when it is no longer the global hegemon. The United States must also address ungoverned states, not only as breeding grounds for terrorism, but as conflicts that threaten to spread into regional instability, thereby drawing in superpowers with competing interests. Huntington proposes that the greatest source of conflict will come from what he defines as one core nation's involvement in a conflict between another core nation and a minor state within its immediate sphere of influence.9 For example, regional instability in South Asia10 threatens to involve combatants from the United States, India, China, and the surrounding nations. Appropriately, the

United States, as a global power, must apply all elements of its national power now to address the problem of weak and failing states, which threaten to serve as the principal catalysts of future global conflicts. 11 Admittedly, the application of American power in the internal affairs of a sovereign
nation raises issues. Experts have posed the question of whether the United States should act as the world's enforcer of stability, imposing its concepts of human rights on other states. In response to this concern, The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty authored a study titled, The Responsibility to Protect,12 calling for revisions to the understanding of sovereignty within the United Nations (UN) charter. This commission places the responsibility to protect peoples of sovereign nations on both the state itself and, more importantly, on the international community.13 If approved, this revision will establish a precedent whereby the United States has not only the authority and responsibility to act within the internal affairs of a repressive government, but does so with global legitimacy if done under the auspices of a UN mandate.

Any effort to legitimize and support a

liberal world construct requires the United States to adopt a multilateral doctrine which avoids the precepts of the previous administration: preemptive war , democratization, and U.S. primacy of unilateralism ,14 which have resulted in the alienation of former allies worldwide . Predominantly Muslim

nations, whose citizens had previously looked to the United States as an example of representative governance, viewed the Iraq invasion as the seminal dividing action between the Western and the Islamic world. Appropriately, any future American interventions into the internal affairs of another sovereign nation must first seek to establish consensus by gaining the approval of a body representing global opinion,

and must reject military unilateralism as a threat to that governing body's legitimacy. Despite the longstanding U.S. tradition of a liberal foreign policy since the start of the Cold War, the famous liberal leviathan, John Ikenberry, argues that the

post-9/11 doctrine of national security strategy . . . has been based on . . . American global dominance, the preventative use of force, coalitions of the willing, and the struggle between liberty and evil .15
American foreign policy has misguidedly focused on spreading democracy, as opposed to building a liberal international order based on universally accepted principles that actually set the conditions for individual nation states to select their own system of governance. AnneMarie Slaughter, the former Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, argues that true

Wilsonian idealists support liberal democracy, but reject the possibility of democratizing peoples . . .16 and reject military primacy in favor of supporting a rules-based system of order. Investment in a liberal world order would also set the conditions for the United States to garner support from noncommitted regional powers (i.e., Russia, India, Japan, etc.), or swing civilizations, in countering China's increasing hegemonic influence .17 These states reside within close proximity to the Indian Ocean, which will likely
emerge as the geopolitical focus of the American foreign policy during the 21st century, and appropriately have

the ability to offset

China's imperial dominance

in the region.18 Critics of a liberal world construct argue that idealism is not necessary, based on the

assumption that nations that trade together will not go to war with each other.19 In response, foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman rebukes their arguments, acknowledging the predicate of commercial interdependence as a factor only in the decision to go to war, and argues that while

globalization is creating a new international order, differences between civilizations still create friction that may overcome all other factors and lead to conflict .20 Detractors also warn that as China grows in power,
it will no longer observe the basic rules and principles of a liberal international order, which largely result from Western concepts of foreign relations. Ikenberry addresses this risk, citing that China's leaders already recognize that they will gain more authority within the existing liberal order, as opposed to contesting it. China's leaders want the protection and rights that come from the international order's . . . defense of sovereignty,21 from which they have benefitted during their recent history of economic growth and international expansion. Even

if China executes a peaceful rise and the United States overestimates a Sinic threat to its national security interest, the emergence of a new imperial power will challenge American leadership in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region. That being said, it is more likely that China, as evidenced by its military and economic expansion, will displace the United States as the regional hegemonic power. Recognizing this threat now, the United States must prepare for the eventual transition and immediately begin building the legitimacy and support of a system of rules that will protect its interests later when we are no longer the world's only superpower.

International co-op turns proliferation and environmental collapse Dyer, 04 - worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was
originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. (Gwynne, "The end of war," Toronto Star, 12/30, l/n) War is deeply embedded in our history and our culture, probably since before we were even fully human, but weaning ourselves away from it should not be a bigger mountain to climb than some of the other changes we have already made in the way we live, given the right incentives. And we have certainly been given the right incentives: The holiday from history that we have enjoyed since the early '90s may be drawing to an end, and another

great-power war, fought next time with nuclear weapons, may be lurking in our future.. The "firebreak" against nuclear weapons use that we began building after Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for well over half a century now. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new powers is a major challenge to the stability of the system. So are the coming crises, mostly environmental in origin, which will hit some countries much harder than others, and may drive some to desperation. Add in the huge impending shifts in the great-power system as China and India grow to rival the United States in GDP over the next 30 or 40 years and it will be hard to keep things from spinning out of control. With good luck and good management, we may be able to ride out the next half-century without the first-magnitude catastrophe of a global nuclear war, but the potential certainly exists for a major die-back of human population . We cannot command the good luck, but good management is
something we can choose to provide. It depends, above all, on preserving and extending the multilateral system that we have been building

since the end of World War II. The

rising powers must be absorbed into a system that emphasizes co-operation and makes room for them, rather than one that deals in confrontation and raw military power. If they are obliged to play the traditional great-power game of winners and losers, then history will repeat itself and everybody loses. Our hopes for mitigating the severity of the coming environmental crises also depend on early and concerted global action of a sort that can only happen in a basically cooperative international system. When the great powers are locked into a military confrontation, there is simply not enough spare attention, let alone enough trust, to make deals on those issues, so the highest priority at the moment is to keep the multilateral approach alive and avoid a drift back into alliance systems and arms races. And there is no point in dreaming that we can leap straight into some never-land of universal brotherhood; we will have to confront these challenges and solve the problem of war within the context of the existing state system.

Middle East War

Internal Link - AIPAC

Hagel confirmation key to dilute the legislative power of AIPAC---failure makes any future effort to reform Middle East policy impossible Stephen M. Walt 12-26, the Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard
University, 12/26/12, Whats at stake in the Hagel affair, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/26/whats_at_stake_in_the_hagel_affair The real meaning of the Hagel affair is what it says about the climate inside Washington. Simply put, the question is whether supine and reflexive support for all things Israeli remains a prerequisite for important policy positions here in the Land of the Free. Given America's track record in the region in recent decades, you'd think a more open debate on U.S. policy would be just what the country needs, both for its own sake and for Israel's. But
because the case for the current "special relationship" of unconditional support is so weak, the last thing that hardliners like Bill Kristol or Elliot Abrams want is an open debate on that subject. If

Hagel gets appointed , it means other people in Washington might realize they could say what they really think without fear that their careers will be destroyed. And once that happens, who knows where it might lead? It might even lead to a Middle East policy that actually worked! We wouldn't want that now, would we? At this point, if Obama picks someone other than Hagel, he won't just be sticking a knife in the back of a dedicated public servant who was wounded twice in the service of his country. Obama will also be sending an unmistakable signal to future politicians, to young foreign policy wonks eager to rise in the Establishment, and to anyone who might hope to get appointed to an important position after 2016. He will be telling them that they either have to remain completely silent on the subject of U.S. Middle East policy or mouth whatever talking points they get from AIPAC , the Weekly Standard, or the rest of the Israel lobby, even though it is palpably obvious that the policies these groups have defended for years have been a disaster for the United States and Israel alike. Instead of having a robust and open
discourse about U.S. Middle East policy inside official Washington, we will continue to have the current stilted, one-sided, and deeply dishonest discussion of our actions and interests in the region. And the

long list of U.S. failures -- the Oslo process, the settlements, the Iraq War, the rise of al Qaeda, etc. -- will get longer still.

Strong AIPAC locks in global terrorism and jacks U.S. relations with the Muslim world Medea Benjamin 12, cofounder of both CODEPINK and the international human rights organization
Global Exchange, 2/28/12, Ten reasons why AIPAC is so dangerous, http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/ten-reasons-why-the-israel-lobby-aipac-is-so-dangerous.html 3. AIPAC's call for unconditional support for the Israeli government threatens our national security. The United States' one-sided support of Israel, demanded by AIPAC, has significantly increased anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East, thus endangering our troops and sowing the seeds of more possible terrorist attacks against us. Gen. David Petraeus on March 16, 2010 admitted that the U.S./Palestine conflict "foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel." He also said that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support ."

Improved Muslim relations are key to prevent nuclear escalation in every global hotspot Ziad Asali 9, President and Founder of the American Task Force on Palestine, et al., Changing Course:
A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World, February, p. 9-16 Improving relations with Muslim majority countries and communities is one of the most important foreign policy and national security challenges facing the U nited S tates. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, the U.S. sought to strengthen its own security. Despite our leaders' insistence that we had no conflict with Islam or Muslims, and

despite a long history of U.S. action to protect and aid Muslims affected by war or natural disaster, our responses to 9/11 have sparked fear, mistrust, and hostility among many Muslims. Antipathy

toward the U.S. has risen not only in the countries most directly

affected by U.S. military action (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan), but in many others around the world. In turn, violent

extremist groups that claim to act in the name of Islam have used the climate of distrust to gain support for further attacks on U.S. assets and allies. Though majorities in both the U.S. and Muslim countries around the world want to reverse this spiral of violence , many fear that it will continue to escalate . The extremists who seek to harm and
destroy the U.S. represent a very small minority of Muslims, operating, for the most part, independent of governments, through loose networks of social, financial, and logistical support. Given their strong convictions, and the limited ability of the U.S. and its allies to identify and target them, they are difficult to dissuade or deter. Were an extremist group to

use a nuclear , chemical, or biological

weapon , or sabotage a hazardous facility in a populated area in the U.S., it could kill tens of thousands or more.1 This Report begins
with the premise that the U.S. must work with Muslim counterparts who share our interest in improving mutual security to minimize the risk of such a scenario. Responsibility for peaceful coexistence rests equally with U.S. and Muslim leaders worldwide. For the U.S., counterterrorism operations are a necessary part of the strategy to keep Americans safe. However, these operations treat the symptoms rather than the causes of conflict. There is a deep reservoir of grievances against the U.S. among Muslims around the world. Whether or not these grievances are justified, the

climate of hostility makes it possible for extremist groups to recruit and operate with relative ease in many countries and communities. To reduce the risk of conflict, now and in the future, the U.S. must not only defend itself against attacks, but also build more positive relations with key countries and counterparts across the Muslim world. Today, the U.S. stands at a crossroads in its relations with the global Muslim community There is still a strong set of shared values and interests among American and Muslim leaders and publics. Together, we can rebuild trust and address the core causes of tension. There are numerous diplomatic,
political, economic, and people-to-people initiatives on which to build. But if we continue on our current course, time is not on our side. The U.S. government, in concert with business, faith, education, and civic leaders, needs to undertake major initiatives to address the causes of tension. Working with Muslim counterparts, we can achieve substantial joint gains in peace and security, political and economic development, and respect and understanding. The

alternative is to increase our reliance on military action and

counterterrorism in alliance with unpopular authoritarian governments. Doing so will raise the risk that our wrorst fears will be
realized. For the sake of our own national security, values, and aspirations, and those of more than a billion Muslims around the world, we must forge a new approach. The Leadership Group and the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project This Report presents the consensus of 34 American leaders in the fields of foreign and defense policy, politics, business, religion, education, public opinion, psychology, philanthropy, and conflict resolution. We come from different walks of life, faiths, political perspectives, and professional disciplines. Our shared goal is to develop and work to implement a wise, widely supportable strategy to make the U.S. and the world safer, by responding to the primary causes of tension with Muslims around the world. We believe that a strategy that builds on shared and complementary interests with Muslims in many countries is feasible, desirable, and consistent with core American values. The Report also reflects dialogue with hundreds of American leaders and counterparts in Muslim countries, and research on the views of millions of citizens in the U.S. and in Muslim countries whose perspectives and preferences we have explored. We have used the process of dialogue and public opinion research not only to build a leadership consensus, but also to craft a strategy that can win broad public and political support in the U.S., and build partnerships with Muslim leaders and people across the world. This project was convened, facilitated, and supported by two organizations with expertise in building consensus on difficult public issues: Search for Common Ground and the Consensus Building Institute. In addition, more than a dozen foundations, corporations and individuals have generously funded our work. Why Are U.S. Relations with Muslim Countries and Communities Important? U.S.

relations with Muslim countries and communities are critically

important for several reasons: the size of the global Muslim population; the geopolitical significance of key Muslim countries and regions; the persistence of conflict in these strategically important regions over several decades; the dramatic rise in tension and violence between the U.S. and a number of Muslim countries and groups during the past decade, and the risk of further conflict escalation ; and the potential for both
the U.S. and Muslim countries to prosper from improved relations and new partnerships. Roughly one-fifth of the world's population, or about 1.3 billion people, is Muslim. Muslims

form the majority in 56 countries across North Africa ; the Middle

East ; Asia Minor; and Central, South and Southeast Asia .' That geography spans major oil producing regions, key land and sea trade routes, and areas of high political sensitivity and instability. Muslims also form important minority
communities in countries across Europe, North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and parts of Asia. As with all major religious and ethnic communities, there is great diversity in beliefs, values, cultures, political systems, and living standards among the world's Muslim communities. Given this broad range of circumstances and the equally broad range of U.S. interests and relations with Muslim countries, Muslims' views about U.S. policy have traditionally varied widely. There is, however, a clear trend. Since the 1940s, and more rapidly since the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, more Muslims have become concerned about the U.S. role in supporting authoritarian governments.

More have become angry at the U.S. and its allies for their presence in Muslim lands. More feel resentful over the U.S. role in the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, and more feel humiliated by the sense that Americans do not understand or respect Islamic values or cultures. During the past six years, this set of concerns has become even more widespread, consistent and intense. Today, the U.S. faces an extraordinarily strong and widely shared set of negative perceptions among Muslim peoples and their leaders.' From a security standpoint, the

primary U.S. focus is on armed extremist groups in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine.' However, the U.S. must also consider how our policies and actions in those countries, their neighbors, and other Muslim countries around the world shape the ability of extremists to recruit, operate and destabilize governments and societies. Addressing not only the immediate threat of terrorist and insurgent groups, but also their broader bases of support and sympathy, should be a top national priority* for four reasons: Muslim public hostility" toward the U.S. is generating resources, recruits, and operational opportunities for extremist groups that seek to harm the U.S., Its allies, and assets. It is also undermining mainstream Muslim leaders who seek tolerance, nonviolence, and
constructive change in relations with the U.S.* Most Muslims' primary grievances and concerns are about "what the U.S. does," rather than "who we are." At the same time, the U.S. has options for meeting its own interests in ways that are more compatible with most Muslims1 Interests and values. It is possible to change our relationships to enhance mutual security, meet shared and complementary political goals, generate joint economic gains, and demonstrate mutual respect for each others' core values. By

adopting a comprehensive strategy and implementing it now , it is likely that the U.S. can significantly change perceptions and behavior among mainstream and politically activist Muslims in key countries before attitudes and beliefs become "locked in" for a generation. On the other hand, failure to act soon will likely lead to a hardening of attitudes, reinforcing extremists' claims that violent resistance to the U.S. is the best path to autonomy, respect, and justice. Fighting a long-term conflict with extremists in many Muslim countries will demand continued sacrifice from the U.S. military, carry high economic costs , continue the political acrimony that has divided the
country for the past several years, and

require the U.S. to use much of Its international political capital to maintain alliances. As a result, the U.S. will have fewer resources to address pressing needs at home or other critical challenges abroad. Hagel key to Middle East stability, engaging Hamas, and making Heg sustainable Friedman 12/25 [Thomas L. Friedman won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, his third Pulitzer for The New York Times, December 25, 2012, Give Chuck a Chance, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/friedman-give-chuck-achance.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print, mccarty]
In case you havent heard, President Obama is considering appointing Chuck Hagel, a former United States senator from Nebraska and a Purple Heart winner, as the next secretary of defense and this has triggered a minifirefight among Hagel critics and supporters. I am a Hagel supporter. I think he would make a fine secretary of defense precisely because some of his views are not mainstream. I find the opposition to him falling into two baskets: the disgusting and the philosophical. It is vital to look at both to appreciate why Hagel would be a good fit for Defense at this time. The disgusting is the fact that because Hagel once described the Israel lobby as the Jewish lobby (it also contains some Christians). And because he has rather bluntly stated that his job as a U.S. senator was not to take orders from the Israel lobby but to advance U.S. interests, he is smeared as an Israel-hater at best and an anti-Semite at worst. If ever Israel needed a U.S. defense secretary who was committed to Israels survival, as Hagel has repeatedly stated but who was convinced that ensuring that survival didnt mean having America go along with Israels self-destructive drift into settling the West Bank and obviating a two-state solution it is now. I am certain that the vast majority of U.S. senators and policy makers quietly believe exactly what Hagel believes on Israel that it is surrounded by more implacable enemies than ever and needs and deserves Americas backing. But, at the same time, this Israeli government is so spoiled and has shifted so far to the right that it makes no effort to take U.S. interests into account by slowing its self-isolating settlement adventure. And its going to get worse. Israels friends need to understand that the center-left in Israel is dying. The Israeli election in January will bring to power Israeli rightists who never spoke at your local Israel Bonds dinner. These are people who want to annex the West Bank. Bibi Netanyahu is a dove in this crowd. The only thing standing between Israel and national suicide any more is America and its willingness to tell Israel the truth. But most U.S. senators, policy makers and Jews prefer to stick their heads in the sand, because confronting Israel is so unpleasant and politically dangerous. Hagel at least cares enough about Israel to be an exception. No one captured the despair in Israel better than Bradley Burston, a columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, who wrote the other day: This year, for Hanukkah, I want one person running this country, this Israel, to show me one scrap of light. One move any move for freedom, for all the peoples who live here. One step no matter how slight in the direction of a better future. What makes this Hanukkah different from all others? Its the dark. Its the sense that this country beset by enemies, beset by itself has locked down every single door against the future, and sealed shut every last window against hope. ... This country has begun to feel like a lamp whose body is cracked and whose light seems all but spent. On these long nights, we can make out little but an occupation growing ever more permanent, and a democracy growing ever more temporary. So, yes, put me in the camp of those who

think that a few more bluntly outspoken friends of Israel in the U.S. cabinet would be a good thing. The legitimate philosophical criticism of Hagel concerns his stated preferences for finding a negotiated solution to Irans nuclear program, his willingness to engage Hamas to see if it can be moved from its extremism, his belief that the Pentagon budget must be cut, and his aversion to going to war again in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, because he has been to war and knows how much can go wrong. Whether you agree with these views or not, it would be nothing but healthy to have them included in the presidents national security debates. For instance, its

impossible for me to see how America can secure its interests in Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain and Lebanon without ending the U.S.-Iran cold war in the Middle East. Im skeptical that its possible. I think the Iranian regime needs hostility with America to justify its hold on power. But with sanctions really biting Iran, Id like to test and test again whether a diplomatic deal is possible
before any military strike. I think Hamas is dedicated to Israels destruction and has been a disaster for the Palestinians. But it is a deeply rooted organization. It controls Gaza. It is

not going away. I dont think America or Israel have anything to lose by engaging Hamas to see if a different future is possible. I think the world needs a strong America to maintain global stability. But the fiscal cliff tells you that our defense budget is coming down and we need to cut with a smart strategic plan . I think it would be useful to have a defense secretary who starts with that view and does not have to be bludgeoned into it . So, yes, Hagel is out of the
mainstream. That is exactly why his voice would be valuable right now. President Obama will still make all the final calls, but let him do so after having heard all the alternatives.

2NC Impact Calculus

Miscalc
Fraser, former PM of Australia, 7/4/11

(Malcom, Dealing with nuclear terror means plants and weapons, Taipei Times) Recent history is peppered with a litany of false alerts and near misses, each unforeseen, each a combination of technical and human failure. The growing potential for a nuclear disaster by cyber attack adds to the existential danger. We now know that just 100 relatively small Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons, less than onethousandth of the global nuclear arsenal, could lift millions of tonnes of dark smoke high into the atmosphere. There, it would abruptly cool and darken the planet, slashing rainfall and food production in successive years and thus causing worldwide starvation on a scale never before witnessed. This could result from the arsenals of any of the 10 currently nuclear-armed states, with the exception of North Korea. Intent, miscalculation, technical failure, cyber attack, or accident could cause the nuclear escalation of a conflict between India and Pakistan, in the Middle East (embroiling Israels nuclear weapons), or on the Korean Peninsula. Such outcomes are at least as plausible or likely if not more so than a massive earthquake and tsunami causing widespread damage to four Japanese nuclear reactors and their adjacent spent-fuel ponds.

Extinction Kemp 10
Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asias Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4 The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oilproducing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a

tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planets population.

A2 Impact Defense
Hagels categorically different from the alternatives Lobe, Washington bureau chief for the Inter Press Service, 5/9/2012
(Jim, Hagel Update: Crocker Endorses Hagel, Flournoy Signed PNAC Letter, http://www.lobelog.com/hagel-update-crocker-endorses-hagel-flournoy-signed-pnac-letter/) Meanwhile, outgoing Democratic Rep. Barney Frank denounced Hagel in categorical terms based on the comments he made about Amb. Hormels nomination back in 1998. As noted by other commentators, Frank had spoken out in favor of Hagel as a prospective Pentagon chief when his name first surfaced, and frankly, his opposition now seems somewhat bizarre, particularly given Hormels acceptance of Hagels apology. Andrew Sullivan is particularly good on this. But what also seems bizarre about Franks denunciation is his nearly three-year-old campaign, along with Ron Paul, to make serious cuts the degree contemplated by the sequester to the defense budget over the next ten years. I would imagine that few people would be better placed to sell such cuts politically than Hagel, a former Republican Senator and two-time Purple Heart recipient? Certainly, neither of the two candidates tipped as alternatives to Hagel Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter or former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy would have the political credibility to do the job, especially with a Republican-dominated House. The facts that neither one has actually served in the military and that both have long worked and, to some extent, depended for their professional advancement on the military-industrial complex, make it far less likely that they would be willing to seriously challenge that complexs interests. Hagel, on the other hand, has precisely the independence and political stature to do so. So the question is whether Frank considers an obnoxious 15-year-old statement for which Hagel has tendered an (accepted) apology more important than reducing the defense budget by a meaningful amount? Its very difficult to figure out unless 1) the Massachusetts congressman considers the apology insincere, or, as M.J. Rosenberg suggested to Phil Weiss, that he is doing the bidding of the Israel lobby which had tried (for the most part unsuccessfully) to mobilize LGBT groups against Hagels nomination.

Hagel prevents US intervention in Syria Phil Stewart, 1/7/13, Analysis: As Pentagon chief, Hagel likely to favor sizable Afghan drawdown,
www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/07/us-obama-nominations-hagel-idUSBRE9060WL20130107
A decorated Vietnam veteran acutely aware of the limits of military power, Chuck Hagel

is likely to favor a sizable drawdown in Afghanistan, more frugal spending at the Pentagon and extreme caution when contemplating the use of force in places like Iran or Syria. Obama's decision to nominate Hagel - a Republican former senator who split with his party to oppose the Iraq war - as U.S. defense secretary came despite a public lobbying campaign against his candidacy in recent weeks by a host of critics, some
of whom seized upon past remarks to argue he is anti-Israel. Hagel's supporters deny that, but are bracing for a tough confirmation battle in the Senate. Obama, as he announced the nomination, called Hagel the kind of leader U.S. forces deserve and pointed to his sacrifices in the Vietnam War, where he earned two Purple Hearts - the decoration for troops wounded in battle. "Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction," Obama said. "He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary." Hagel, who would be the first Vietnam veteran to take the job, would succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, 74, who is retiring from public life after a more than four-decade career in government that included leading the CIA during the covert raid to kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011. The blunt, 66-year-old Hagel will need to take over where Panetta leaves off, orchestrating a drawdown in U.S. forces in Afghanistan intended to bring the combat mission to a close by the end 2014. Hagel and Panetta were due to dine together on Monday night to discuss the transition. The Afghan drawdown's pace is an open question, as is the size of the residual force the United States will leave behind. Obama is again showing his readiness to veto the military brass, considering a lower range of options - keeping

between 3,000 and 9,000 troops in Afghanistan - than his top commander in Afghanistan proposed, one U.S. official told Reuters. Hagel has not yet commented on the matter, but Obama would likely not choose a Pentagon chief who fundamentally disagreed with him on that or other key issues. Hagel, who fought alongside his own brother and suffered shrapnel wounds in Vietnam and burns to his face, has made no secret of his reservations about what the military can accomplish in Afghanistan. "We can't impose our will. The Russians found that out in Afghanistan. We've been involved in two very costly wars that have taught us a lesson once again," Hagel told PBS's "Tavis Smiley" show last year. Unsurprisingly, he also is

extremely cautious about what could be done in Syria . "I don't think America wants to be in the lead on this," he told Foreign Policy magazine in May.

Escalates globallydraws in major powers

American Dream 11 American Dream, 6/28/11, Could We Actually See A War Between Syria And Turkey?, endoftheamericandream.com/archives/could-we-actually-see-a-war-between-syria-and-turkey In recent days, there have been persistent rumors that we could potentially be on the verge of a military conflict between Syria and Turkey. As impossible as such a thing may have seemed just a few months ago, it is now a very real possibility. Over
the past several months, we have seen the same kind of "pro-democracy" protests erupt in Syria that we have seen in many of the other countries in the Middle East. The Syrian government has no intention of being toppled by a bunch of protesters and has cracked down on these gatherings harshly. There are reports in the mainstream media that say that over 1,300 people have been killed and more than 10,000 people have been arrested since the protests began. Just like with Libya, the United States and the EU are strongly condemning the actions that the Syrian government has taken to break up these protests. The violence in Syria has

been particularly heavy in the northern sections of the country, and thousands upon thousands of refugees have poured across the border into neighboring Turkey. Syria has sent large numbers of troops to the border area to keep more citizens from escaping. Turkey has responded by reinforcing its own troops along the border. Tension between Turkey and Syria is now at an all-time high. So could we actually see a war between Syria and Turkey? A few months ago anyone who would have suggested such a thing would have been considered crazy. But the world is changing and the Middle East is a powder keg that is just waiting to explode. Since the Syrian government began cracking down on the protests, approximately 12,000 Syrians have flooded into Turkey. The
Turkish government is deeply concerned that Syria may try to strike these refugees while they are inside Turkish territory. Troop levels are

One wrong move could set off a firestorm. The government of Turkey is demanding that Syrian military forces retreat from the border area. The government of Syria says that Turkey is just being used to promote the goals of the U.S. and the EU. Syria also seems to be concerned that Turkey may attempt to take control of a bit of territory over the border in order to provide a "buffer zone" for refugees coming from Syria. What makes things even more controversial is that the area where many of the Syrian refugees are encamped
increasing on both sides of the border and tension is rising. actually used to belong to Syria. In fact, many of the maps currently in use inside Syria still show that the area belongs to Syria. War between Syria and Turkey has almost happened before. Back in the 1990s, the fact that the government of Syria was strongly supporting the Kurds pushed the two nations dangerously close to a military conflict. Today, the

border between Syria and Turkey is approximately 850 kilometers long. The military forces of both nations are massing along that border. One wrong move could set off a war. Right now, it almost sounds as though the U.S. government is preparing for a war to erupt
in the region. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently stated that the situation along the border with Turkey is "very worrisome" and that we could see "an escalation of conflict in the area". Not only that, but when you study what Clinton and Obama have been saying about Syria it sounds very, very similar to what they were saying about Libya before the airstrikes began. In a recent editorial entitled "There Is No Going Back in Syria", Clinton wrote the following.... Finally, the answer to the most important question of all -- what does this mean for Syria's future? -- is increasingly clear: There is no going back. Syrians have recognized the violence as a sign of weakness from a regime that rules by coercion, not consent. They have overcome their fears and have shaken the foundations of this authoritarian system. Syria is headed toward a new political order -- and the Syrian people should be the ones to shape it. They should insist on accountability, but resist any temptation to exact revenge or reprisals that might split the country, and instead join together to build a democratic, peaceful and tolerant Syria. Considering the answers to all these questions, the United States chooses to stand with the Syrian people and their universal rights. We condemn the Assad regime's disregard for the will of its citizens and Iran's insidious interference. "There is no going back"? "Syria is headed toward a new political order"? It almost sounds like they are already planning the transitional government. The EU has been using some tough language as well. A recent EU summit in Brussels issued a statement that declared that the EU "condemns in the strongest possible terms the ongoing repression and unacceptable and shocking violence the Syrian regime continues to apply against its own citizens. By choosing a path of repression instead of fulfilling its own promises on broad reforms, the regime is calling its legitimacy into question. Those responsible for crimes and violence against civilians shall be held accountable." If you take the word "Syrian" out of that statement and replace it with the word "Libyan" it would sound exactly like what they were saying about Gadhafi just a few months ago. The EU has hit Syria with new economic sanctions and it is also calling on the UN Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the crackdown by the Syrian government. It seems clear that the U.S. and the EU want to see "regime change" happen in Syria. The important thing to keep in mind in all of this is that Turkey

is a member of NATO. If anyone attacks Turkey, NATO has a duty to protect them. If Syria attacked Turkey or if it was made to appear that Syria had attacked Turkey, then NATO would have the justification it needs to go to war with Syria. If NATO goes to war with Syria, it is very doubtful that Iran would just sit by and watch it happen. Syria is a very close ally to Iran and the Iranian government would likely consider
an attack on their neighbor to be a fundamental threat to their nation. In fact, there are already reports in the international media that Iran has warned Turkey that they better not allow NATO to use their airbases to attack Syria. So if

it was NATO taking on Syria and Iran, who else in the Middle East would jump in? Would Russia and China sit by and do nothing while all of this was going on? Could a conflict in the Middle East be the thing that sets off World War III? Let's certainly hope not. More war in the Middle East would not be good for anyone. Unfortunately, tensions are rising to frightening levels throughout the region. Even if things between Syria and Turkey cool off, that doesn't mean that war won't
break out some place else. Riots and protests continue to sweep across the Middle East and the entire region has been arming for war for decades. Eventually something or someone is going to snap. When it does, let us just hope that World War III does not erupt as a result.

Warming
Hagel Nomination key to Obamas second term agenda its the defining moment Wright 12/26 [Robert Wright is a senior editor at The Atlantic and the author, most recently, of The Evolution of God, a New York Times bestseller and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, Chuck Hagel Gets His Second Wind, DEC 26 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/chuck-hagel-gets-hissecond-wind/266631/, mccarty] Hagel has now drawn support from liberals all across the foreign policy spectrum, from well left to center if not right of center: John
Judis of The New Republic, Josh Marshall of TPM, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, Joe Klein of Time, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, Jim Fallows of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic (who, like Friedman, makes a pro-Israel argument for Hagel), etc. Hagel has also been embraced by many on the non-neocon right, as evinced not only by the politicos mentioned above, but by pundits ranging from paleocons to a bunch of libertarians. A few progressives are skeptical of Hagel because of his past conservative positions on issues with little bearing on foreign policy, but by and large this fight is between some neocons (plus a few reliable supporters) and everybody else. So it's in Obama's hands. There's

a lot at stake

here -- not just whether McCarthyite smears will be allowed to succeed, but whether

Obama, in the wake of the Susan Rice episode, will now get a reputation as someone who caves whenever he faces resistance. Some people say Obama will abandon Hagel because he's too busy dealing with the fiscal-cliff negotiations. The truth is that if he doesn't stand by Hagel he'll have a weaker hand in the fiscal cliff negotiations , because no one will take his threats seriously . "Defining moment" is an overused term, but this is a defining moment for President Obama . I'll let Andrew Sullivan have the last word. Second term agenda key to solve Climate Change the impact is extinction Goldenberg 11/14 [Wednesday 14 November 2012, Obama vows to take personal charge of climate change in second term, Suzanne
Goldenberg, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/14/obama-climate-change-second-term, mccarty] Barack Obama claimed the first time to

climate change as a personal mission of his second term on Wednesday, offering for

take charge of the effort to find a bipartisan solution to the existential crisis. Obama, speaking in

the first White House press conference since his re-election, acknowledged his first term had made only limited progress on climate change. But

he promised to remain personally engaged in getting Republicans and Democrats to agree on a course of action. "So what I am going to be doing over the next several weeks, the next several months, is having a conversation a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers and elected officials to find out what more we can do to make short term progress," he said. "You can expect that you will hear more from me in the coming months and years about how
we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and help moves this agenda forward." The comments were Obama's most expansive in years on the dangers of climate change and his strategy for addressing the problem. It was also the first time Obama said he would take personal charge of climate change.

Supreme Impact Calculus

NW Turns Warming

Nuke war turns warming Carl Sagan, B.A., B.S., and PhD University of Chicago, former professor of biology and genetics at
Stanford and professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Harvard, former Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies at Cornell, two-time winner of the NASA medal for scientific achievement, Peabody award recipient, and Pulitzer prize winning author, 1984 (Foreign Affairs, Nuclear War and Climatic Catastrophe p. Lexis)
Recent estimates of the immediate deaths from blast, prompt radiation, and fires in a major exchange in which cities were targeted range from several hundred million to 1.1 billion people -the latter estimate is in a World Health Organization study in whch targets were assumed not to be restricted entirely to NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. n7 Serious injuries requiring immediate medical attention (which would be largely unavailabe) would be suffered by a comparably large number of people, perhaps an additional 1.1 billion. n8 Thus it is possible that

half the human population on the planet would be killed or seriously injured by the direct effects of the nuclear war. Social disruption; the unavailability of electriaity, fuel, transportation, food deliveries, communication and other civil services;
something approaching the absence of medical care; the decline in sanitation measures; rampant disease and severe psychiatric disorders would doubtless collectively claim a significant number of further victims. But a range of additional effects -- some unexpected, some inadequately treated in earlier studies, some uncovered only recently -- now make the picture much more somber still. Because of current limitations on missile accuracy, the destruction of missile silos, command and control facilities, and other hardened sites requires nuclear weapons of fairly high yield exploded as

High-yield groundbursts will vaporize, melt and pulverize the surface at the target area and propel large quantities of condensates and fine dust into the upper troposphere and stratosphere.The particles are chiefly entrained in the rising fireball; some ride up the stem of the mushroom cloud. Most military targets, however, are not very hard. The destruction of cities can be accomplished, as demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by lower-yield explosions less than a kilometer above the surface. Low-yield airbursts over cities or near forests will tend to produce massive fires, some of them over areas of 100,000 square kilometers or more. City fires generate enormous quantities of black oily smoke which rise at least into the upper part of the lower atmosphere, or troposhere. If
groundbursts or as low airbursts. firestorms occur, the smoke column rises vigorously, like the draft in a fireplace, and may carry some of the soot into the lower part of the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere. The smoke from forest and grassland fires would initially be restricted to the lower troposphere. The fission of the (generally plutonium) trigger in every thermonuclear weapon and the reactions in the (generally uranium-238) casing added as a fission yield "booster" produce a witch's brew of radioactive products, which are also entrained in the cloud. Each such product, or radioisotope, has a characteristic "half-life" (defined as the time to decay to half its original level of radioactivity). Most of the radioisotopes have very short half-lives and decay in hours to days. Particles injected into the stratosphere, mainly by high-yield explosions, fall out very slowly -- characteristically in about a year, by which time most of the fission products, even when concentrated, will have decayed to much safer levels. Particles injected into the troposphere by low-yield explosions and fires fall out more rapidly -- by gravitational settling, rainout, convention, and other

rapid fallout of tropospheric radioactive debris tends to produce larger doses of ionizing radiation than does the slower fallout of radioactive particles from the stratosphere. Nuclear explosions of more than one-megaton yield generate a radiant fireball that rises through the troposphere into the stratosphere. The fireballs from weapons with yields between 100 kilotons and one megaton will partially extend into the stratosphere. The high temperatures in the fireball chemically ignite some of the nitrogen in the air, producing oxides of nitrogen, which in turn chemically attack and destroy the gas ozone in the middle stratosphere. But ozone absorbs tlhe biologically dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. Thus the partial depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, or "ozonosphere," by high-yield nuclear explosions will increase the flux of solar ultraviolet radiation at the surface of the Earth (after the soot and dust have settled out).After a nuclear war in which thousands of high-yield weapons are detonated, the increase in biologically dangerous ultraviolet light might be several hundred percent. In the more dangerous shorter wavelengths, larger increases would occur. Nucleic acids and proteins, the fundamental molecules for life on Earth, are especially sensitive to ultraviolet radiation. Thus , an increase of the solar ultraviolet flux at the surface of the Earth is potentially dangerous for life. These four effects -- obscuring smoke in the troposphere, obscuring dust in the stratophere, the fallout of radioactive debris, and
processes -- before the radioactivity has decayed to moderately safe levels. Thus the partial destruction of the ozone layer -- constitute the four known principal adverse environmental consequences that occur after a nuclear war is "over." There may be others about which

The dust and, especially, the dark soot absorb ordinary visible light from the Sun, heating the atmosphere and cooling
we are still ignorant.

A2 No Escalation

Doesnt have to escalate to access the impact

Toon et al 7 (Owen B. Toon and Charles Bardeen, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space
Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder; Alan Robock, Luke Oman, and Stenchikov, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University; Richard P. Turco, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, NUCLEAR WAR: Consequences of Regional-Scale Nuclear Conflicts, Science, Vol. 315. no. 5816, 3-2-2007, p.1224-1225, HighWire)

The world may no longer face a serious threat of global nuclear warfare, but regional conflicts continue. Within this milieu, acquiring nuclear weapons has been considered a potent political, military, and social tool (1-3). National ownership of nuclear weapons offers perceived international status and insurance against aggression at a modest financial cost. Against this backdrop, we provide a quantitative assessment of the
potential for casualties in a regional-scale nuclear conflict, or a terrorist attack, and the associated environmental impacts (4, 5). Eight nations are known to have nuclear weapons. In addition, North Korea may have a small, but growing, arsenal. Iran appears to be seeking nuclear weapons capability, but it probably needs several years to obtain enough fissionable material. Of great concern, 32 other nations--including Brazil, Argentina, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan--have sufficient fissionable materials to produce weapons (1, 6). A de facto nuclear arms race has

In the Middle East, a nuclear confrontation between Israel and Iran would be fearful. Saudi Arabia and Egypt could also seek nuclear weapons to balance Iran and Israel.
emerged in Asia between China, India, and Pakistan, which could expand to include North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan (1). Nuclear arms programs in South America, notably in Brazil and Argentina, were ended by several treaties in the 1990s (6). We can hope that these agreements will hold and will serve as a model for other regions, despite Brazil's new, large uranium enrichment facilities. Nuclear arsenals containing 50 or more weapons of low yield [15 kilotons (kt), equivalent to the Hiroshima bomb] are relatively easy to build (1, 6). India and Pakistan, the smallest nuclear powers, probably have such arsenals, although no nuclear state has ever disclosed its inventory of warheads (7). Modern weapons are compact and lightweight and are readily transported (by car, truck, missile, plane, or boat) (8). The basic concepts of weapons design can be found on of the Internet.

There are many political, economic, and social factors that could trigger a regional-scale nuclear conflict, plus many scenarios for the conduct of the ensuing war. We assumed (4) that the densest population centers in each country--usually in megacities--are attacked. We did not evaluate specific military targets and related
The only serious obstacle to constructing a bomb is the limited availability of purified fissionable fuels. casualties. We considered a nuclear exchange involving 100 weapons of 15-kt yield each, that is, ~0.3% of the total number of existing weapons (4). India and Pakistan, for instance, have previously tested nuclear weapons and are now thought to have between 109 and 172 weapons of unknown yield (9). Fatalities were estimated by means of a standard population database for a number of countries that might be targeted in a regional conflict (see figure, above). For instance, such an exchange between India and Pakistan (10) could produce about 21 million

The direct effects of thermal radiation and nuclear blasts, as well as would cause most casualties. Extensive damage to infrastructure, contamination by long-lived radionuclides, and psychological trauma would likely result in the indefinite abandonment of large areas leading to severe economic and social repercussions. Fires ignited by nuclear bursts would release copious amounts of light-absorbing smoke into the upper atmosphere. If 100 small nuclear weapons were detonated within cities, they could generate 1 to 5 million tons of carbonaceous smoke particles (4),
fatalities--about half as many as occurred globally during World War II. gamma-ray and neutron radiation within the first few minutes of the blast, darkening the sky and affecting the atmosphere more than major volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo (1991) or Tambora (1815) (5). Carbonaceous smoke particles are transported by winds throughout the atmosphere but also induce circulations in response to solar heating. Simulations (5) predict that such radiative-dynamical interactions would loft and stabilize the smoke

Smoke emissions of 100 low-yield urban explosions in a regional nuclear conflict would generate substantial global-scale climate anomalies, although not as large as in previous "nuclear winter" scenarios for a full-scale war (11, 12). However, indirect effects on surface land temperatures, precipitation rates, and growing season lengths (see figure, below) would be likely to degrade agricultural productivity to an extent that historically has led to famines in Africa, India, and Japan after the 1783-1784 Laki eruption (13) or in the northeastern United States and Europe after the Tambora eruption of 1815 (5). Climatic anomalies could persist for a decade or more because of smoke stabilization, far longer than in previous nuclear winter calculations or after volcanic eruptions . Studies of the consequences of full-scale nuclear war show that indirect effects of the war could cause more casualties than direct ones, perhaps eliminating the majority of the world's population (11, 12). Indirect effects such as damage to transportation, energy, medical, political, and social infrastructure could be limited to the combatant nations in a regional war. However, climate anomalies would threaten the world outside the combat zone. The predicted smoke emissions and fatalities per kiloton of explosive yield are roughly 100 times those expected from estimates for full-scale nuclear attacks with high-yield weapons (4). Unfortunately,
aerosol, which would allow it to persist in the middle and upper atmosphere for a decade. the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has failed to prevent the expansion of nuclear states. A bipartisan group including two former U.S. secretaries of state, a former secretary of defense, and a former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee has recently pointed out that nuclear deterrence is no longer effective and may become dangerous (3). Terrorists, for

Mutually assured destruction may not function in a world with large numbers of nuclear states with widely varying political goals and philosophies. New nuclear states may not have well-developed safeguards and controls to prevent nuclear accidents or unauthorized launches. This bipartisan group detailed numerous steps to inhibit or prevent the spread of nuclear weapons (3). Its list, with which we concur, includes removing nuclear weapons
instance, are outside the bounds of deterrence strategies.

from alert status to reduce the danger of an accidental or unauthorized use of a nuclear weapon; reducing the size of nuclear forces in all states; eliminating tactical nuclear weapons; ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty worldwide; securing all stocks of weapons, weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium everywhere in the world; controlling uranium enrichment along with guaranteeing that uranium for nuclear power reactors could be obtained from controlled international reserves; safeguarding spent fuel from reactors producing electricity; halting the production of fissile material for weapons globally; phasing out the use of highly enriched uranium in civil commerce and research facilities and rendering the materials

the world has reached a crossroads. Having survived the threat of global nuclear war between the superpowers so far, the world is increasingly threatened by the prospects of regional nuclear war. The consequences of regional-scale nuclear conflicts are unexpectedly large, with the potential to become global catastrophes. The combination of nuclear proliferation, political instability, and urban demographics may constitute one of the greatest dangers to the stability of society since the dawn of humans.
safe; and resolving regional confrontations and conflicts that give rise to new nuclear powers. The analysis summarized here shows that

A2 Cant Solve War

Hagel solves---thats Vlahos---hes a check on conflict and will refuse aggressive military decisions---even if thats not true, hes infinitely better than Flournoy who will cause lashout Hagels key to restrain militarismno alternative would stand up to the DC consensus. Greenwald 13Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian, 1/5/13, Chuck Hagel and liberals: what are the
priorities? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/hagel-liberals-gays-israeldemocrats All of the Democratic alternatives to Hagel who have been seriously mentioned are nothing more than standard foreign policy technocrats , fully on-board with the DC consensus regarding war, militarism, Israel, Iran, and the Middle East. That's why Kristol, the Washington Post and other neocons were urging Obama to select them rather than Hagel: because those neocons know that, unlike Hagel, these Democratic technocrats pose no challenge whatsoever to their agenda of sustaining destructive US policy in the Middle East and commitment to endless war.