MSDI 2016

#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
1

Syria Diplomatic Capital Disad

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
2

Contents
Syria Diplomatic Capital Disad................................................................................1
1NC...................................................................................................................... 2
Uniqueness US-Russia deal now........................................................................5
Uniqueness A2 Russia says no / deal fails.........................................................7
A2 Thumpers........................................................................................................ 8
Link Extension - Generic....................................................................................... 9
Link Extension BIT / Treaties............................................................................11
Link Extension - SCS........................................................................................... 13
Link Extension - Taiwan...................................................................................... 14
Links (BMD or Taiwan QPQs) /Military presence...............................................15
Link Extension - ISS............................................................................................ 18
Links - Cybersecurity.......................................................................................... 20
IL Link Extension Diplomatic Capital finite.......................................................21
IL Extension - A2 Dip-cap theory wrong.............................................................23
Impact Extension Deal will work......................................................................24
Impact Extension Negotiations prevent escalation..........................................26
Impact Extension - US-Russia War......................................................................29
Impact Extension Turns Warming......................................................................31
Affirmative Answers.............................................................................................. 32
Thumpers........................................................................................................... 33
Link Defense No tradeof................................................................................. 34
IL Link Defense Not finite.................................................................................35
IL Defense Dip Cap Fails..................................................................................36
Impact Defense Agreement fails......................................................................37
Impact defense No US-Russia war...................................................................40

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
3

1NC
New diplomatic efforts between US and Russia to broker an end to
conflicts in Syria.
Reuters, July 3 2016 US, Russia Hold New Talks on Syria Posted 2016-07-03
18:01 GMT http://www.aina.org/news/20160703140109.htm
Russia and the United States have held fresh talks on ways of
cooperating to end the devastating five-year war in Syria as intensive Assad regime air strikes
killed at least 30 civilians in a town northeast of Damascus . Moscow and Washington are
seeking ways of brokering an end to a conflict that has killed more than 400,000 people,
(Reuters) --

according to the United Nations, and has sent a wave of refugees streaming towards Europe. In the latest
diplomatic contact between the two powers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State John
Kerry spoke by phone on Saturday (local time), Russia's foreign ministry said. "They

discussed ... the

possibility of Russian-American cooperation in the fight against terrorist
groups in Syria," the statement said. The statement did not identify the groups more closely. Russia,
which supports dictator Bashar al-Assad, is conducting airstrikes against various armed
groups that are opposed to his rule including Nusra Front - an ofshoot of al-Qaeda - and Islamic State, which the
Americans also oppose. But Washington says Moscow is also targeting moderate rebel
groups which are ideologically opposed to al-Qaeda and which are
supported by the United States. Fighting continued unabated in Syria with intensive strikes by the
Syrian air force on Jayrud, northeast of Damascus, which killed 30 civilians a day after the reported execution of a
Syrian air force pilot, a monitor and rebels said. They said the raids targeted a medical centre, a school and a
residential area in Jayrud, a heavily populated town that had been earlier spared heavy bombing after striking a
local truce with the army. It had become in that time a sanctuary for thousands of civilians fleeing heavy battles
nearby. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said scores were also injured in the aerial strikes as
well as by shelling from army posts in the area. A rebel spokesman said the strikes seemed to be in revenge for the
killing of the air force pilot who parachuted near the town after his plane crashed on Friday.

Plan distracts our finite diplomatic focus

Anderson and Grewell 2001
Terry L. Anderson is executive director of Political Economy Research Center / J. Bishop Grewell is a research
associate with PERC, The Greening of Foreign Policy, Chicago Journal of International Law Fall, 2001 2 Chi. J. Int'l L.
427 (Lexis-Nexis)

Foreign policy is a
bag of goods that includes issues from free trade to arms trading to human rights. Each new issue
in the bag weighs it down, lessening the focus on other issues and even
creating conflicts between issues. Increased environmental regulations
could cause countries to lessen their focus on international threats of
violence such as the sale of ballistic missiles or border conflicts between nations. As countries must watch over
Greater international environmental regulation can increase international tension.

more and more issues arising in the international policy arena, they will stretch the resources necessary to deal with
traditional international issues. As Schaefer (2000, 46) writes, Because

diplomatic currency is
finite . . . it is critically important that the United States focus its
diplomatic efforts on issues of paramount importance to the nation.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
4

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
5

US-Russian escalation danger from lack of cooperation

over Syria
David Axe, 6-19-16 U.S. and Russian Jets Clash Over Syria
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/19/u-s-and-russian-jets-clash-oversyria.html
American and Russian fighter jets had a tense showdown in the skies
above Syria as the Russians dropped bombs on U.S.-backed rebels . U.S. and
Russian fighter jets bloodlessly tangled in the air over Syria on June 16 as the American pilots tried and failed to

The aerial
close encounter underscores just how chaotic Syrias skies have become as
stop the Russians from bombing U.S.-backed rebels in southern Syria near the border with Jordan.

Russia and the U.S.-led coalition work at cross-purposes, each dropping bombs in support of separate factions in the

The near-clash also highlights the escalating risk of

American and Russian forces actually coming to blows over Syria,
potentially sparking a much wider conflict between the worlds leading
nuclear powers. The incident began when at least two twin-engine Su-34 bombers, some of Moscows
five-year-old civil war.

most advanced warplanes, struck what the Pentagon described as a border garrison housing around 200 U.S.supported rebels in At Tanf on the Syrian side of the Syria-Jordan border. The rebels had been conducting counter-

The
United States and its allies in Syria clearly did not expect the air strike.
The rebels in At Tanf are party to a shaky ceasefire agreement between
rebel forces and the regime of Syrian president Bashar Al Assadand, by
extension, the Russian military contingent backing Al Assad . The Los Angeles Times
ISIL operations in the area, the Pentagon stated on June 18, using an alternative acronym for ISIS.

reported that Russian planes had not previously been active over At Tanf. The Su-34s initial strike wounded, and perhaps killed,
some of the rebels in At Tanf. The U.S. Navy scrambled F/A-18 fighters to intercept the Russians, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The Navy has deployed two aircraft carriers to the region for strikes on ISIS. As the F/A-18s approached the Su-34s, officials with U.S.
Central Commandwhich oversees Americas wars in the Middle East and Afghanistanused a special hotline to contact their
Russian counterparts directing Russias own intervention in Syria. Arriving over At Tanf, the American pilots apparently spoke
directly to the Russian aviators. Pilots CAN communicate with one another on a communications channel set up to avoid air
accidents, Central Command confirmed in a statement to The Daily Beast. Washington and Moscow had established the hotline as
part of a so-called Safety of Flight Memorandum of Understanding that the two governments signed in October specifically in order
to avoid the kind of aerial confrontation that occurred over Syria last week. With the American jets flying close enough to visually
identify the Su-34s, the Russians departed the air space over At Tanf. Some time shortly thereafter, the F/A-18s ran low on fuel and
left the area in order to link up with an aerial tanker. Thats when the Su-34s reportedly returned to At Tanfand bombed the rebels
again. According to the Los Angeles Times, the second strike killed first-responders assisting survivors of the first bombing run.
The next day, senior U.S. Defense Department officials organized an extraordinary video conference with Russian counterparts to
discuss the incident. The meeting included Acting Assistant Secretary for International Security Afairs Elissa Slotkin and U.S. Marine
Corps Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, a strategic planner on the Pentagons joint staf, plus unspecified Russian Ministry of Defense
officials. Department

officials expressed strong concerns about the attack on

the coalition-supported counter-ISIL forces at the At Tanf garrison, which
included forces that are participants in the cessation of hostilities in Syria ,
and emphasized that those concerns would be addressed through ongoing diplomatic discussions on the cessation
of hostilities, Defense Department spokesman Peter Cook explained in a statement. "Regarding safety,
department officials conveyed that Russias continued strikes at At Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian
forces through proper channels of on-going coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns
for U.S. and coalition forces, Cook continued. Department officials requested Russian responses to address those
concerns. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov confirmed, via the countrys state-owned
media, that the teleconference took placebut he did not specify the results of the extraordinary meeting.
Russian warplanes had previously shadowed planes belonging to the U.S.-led coalition over Syria, but the coalition
always described the Russians behavior as professional. By contrast, in April Russian Su-24 bombers repeatedly
buzzed the U.S. Navy warship USS Donald Cook while the vessel sailed in international waters in the Black Sea.

Pentagon spokesman called the Russians actions in that incident

provocative and unprofessional. The Kremlin should be keenly aware of the potential for
unwantedand potentially destabilizingbloodshed that exists in the air over Syria. In November, a Russian Su-24
bomber flying a mission over Syria strayed over the Syria-Turkey border into Turkeyand a Turkish F-16 fighter

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
6

promptly shot it down. The two Russian crew members ejected. One flier died when Syrian rebels on the ground
opened fire on his parachute. Russian, Syrian, and Iranian forces launched a complex rescue mission that ultimately
retrieved the surviving pilot. One Russian marine died and a helicopter was destroyed during that operation. The
fallout from the November incident continues, with Russia and Turkey exchanging threatsand Moscow imposing

Its not clear

how close the U.S. fighters came to attacking and potentially shooting
down the Su-34s over At Tanf. Central Command declined to say what the rules of engagement are
economic sanctions on Ankarra including limits on some food imports to Russia from Turkey.

for American pilots flying over Syria. ROE are actually specifics that we dont get into, Central Command said in a
statement. The last time a U.S. military warplane shot down a Russianactually, Sovietplane was in 1953, over
Korea or China, depending on which historians you believe. The last time a Russian or Soviet warplane shot down an
American aircraft was in 1970, when a U.S. Army plane strayed over Armenia.

US-Russian nuclear war is the only nuclear war extinction

risk
Frumkin And Helfand 12 (Howard Frumkin, MD, DrPH, School of Public
Health, University of Washington; Ira Helfand, MD, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, A Prescription for Survival: Prevention of Nuclear War, American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, March, Science Direct)
The arsenals of India and Pakistan are of particular concern given their sizeapproximately 80 warheads
eachand the ongoing tension between these two states. Recent studies have shown that if only 100 of the weapons in their
combined arsenals were used in a war targeting population centers, 20 million people would die in the first few hours in
the firestorms that would engulf the great cities of the subcontinent, and vast areas would be contaminated with deadly radioactive
fallout. In addition, the firestorms would loft some 5 million tons of soot and dust into the upper atmosphere, dropping temperatures
across the globe an average of 1.25 C and reducing precipitation worldwide, with both these efects lasting up to a decade. [16]
and [17] There have been no detailed studies yet on the efect of this climate disruption on agriculture and human nutrition, but
there is reason to fear that it could cause a global famine of historic proportions. The increasing danger posed by
the proliferation of nuclear weapons has prompted a growing group of senior defense experts to call for urgent new steps to
eliminate nuclear weapons. In January of 2007 Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, William Perry, and Sam Nunn declared: Reassertion
of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be
perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage. The efort could have a profoundly positive impact on the

Still, it is not the arsenals of these new nuclear powers that

pose the greatest danger. Ninety-five percent of the nuclear weapons in the world
today remain in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia. Even under the New START Treaty ,
security of future generations.18

they are each allowed to keep 1550 deployed strategic nuclear weapons, thousands of nondeployed weapons, and all of their

if only 300 of the weapons in the Russian arsenal

were targeted at U.S. cities, 70 to 100 million people would die. In addition, the attack
would destroy the communications and transportation networks and the rest of the social infrastructure on
which modern societies depend. Over the following months, the majority of the population not killed in the initial
attack would die of starvation, exposure, and disease. The U.S. counterattack on Russia would cause the
same level of devastation there.19 As in the case of a regional nuclear war in South Asia, the direct efects of this
nonstrategic warheads. A 2002 study showed that

large-scale nuclear war would be only a small part of the picture. If the full strategic arsenal allowed under New START were drawn

resulting firestorms in the U.S. and Russia would loft more than150
million tons of debris into the upper atmosphere . In a matter of days, temperatures
would plummet across the globe by an average of 8 C. In the interior regions of North America and Eurasia,
temperatures would fall as much as 30 C. In the temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere
there would not be a single day free of frost for 3 years . [20] and [21] Agriculture would
stop, and ecosystems would collapse. The vast majority of the human race would starve to death, and it is
possible that homo sapiens could become extinct.
into the conflict, the

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
7

Uniqueness US-Russia deal now

US and Russia negotiating over diplomatic solutions to the crisis in
Syria
Eric DuVall Updated July 2, 2016 at 4:20 PM U.S., Russia discuss cooperation
against Islamic State in Syriahttp://www.upi.com/Top_News/WorldNews/2016/07/02/US-Russia-discuss-cooperation-against-Islamic-State-inSyria/9431467490353/
WASHINGTON, July 2 (UPI) -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian
counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke by phone Saturday to
discuss potentially working together against the Islamic State in Syria.
State-sponsored TASS news agency reported the phone call, initiated by Kerry,
came after the Americans floated a proposal to the Russians to work in
conjunction against the Islamic State while halting bombing against U.S.backed rebel forces fighting against the Russian-backed regime of Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad. "The discussion was on the ways of settling the
Syrian conflict, including the possibilities of the Russian-U.S. cooperation
in the fight against terrorist groups active in Syria," a spokesman for the
Russian Foreign Ministry said. A Russian bombing campaign in Syria was said to
officially only target Islamic State terrorist fighters, but the United States has
accused the Russians of using the terror threat as cover to go after rebel forces
aligned against Assad in the nation's long-running civil war.

US and Russia negotiating to support cease fire and solve conflict

regarding air space and coordination in Syria.
Sputnik, July 4 2016 US Works With Russia to Restore Syrian Ceasefire, Launch
Reconciliation AFP 2016/ USMC
17:35 04.07.2016(updated 17:51 04.07.2016) Get short URL
http://sputniknews.com/world/20160704/1042420129/usa-obama-russia-syria.html
MOSCOW (Sputnik) The United States continues working with Russia to relaunch the cessation of hostilities in Syria and get political reconciliation
underway, US Ambassador to Russia John Teft said Monday. "We are working
together trying to find a way to get the cessation of hostilities in Syria
back on track and to get the process of political accommodation, political
reconciliation going again," Teft told RIA Novosti. US Secretary of State John
Kerry is on the phone regularly with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to
revive the ceasefire and start negotiations, the US diplomat stressed, saying
"we are trying to do everything we can to support that process." The
diplomat also reiterated US President Barack Obamas intent to see the complete
fulfillment of the Minsk agreements on Ukrainian reconciliation before he leaves
office at the start of next year.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
8

US diplomatic efforts focusing on coordinating information sharing

and conflict resolution in Syria to prevent US-Russian escalation.
Nandini Krishnamoorthy July 1 2016 Syria conflict: US proposes cooperation
with Russia to target terrorist groups
the US wants Russia to stop Assad bombing the rebels. The
Obama administration is looking for a joint approach with Russia to plan
its air strikes against the terrorist groups in Syria in exchange for Moscow
putting an end to attacking US-backed rebels. The US is reported to have
proposed the plan earlier this week pressing Russia to stop Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad from bombing the moderate rebels and civilians
in the country, and to coordinate air strikes between the US and Russia in
Under the proposal,

targeting the al-Nusra Front and Islamic State (Isis). n Syria's multi-sided war, Assad and his ally are targeting the
main opposition groups, who are moderate rebels backed by the US, and both the sides are fighting to get rid of
militants backed by al-Qaeda and the Isis. However, many US officials and critics feel that Russia may not agree to

this "enhanced information sharing"

does not include joint military planning or coordination with US air strikes but it would give scope for
cooperation to target the militant groups. It is also meant to ensure that
Russian and American planes do not run into each other in Syrian airspace .
America's proposal. According to The Washington Post,

US and Russia negotiating compromise solution to threats facing us

in Syria.
RT News, July 4 2016 international news channel launched in December 2005,
RT television network now consists of three round-the-clock news channels
broadcasting in English, Arabic and SpanishPublished time: 4 Jul, 2016 21:14
Partnership of equals: Putin sends Independence Day telegram to Obama
https://www.rt.com/news/349485-obama-putin-independence-day/
Putin sent out a personal commemorative message to his
American counterpart as the US celebrates Independence Day , urging the two
countries to mend ties. The history of US-Russian relations proves that when we
act as equal partners and respect each others legitimate interests, we
can solve the most complicated international problems for the benefit of the both
nations and humanity as a whole, wrote Putin in his holiday missive . The President said he was
sure that the positive experience of the past would help to set the
dialogue between Russia and the United States back on a constructive
track thus enabling both countries to counter more effectively the threats
and challenges facing the international community today, continued the statement, published by the
Russian President Vladimir

Kremlin. Over the past eight years of Obamas administration the two leaders have clashed repeatedly over NATOs
missile defense system in Europe, US policy in the Middle East, and most notably, Ukraine. Their awkward
handshakes and stilted poses during international summits have been endlessly analyzed by media observers. But
the seemingly innocuous text comes in the context of a potential thaw. Over the past year, the two countries have
made a public efort to put an end to the bloody struggle in Syria, despite Moscow endorsing the leadership of
President Bashar Assad, and Washington insisting that he must be replaced if the country is to transition to peace.

last
Monday the White House decided to go all in. A message sent to Russian
diplomats proposed closer collaboration between the two countries both of
Following a virtual breakdown of the ceasefire agreed and monitored by the two sides in February,

which have significant military resources in Syria or on its borders in eliminating Islamic radicals, such as Al-Nusra
and Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). As a corollary of the countries synchronizing their military strategies,

the

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
9

US is hoping for greater immunity for designated moderate rebels,

which it says have been bombed by Assad and Russia. Although Vladimir Putin
previously made suggestions that the US and Russia should operate side-by-side in Syria, there has not yet been a
public response to the latest proposal.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
10

Uniqueness A2 Russia says no / deal fails

Vestnik, July 2 2016 Russia to continue coordination with US in Syria Jul 4 - 5:00
pm http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/Russia-to-continue-coordination-with-US-inSyria.html
Russia will continue military coordination with the United States in Syria
with an aim to disengage the Syrian opposition from terrorists, Russian
Foreign MinisterSergey Lavrov said. "We will continue developing this
coordination in hope of achieving concrete results," TASS cited the Russian
foreign minister as saying. "We are concerned that this disengagement
between the opposition and terrorists has not taken place everywhere,
including near Aleppo," Lavrov added.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
11

A2 Thumpers
Syria compromise is our top priority defeat of the Islamic state and
resolution of the Syrian civil war is a primary objective.
Geopolitical Diary JULY 1, 2016 | 02:16 GMT A Grand Bargain on Syria
https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/grand-bargain-syria
The U.S. government appears to have struck a new and groundbreaking
agreement on closer cooperation with Russia in Syria. The deal, reported by the
Washington Post on Thursday, was allegedly made June 27 amid other major U.S. diplomatic eforts to contain the
crisis in Syria after peace talks failed. Some sources even indicated that Washington facilitated the recent moves to
normalize ties between Russia and Turkey, a fraught relationship that has been a source of instability for over a
year. This proposal would reportedly see U.S. forces share information on targets with Russian forces and launch a
joint bombing campaign against Jabhat al-Nusra in exchange for an end to Russian bombings of moderate rebel

this would be one of the biggest shifts in strategy since the

start of the Syrian civil war. The risks of a wider clash with Russia would significantly diminish, and
forces. If confirmed,

the rebel movement would be weakened. Most important, Moscow would have an opening to both secure its
interests in Syria and break its geopolitical isolation.

Washington's top priority in Syria has

always been to defeat the Islamic State this is why the U.S.-led coalition was formed in 2014. That
objective remains the primary focus. The U.S. government, however, sees ending the Syrian civil war itself as crucial to achieving
this goal and maintaining stability. And Washington sees the government of Syrian President Bashar al Assad as the root of Syria's
problems and of the war that has fostered extremism. This was the motivation behind backing more moderate rebel forces: to
coerce the Syrian government and its Russian backers to accept a transition that maintains the Syrian state institutions and ends
most fighting. For several months, Washington has pushed negotiations in Geneva, yielding numerous cease-fires. The United
States also warned the Syrian government to negotiate seriously, threatening a "Plan B" of increased weapons supplies to rebel
forces if the negotiations failed. The talks did eventually fail, but with the Russians ramping up their military eforts and targeting of
U.S.-backed rebel forces, the United States hesitated to go to Plan B. It feared stymying future peace eforts and risking a direct
clash with Russia. The June 27 proposal is Washington's attempt to redraw the parameters in Syria and avoid further escalation.
The proposal ofers several concessions to Russia. The first is to actively cooperate with the Russian military, even sharing data on
targeting. Moscow has clamored for this measure for some time because it would break Russia's isolation and force a conversation
with Washington. U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter reportedly opposed the proposal because of this concession, fearing a
gradual weakening of the U.S. and allied pressure on Russia over events in Ukraine andelsewhere. The agreement also ofers to set
up a joint and expanded bombing campaign by U.S. and Russian forces against Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's branch in Syria, which is
a principal fighting force in the wider rebellion. This, too, is a major concession to the Russians, who have been pushing the United
States hard on the fact that extremist elements are a significant part of the rebel landscape. In return, the United States has asked
Russia to stop bombing moderate rebel forces and to pressure the Syrian government to do the same. Unwilling to trust the Russians
with the exact locations of the rebels it supports, the United States has proposed setting up specific geographic non-bombing zones
where moderate rebels are active. Moscow is likely to be pleased with the U.S. proposal, although much depends on the zones
chosen for exemption from bombing. Russia and its loyalist allies will indeed need to curtail their targeting of more moderate rebel
factions. This will be balanced out, however, as they step up eforts against Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadist groups, some of the
strongest components of the rebel movement. This proposal is a golden opportunity for Russia to carry out its divide-and-conquer
strategy, defeating rebel groups piecemeal. The defeat of the jihadists would mean a strengthened loyalist position relative to the
remaining rebels. From such a position, the Syrian government would have little reason to make concessions to its opponents. In
addition to these built-in advantages, the plan also presents numerous loopholes for Russia to exploit. While Russia is likely to cease
bombing in the designated zones, there is no guarantee that loyalist forces will halt their strikes; occasional violations can be
expected. Furthermore, Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadist groups are so deeply embedded among other rebel groups that it will be
difficult to find many areas where non-bombing zones can be set up without a jihadist presence. Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadist
groups have proved to be the most efective anti-al Assad forces on the battlefield. When they have been asked to move away from
other rebel partners, those partners have quickly crumbled and requested that they return. Without the help of jihadist groups, the
so-called moderate opposition will sustain heavy losses. For this reason, it will be difficult for them to disentangle themselves from
the jihadists. Finally, there is no assurance that Jabhat al-Nusra will not simply move its forces into the designated zones to avoid the
bombing. The pitfalls in the proposal reportedly divided the White House and necessitated weeks of deliberation. Nevertheless, the
shift in strategy is in line with the Obama administration's strategy. Washington's focus has been on the Islamic State, and it has
worked to deconflict with the Russians and end the Syrian civil war as part of the overall objective of maintaining stability in Syria.
From the administration's point of view, although the overthrow of al Assad is desirable, it is not worth the risk of a wider conflict
with Russia. Such a clash would only distract from eforts to defeat the Islamic State. But the U.S. move will anger regional allies
that have been preparing to increase support for the rebel forces. The Gulf states, principally Saudi Arabia and Qatar, will likely see
the move as an outright betrayal. Already suspicious of U.S. motives, the Saudis and Qataris may abandon their recent combined
efort with Washington in Syria to provide their own weaponry independently, potentially extending to delivery of man-portable air
defense systems. In spite of its support for rebel groups, Turkey may be more willing to accommodate the shift given its desire to
repair links with Russia and primary focus on containing the Kurdish People's Protection Units. If the reports of the proposal prove to

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
12

With closer U.S.-Russia

coordination and a weakened rebel movement, the chances of significant
concessions by Russia and the Syrian government will diminish. But by
eliminating the risk of escalation with Russia, the deal would give
Washington greater latitude in reaching its primary goal: the defeat of the
Islamic State.
be accurate, the strategic landscape in Syria is set to shift significantly.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
13

Link Extension - Generic

Engagement with China requires serious diplomatic resources and
attention (esp. QPQ)
Thomas J. Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific
Afairs Statement Before the U.S. - China Economic and Security Review
Commission Washington, DC March 18, 2008 http://20012009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/03/102327.htm
the United States is not attempting to contain or
counter Chinas growing influence, but rather to shape the choices that
Chinese leaders make about how to use their growing power. In sharp contrast with the Cold War
I should say at the outset that

containment policy we applied to the Soviet Union, we are actively encouraging China to play a greater role in
international diplomacy and in the international economic architecture, albeit for purposes that buttress
international development and stability and, therefore, coincide with the overall interests of both the United States
and, we believe, China itself. Accusations by hard-line nationalists in China that the U.S. is somehow trying to
contain its rise simply do not hold up to scrutiny; since 1978 no country has done more than the U.S. to encourage
Chinas development and more active participation in global political institutions. The diferences between today
and the Cold War are not only recognized in Washington, DC, but by many in Beijing as well. The prevailing foreign
policy view in China at present acknowledges that U.S. global influence, and even its active presence in Chinas
backyard in East Asia, has provided the stable environment in which China has been able to mount its phenomenal
and ongoing economic transformation. Without U.S. leadership and the stability it provides in various regions of the
world, it would be difficult for China to secure the imported resources and overseas markets it needs to continue its
rapid economic development. Chinese elites also understand that U.S.-led trade liberalization has provided China
reliable markets for its exports and a rich source of foreign direct investment. Chinas overall strategy toward the
outside world starts with its desire to produce sustained economic growth and to maintain social and political
stability at home. Related goals include countering perceived challenges to Chinas national security and territorial

All of its instruments of policy

economic, political, military and diplomatic are employed to serve the
aforementioned objectives and to meet the rising expectations of a population that has recently
witnessed unprecedented levels of both economic growth and contact with the outside world. If Beijing
believes that the best way to pursue these interests and to enhance its
position in the world is through positive diplomacy and economic
engagement, this strategy is greatly preferable to a world in which China pursues its goals through coercion
and brute force. Evolving Mechanisms for Diplomatic Engagement A strong U.S. presence in Asia, backed
by regional alliances and security partnerships, combined with a robust policy of diplomatic
engagement, will help maximize the chance that China will make the right
choices moving forward. In addition to maintaining strong political and security relationships in the
integrity and enhancing Chinas prestige on the international stage.

region, we engage the Chinese government in over fifty dialogues, fora and working groups spanning subjects from

These are meetings not just

between our senior cabinet officials, diplomats and military officers, but
also between working-level technical experts, and they facilitate frank
exchanges and discussions of our respective policies.
aviation to counterterrorism to food safety to non-proliferation.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
14

Engagement costs diplomatic capital

Aaron L.Friedberg 2011 He is a Professor of Politics and International Afairs at
Princeton University, Future Tense, New Republic, May 5,
https://newrepublic.com/article/87879/united-states-china-diplomacy-taiwan
In
contrast to the cold war strategy of containment, Americas strategy for
dealing with China has never been codified in official documents or given a
name. But over the past two decades, roughly the same strategy has been
employed by both Republicans (Bush 41 and Bush 43) and Democrats (Clinton and now Obama). Broadly
speaking, the aim has been to discourage Beijing from seeking to
challenge Americas interests and those of our allies in Asia , while at the same time nudging
This backdrop of great power rivalry and sharp ideological disagreement helps to explain U.S. policies toward China and Chinese policies toward the United States.

China toward democracy. To accomplish these ends, American policymakers have employed a dual approach. On the one hand, they have sought extensive economic and diplomatic
engagement with China. The hope has been that these interactions will tame China by giving it a stake in the existing international orderand, over the long run, encourage the
growth of a middle class and the spread of liberal values, thereby pushing the country gently and indirectly down the path toward democracy. At the same time, Washington has worked
to preserve a balance of power in East Asia that is favorable to its interests and those of its allies. This began in earnest following the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1995-1996, when Beijing
test-fired missiles in an attempt to influence the outcome of Taiwanese elections, and the Clinton administration dispatched two aircraft carriers in response. Since then, the United
States has taken steps to strengthen its military capabilities in the region, while solidifying bonds with partners old (South Korea, Japan, Australia) and new (India). Chinas strategy for
dealing with the United States developed somewhat more deliberately. In the wake of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Chinas leaders recognized that the
previous rationale for cooperation with the United States no longer applied. They feared that, having toppled one communist giant, the Americans would turn their attention to the other.
Surveying the scene in 1991, Deng Xiaoping circulated a brief memo to his top party colleagues. The essential message of the so-called 24 Character Strategy was that China had little
choice but to hide its capabilities and bide its time. That meant avoiding confrontation with other states, especially the United States, while working to build up all aspects of its power
economic, military, technological, and political. Recently, Chinese foreign policy has taken on a more assertive tone; but its overall aims have not changed much in two decades. Above
all, the current regime wants to preserve indefinitely the Chinese Communist Partys grip on political power; it seeks, in efect, to make the world safe for continued CCP rule. In part for
this reason, Chinas leaders want to restore their country to its place as the preponderant regional power. This requires reducing the influence of the United States in East Asia,
constricting its presence, and perhaps eventually extruding it from the region. Chinese officials allude to this objective with varying degrees of subtlety. When I worked in the Bush
administration from 2003 to 2005, I had several conversations with Chinese diplomats in which they said, almost in passing, that, while the United States might be a Pacific power, it
was, of course, not an Asian power. Rather more bluntly, in 2007, a Chinese admiral reportedly told his American counterpart that their two countries should divide the Pacific between
them, with China taking everything west of Hawaii. Chinas recent obstreperousness may yet backfire, frightening the United States and its Asian partners into doing more to balance
against its growing power. For now, however, the alarming news is that Chinas strategy seems to be working much better than Americas. Washington has made basically no progress in
pushing China toward democracy, nor has it succeeded in persuading Beijing to abandon ambitionslike controlling the entire South China Seathat threaten the interests of Americas
allies. For its part, Chinas Communist Party remains firmly in command. Meanwhile, as Chinas economy and military have matured, it has begun to mount a serious challenge to
Americas position in Asia. Beijing has now become the most important trading partner for the advanced industrial nations of Northeast Asia and Australia, as well the comparatively poor
countries on its frontiers. It is a leading investor in infrastructure development and resource extraction across the region. These thickening commercial ties have already begun to
complicate calculations of national interest in various capitals. Chinas rapid economic growth has also enabled a substantial expansion in military spending. And Beijings buildup has
begun to yield impressive results. As of the early 1990s, the Pacific was, in essence, a U.S. lake. Today, the balance of military power is much less clearly in Americas favor, and, in
certain respects, it has started to tilt toward China. While its arsenal remains comparatively small, Beijings ongoing deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles will give it a more
secure second-strike nuclear capability. Washingtons threat to use nuclear weapons, if necessary, to counter Chinese aggression against its allies is therefore dwindling toward the
vanishing point. As happened during the cold war, once the Soviets achieved a form of nuclear parity, the burden of deterrence will fall increasingly on the conventional forces of the
United States and its allies. And, here, the trends are, if anything, more worrisome. Since the mid-1990s, China has been investing heavily in so-called anti-access capabilities to deter
or defeat American eforts to project power into East Asia. Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) strategists appear to believe that, with enough highly accurate, conventionally armed ballistic
and cruise missiles, they could, in the event of a confrontation, deny U.S. forces the use of their regional air and naval bases and either sink or push back the aircraft carriers that are the
other principal platform for Americas long-range power projection. If the PLA also develops a large and capable submarine force, and the ability to disable enemy satellites and computer
networks, its generals may someday be able to convince themselves that, should push come to shove, they can knock the United States out of a war in the Western Pacific. Such
scenarios may seem far-fetched, and in the normal course of events they would be. But a visibly deteriorating balance of military power could weaken deterrence and increase the risk of
conflict. If Washington seems to be losing the ability to militarily uphold its alliance commitments, those Asian nations that now look to the United States as the ultimate guarantor of
their security will have no choice but to reassess their current alignments. None of them want to live in a region dominated by China, but neither do they want to risk opposing it and

Obama seemed determined to adjust the proportions of the dual strategy he had inherited.
Initially, he emphasized engagement and softpedaled efforts to check
Chinese power. But at just the moment that American policymakers were
reaching out to further engage China, their Chinese counterparts were
moving in the opposite direction. In the past 18 months, the president and
his advisers have responded, appropriately, by reversing course . Instead of
playing up engagement, they have been placing increasing emphasis on
balancing Chinas regional power. For example, the presidents November 2010 swing through Asia was notable for the fact that it
included stops in New Delhi, Seoul, Tokyo, and Jakarta, but not Beijing. This is all to the good, but it is not enough. The United States cannot and should not
give up on engagement. However, our leaders need to abandon the diplomatic happy talk that has for too long distorted public
discussion of U.S.-China relations. Washington must be more candid in acknowledging the
limits of what engagement has achieved and more forthright in explaining the challenge a fast-rising but still authoritarian
China poses to our interests and those of our allies. The steps that need to be taken in response developing and
then being left alone to face its wrath. When he first took office, Barack

deploying the kinds of military capabilities necessary to counter Chinas anti-access strategy; working more closely with friends and allies, even in the face of objections from Beijing

will all come with steep costs, in terms of dollars and diplomatic capital. At a moment when the
United States is fighting two-and-a-half wars, and trying to dig its way out from under a massive pile of debt, the resources and resolve necessary to deal with a seemingly distant
danger are going to be hard to come by. This makes it all the more important that our leaders explain clearly that we are facing a difficult long-term geopolitical struggle with China, one
that cannot be ignored or wished away.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
15

Link Extension BIT / Treaties

Treaty ratification and negotiation requires substantial diplomatic
focus and attention
Meyer, 09
(Timothy, Public Policy and Nuclear Threats Fellow, Institute for Global Conflict and
Cooperation and the National Science Foundation; Ph.D., Jurisprudence and Social
Policy, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., University of California, Berkeley
School of Law, Fordham University School of Law Fordham International Law Journal,
32 Fordham Int'l L.J. 888, February 2009, SOFT LAW AS DELEGATION, Lexis)
Binding international agreements (i.e., treaties) often exacerbate the difficulties
with renegotiation because unless a treaty provides otherwise, every party to a treaty
exercises a veto over amendments. ... Flexibility as a Device to Promote Agreement Other
...

scholars have suggested that a variety of flexibility-enhancing devices are available to states to promote agreement
in situations in which the parties might otherwise be unable to reach an accord. ... Because the rule prohibiting the
transfer of X is not directly binding, perceptions about the relationship between the two rules may vary, which has
the efect of reducing the reputational sanction for violating the soft law rule (because not all states will see a
violation of the one as a violation of the other). ... Because states are likely to have ex ante expectations about who

the benefits to permitting

those states to update legal rules over time outweighs the costs in terms
of an opportunistic updating of such rules, as well as opportunistic violations of the soft
the first movers will be, establishing a soft law regime recognizes that

regime that could have been deterred by a hard regime. ... From an evolutionary standpoint, however, in which

flexibility can enhance global welfare

over time, holding expected levels of compliance constant, by permitting
adjustment of the legal rules and expectations. ... However, the cost to the United States of
rules change over time to account for new conditions,

trade sanctions from a minor trading partner may be small compared with the benefits of such a violation because of the relative
importance of the trading relationship to each state. ... The U.S. sought to make India an exception to the NSG rules that transfers
can only be made to non-nuclear weapons states that have accepted safeguards on all of their nuclear operations (India, like the
nuclear weapons states, would not put safeguards on its military nuclear operations). ... First, as an export control regime, PSI's
purpose is to enforce international nonproliferation obligations by making it more difficult to acquire sensitive technology, material,
and equipment. ... This increase in the supply of counterproliferation is a public good that in some measure ofsets the cost to other
states of accepting their less-preferred counterproliferation rules.

BIT requires diplomatic capital - negotiating a bilateral investment

treaty with China is hugely complicated; over 17 rounds of
negotiations have already happened and extensive complaints and
issues remain.
Peterson Institute for International Economics. 2015 TOWARD A US-CHINA
INVESTMENT TREATY
https://piie.com/publications/briefings/piieb15-1.pdf
The United States and China are the two largest economies in the world .
They are among the worlds largest trading nations, and they serve as both the destination and the source of the
worlds largest fl ows of foreign direct investment (FDI). Both countries participate in a range of regional economic
arrangements on trade and investment in the Asia-Pacifi c region and other parts of the world. Yet when it comes
to direct investment in each others economies, China and the United States are among the worlds
underperformers. That situation could change with the successful conclusion of the negotiation of a US-China
bilateral investment treaty (BIT). This PIIE Briefi ng examines

prospects for a US-China BIT

now that

negotiations have revived. Launched in 2008 during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Hu Jintao, the
talks faltered after the 2008 election of President Barack Obama, whose economic team had other economic
priorities upon taking offi ce at the height of the Great Recession. The Obama administration spent its fi rst years

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
16

holding internal debates about trade deals that it had inherited.1 In the same period, they put the US-China BIT
talks on hold while the United States revised the terms of what an ideal investment treaty should look like, a
document known as the US model BIT.

The internal US government review of

investment issues was not completed until 2012. US-China BIT
negotiations resumed in 2013; the 17th round of negotiations was held in
December 2014. The essays in this study focus specifically on recent developments that could inform and
possibly set precedents for the investment pact. They also examine issues that pose
challenges to a successful negotiation. Given the large economic footprint of both economies,
the size of cross-border investment in each others markets is surprisingly small. US FDI in China in 2012, valued
around $54 billion, represented only about 1.2 percent of the $2.2 trillion of total FDI in China.2 And China
accounted for an even smaller share of FDI in the United States.3 Removing discriminatory investment restrictions
via a US-China BIT could yield a signifi - cant payof, not simply as a means of encouraging two-way investment

getting agreement on
such a pact will require reconciling differences regarding the scope and
coverage of the prospective pact and addressing the extensive complaints
that both have about FDI policies in the others market.
but also as a means of helping resolve investment-related disputes.4 But

BIT has been in negotiations for years; and will still take serious
diplomatic effort to resolve remaining challenges.
Shannon Tiezzi March 24, 2016 Are China and the US Close to Sealing an
Investment Treaty?
A former Chinese commerce minister says the agreement is basically done.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/are-china-and-the-us-close-to-sealing-aninvestment-treaty/
China and the United States are almost finished with negotiations over a key investment treaty, former Chinese
Commerce Minister Chen Deming said on Wednesday. If successfully concluded, the bilateral investment treaty

A BIT between
China and the United States has been in the works for eight years. In
2013, the two sides announced that they were finally ready to enter
substantive BIT negotiations after nine rounds of talks on technical
issues. Now, according to Chen, the two sides are almost finished. Xinhua cited the former commerce

(BIT) could substantially increase Chinese and U.S. investments in each others markets.

minister, who was speaking at the Boao Forum for Asia, as saying that most of the key issues in BIT negotiations
have been resolved. Chen mentioned that both sides have agreed, for example, to handle disputes between the
host country and investors via third-party arbitration at the World Bank. Enjoying this article? Click here to
subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month. Chens announcement came as something of a surprise, because the BIT
has largely faded from the spotlight when it comes to the U.S.-China relationship. Overshadowed by the South
China Sea and cyber issues, the BIT didnt even make it into the White Houses main fact sheet on outcomes of
President Xi Jinpings visit to the United States in September. A separate fact sheet specifically on economic
relations saw Presidents Obama and Xi reaffirm as a top economic priority the negotiation of a high standard BIT.
But there were no targets set for completing the agreement, only a promise to intensify the negotiations and to
work expeditiously to conclude the negotiation of a mutually beneficial treaty. That was a disappointment to
optimists who had theorized the treaty could be finalized in time for Xis big visit. According to the U.S.-China
Business Council, U.S. foreign direct investment in China has remained fairly steady, at between $2.7 and $4.1
billion per year, since 2008. Chinese investment in the United States, however, has skyrocketed in the same period
going from less than $1 billion in 2008 to $11.9 billion in 2014 (down from a high of $14 billion in 2013). As these
numbers indicate, the objectives of both sides are diferent. U.S. firms hope that a successful BIT could open up
what has become a stagnant investment environment in China. Chinese firms which are in the midst of drastically
expanding their investments in America seek a streamlined investment process that would eliminate fears of bias
and excess scrutiny from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). Currently, United States (and
other foreign firms) are blocked from investing in a laundry list of industries in China, from genetically-modified
agricultural products and domestic parcel delivery services to news outlets, publishing houses, and television
stations. Other sectors are restricted and may require foreign investment to come as part of a Chinese majorityowned joint venture. Even the Shanghai Free Trade Zone, which is supposed to be an experimental zone with fewer
restrictions than the country at large, comes with a lengthy negative list of of-limits industries, including

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
17

automobile manufacturing, telecommunications, and banks. And to many business leaders, it seems China is
getting less not more receptive to foreign investment; witness, for example, a new rule that bans any company
with foreign investment from publishing content online. According to the U.S.-China Business Councils 2015 China
Business Environment Survey, China has made little progress on the issue over the past few years, despite
repeated commitments to opening its markets. Even in sectors where foreign investment is allowed, USCBC also
found that 80 percent of American companies believe their Chinese competitors receive preferential treatment
and thats just for private enterprises. When it comes to Chinas state-owned firms, 97 percent of respondents said
SOEs are receiving a competitive boost from the government. USCBC, however, has been a vocal advocate for
the conclusion of a BIT, arguing (in an open letter to Obama and Xi from 94 U.S. CEOs), that a high-standard BIT
with clear provisions providing equal treatment to each countrys investors and a short list of exceptions is one of
the key items that could make an immediate and tangible impact for both of our economies. The question, of
course, is how high the standards will be, given Chinas neuralgia regarding foreign investment and its stated goal
of promoting Chinese domestic firms as international superstars which to date has involved shielding them from
Chinas current commerce minister, Gao Hucheng, previously said that
China and the United States have basically completed text negotiation
on the BIT, a claim echoed by Chen this week. However, Gao was speaking in March of last year and he
noted at the time that agreeing on the actual negative lists the areas that will
remained closed to foreign investment would be a challenge . Whether the

domestic competition.

U.S. and China have made any progress since exchanging their latest negatives lists in September remains to be
seen.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
18

Link Extension - SCS

Negotiating over the SCS trades off with other issues
Ankit Panda 2015 The Diplomat, Setting the Record Straight on US Freedom of
Navigation Operations in the South China Sea, 11/11,
http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/setting-the-record-straight-on-us-freedom-ofnavigation-operations-in-the-south-china-sea/
The administrations sensitivity to appearing provocative toward China is somewhat
understandable given that the U.S.-China bilateral faces other challenges.
Expending diplomatic capital over a row in the South China Sea could
reduce U.S. leverage on other significant issues in the bilateral relationship,
including cyber espionage, climate change, and talks over an investment treaty.
From a diplomatic perspective, the Lassen may have gotten the message just right
without causing a broader bilateral falling out.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
19

Link Extension - Taiwan

TRA repeal / resolutions of Taiwan conflict will require serious
diplomatic investment
DAVID BRUNNSTROM World | Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:45pm GMT Related: WORLD
Taiwan poll looms as unwanted headache for Obama in final year
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-taiwan-election-usa-idUKKCN0UR31X20160113
The United States backs a "one-China policy" and has no diplomatic ties with
Taiwan, but is committed under its Taiwan Relations Act to ensuring the island
can defend itself in the event of conflict. Obama reiterated this in a meeting with
Chinese President Xi Jinping in September. With strong backing for the commitment
in the U.S. Congress, last month Obama angered Beijing when he authorized a
$1.83-billion arms sale package for Taiwan. Last Friday, Tsai said the DPP
advocated "active diplomacy" and would seek greater cooperation with
other countries. But she said Taiwan's diplomacy could not rely on China's
goodwill as it would then lose its "autonomy." Patrick Cronin of Washington's Center
for a New American Security think-tank said the prospect of a DPP win had
brought Taiwan back "as a serious foreign policy issue" for the United
States at a time when Obama is already wrestling with multiple crises
ranging from the Middle East to Ukraine and North Korea. Tsai understood the
stakes, but if her electorate perceived coercive pressure from China "then change
and instability may be accelerated," something that would necessitate a
stepped up U.S. diplomatic effort.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
20

Links (BMD or Taiwan QPQs) /Military presence

Reducing military presence prompts State Department intervention
focuses diplomatic efforts on minimizing effects of the aff.
Bloomfield, 2006 [Lincoln, Former US Special Envoy for Man-Portable Air Defense Systems Threat
Reduction, and Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Afairs from 2001-2005. Mr. Bloomfield previously
served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Afairs (1992-93), Deputy Assistant to the Vice
President for National Security Afairs (1991-92), and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Afairs (1988-89) among other policy positions in the Defense Department dating to 1981. He
graduated from Harvard College and received a M.A.L.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,
Reposturing the Force: U.S. Overseas Presence in the Twenty-first Century, Chapter 3: Politics and Diplomacy of
the Global Defense Posture Review, http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/NewportPapers/Documents/26-pdf.aspx]
An Ambitious Concept When historians look back on the Defense Departments biggest undertakings during its first six decades of
existence, they will of course cite the prosecution of wars both hot and cold, the fielding of powerful and complex weapons systems,
and the promulgation of defense and security strategies to prepare for and deter threats to the national interest. Rarely to be found
among these major tasks will be any large-scale updating, streamlining, or reconfiguration of an organizational empire that includes
well over two million soldiers and civilians, approximately five thousand facilities spread all over the country and the world, and an
annual budget now surpassing $400 billion. The Global Defense Posture Review (GDPR) is such an undertaking. At the same time ,

this massive exercise in managerial housekeeping by the secretary of defense

cannot be viewed exclusively as one cabinet executives efort to make more
productive use of the people, assets, and funding allotted to his department . For all
the calculations of greater efficiency and utility that commend the idea of
reconfiguring Americas global military footprint, this initiative is inescapably, indeed
overwhelmingly, political in terms of its efect on the rest of the world . To think otherwise
would be to overlook the belief, resident in allied populations in more than fifty countries by latest count, that
America is committedvia the North Atlantic Treaty, the Rio Treaty, and bilateral security treaties with Japan, Korea,
the Philippines, Thailand, and Australia to come to their defense in extremis. These are national commitments,
solemnly made, and the sight of U.S. armed forces standing the watch in almost every latitude and time zone has

posture realignment
that involves moving large numbers of those sentries and their weapons inevitably
begs the most urgent of security questions, excites foreign anxieties in many
quarters, and therefore runs the risk, depending on how the matter is handled, of
perturbing the very stability that Americas global military presence is meant to
ensure. An Ambitious Concept The idea that U.S. military force units, their equipment, their facilities, and their support
calmed regional rivalries and dissuaded armed escalations for sixty years. A global

structure should be physically positioned according to the logic of global geography is very appealing. Conceptually, an efficiently
designed, globally managed force posture would optimize the flow of combat power along sea, air, and land routes from one region
to the next, directly to the point of engagement, without overly taxing the system. Such a concept would best allow future
presidents to position viable military options to employ anywhere in response to a sudden danger on the shortest of notice, even
when the nature and location of the crisis had not been foreseen. Of all of Donald Rumsfelds actions during his headline-filled
second tenure as secretary of defense, his determination to rethink, redesign, and reposition the U.S. militarys posture at home and
abroad according to a rational design reflecting contemporary security conditions should stand as a positive mark in his legacy. That
Mr. Rumsfeld took on this monumental management task, braving the predictable resistance of settled constituencies from one end
of the globe to the other, is noteworthy; certainly none of his predecessors seriously attempted it. That he did it during wartime is
extraordinary. Over the long term, a well-executed streamlining of the U.S. global defense posture could profit the nations security,
if not in monetary terms certainly in the ability of a finite force structure to deliver the maximum military benefit through the greater

What with the

profound implications of a posture change for allied countries hosting U.S. forces
and the state of Americas diplomatic relations with them, the decision to embark
on a global realignment was the presidents to make, and it embodied major foreign
policy equities. The Department of State, and the allied governments themselves,
would inevitably make their voices heard before the Department of Defenses new scheme based
efficiencies and capabilities of the new global posture. Big Change, Big Decision: Getting to Yes

on geographic convenience and logistical efficiency could supplant longstanding basing patterns in foreign
localities. One could well imagine the Pentagons potential misgivings about placing this hugely ambitious venture
at the mercy of other departments, never mind foreign policy bureaucrats, whose reaction to any

disturbance of the diplomatic status quo might be expected to be one of

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
21

resistance to change, indeed opposition, even to discussing prospective

force reductions with allied countries. The concern was not imaginary; there were indeed some in the
State Department who wanted nothing more than for the initiative to go away and who feared damage to alliances if it went
forward. On the other hand, concerns in the State Department that some Department of Defense (DoD) officials, by their manner,
might aggravate rather than defuse foreign anxieties were also not entirely misplaced. In at least one country DoD doggedly sought
to announce and implement a drawdown of military assets against that allys wishes and with an evident relish that required
diplomatic damage control and led the president to withhold to himself the withdrawal decision. Within the U.S. policy bureaucracy
as a whole, there were varying perceptions about whether the advertised merits of particular changes under the Global Defense
Posture Review would indeed redound to the long-term security benefit of the United States; such concerns were not limited to
experienced regional specialists in the State Department.

Military equipment and doctrinal changes from the status quo

require tons of diplomatic capital consultation and reviews will
happen at all levels of government.
The Quadrennial Defense Review in 2010 (QDR Report prepared for Congress,
February 1, 2010)
Part of the Departments obligation to defend and advance U.S. interests
while taking care of our people is the imperative to reform how it does
business. The Department is working to help build a whole-of-government approach to the provision of security
assistance, improving our defense acquisition and logistics processes to better support our personnel in harms
way, strengthening our technology and industrial bases to facilitate innovation, and crafting a strategic approach
to climate and energy challenges. Given the complex security environment and the range of missions, capabilities,
and institutional reforms necessary to protect and advance U.S. interests, the QDR highlights the importance of

An important element of
revitalizing key relationships is the need to craft an approach to the U.S.
defense posture that emphasizes cooperation with allies and partners and
retailoring military forces, facilities, and defense agreements across
regions. This QDR benefited from extensive engagement with key stakeholders. As the QDR generated insights
revitalizing defense relationships with allies and partners in key regions.

and interim findings, these were shared with and reviewed by a wide range of experts, both within DoD and
beyond. Over the course of the review,

QDR staff consulted with and briefed

congressional staff as well as representatives of allied and other
governments. DoD officials also engaged with their counterparts elsewhere in the U.S. government to
further the kind of integrated security approaches long advocated by the President, Secretary of Defense, and

For example, Defense leaders and staff worked closely with

the Departments of State and Homeland Security, as well as the
Intelligence Community, as they undertook their Quadrennial Diplomacy
and Development Review, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, and Quadrennial Intelligence
Secretary of State.

Community Review respectively, sharing insights regarding analysis, key missions, capabilities, and plans in
overlapping issue areas.

The plan requires significant diplomatic resources to reassure allies.

Bloomfield, 2006 [Lincoln, Former US Special Envoy for Man-Portable Air Defense
Systems Threat Reduction, and Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military
Afairs from 2001-2005. Mr. Bloomfield previously served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Near Eastern Afairs (1992-93), Deputy Assistant to the Vice
President for National Security Afairs (1991-92), and Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Afairs (1988-89) among other policy
positions in the Defense Department dating to 1981. He graduated from Harvard
College and received a M.A.L.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy,
Reposturing the Force: U.S. Overseas Presence in the Twenty-first Century,
Chapter 3: Politics and Diplomacy of the Global Defense Posture Review,

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
22

http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/NewportPapers/Documents/26-pdf.aspx]
a major change in defense doctrine and practice requires a significant public
diplomacy efort if it is to be accepted abroad. European and Asian foreign-policy experts,
journalists, and officials need to be not simply told but persuaded that Americas
commitments to them, and capabilities to fulfill those commitments, are no longer
usefully measured by numbers of troops. The foreign press has focused on troops
scheduled to be pulled back to U.S. bases or consolidated in other locales. There
remains a need for allies, particularly in Asia, to have a clear and compelling vision of how the
new global defense postureembracing U.S. forces outside as well as within their
borderswill ensure their security as before. Precision strike, mobility, and stealth, among other advances, make
Still,

possible this assurance.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
23

Military-diplomatic issues are inextricably linked.

Hastings, 6-26-2010 [Michael, freelance writer, Rolling Stone, Michael Hastings
Interview Transcript, http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/06/26/michael-hastingsinterview-transcript/]
theres a larger kind of structural issue here about you just compare the
DOD budget to the State Department budget, $600 billion to $50 billion . You know, you
look at every foreign service officer you know, theres more people in the Army
band than there are foreign service officers . You know, you could fit every foreign service
officer on an aircraft carrier. You know, so you look like at just the sort of decay of the
State Department and basically our foreign policy has become our defense policy . You
know, the two are one . And I think that translates into the fact that a lot of the time just the leaders get the blame for all the wars, and they
Hastings: I think

should take their fair share of blame, but I think we also have to start looking at the military leaders in a much more critical way than theyre accustomed
to be looked at. Were packing up here and so Ive got to take of, but I appreciate your time and well talk again soon.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
24

Link Extension - ISS

Space cooperation with China would require a large expenditure of
diplomatic capital.
Space News Commentary by Michael Listner and Joan Johnson-Freese July 14,
2014 Commentary | Michael J. Listner is an attorney and the founder and principal
of Space Law and Policy Solutions, a think tank and consultation firm that
concentrates on legal and policy matters relating to space security and
development. Joan Johnson-Freese is a professor of national security afairs at the
Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. - See more at:
http://spacenews.com/41256two-perspectives-on-us-china-spacecooperation/#sthash.ItOYUgNz.dpufTwo Perspectives on U.S.-China Space
Cooperation - See more at: http://spacenews.com/41256two-perspectives-on-uschina-space-cooperation/#sthash.ItOYUgNz.dpuf
- See more at: http://spacenews.com/41256two-perspectives-on-us-china-spacecooperation/#sthash.ItOYUgNz.dpuf
Cooperation with China is a hot-button issue in political and advocacy
circles. Whether or not to engage China in current U.S. outer space efforts
is hotly debated on Capitol Hill, in academia and among space advocacy
groups. Two experts in the field of space policy with difering views make their case for and against outer space
cooperation with China. The Case for Engagement The National Research Council (NRC) recently released a report

pursuing
more international collaboration, specifically to include China. That would
require a distinct change in U.S. policy. There will likely be resistance to
that recommendation from the small but powerful congressional enclave behind the legislatively
on the future of U.S. human spaceflight. Besides advocating a Mars mission the report also advocated

imposed restrictions on U.S-Sino cooperation since 2011. But the realist approach advocated by the NRC report has
a much better chance of serving U.S. security interests than the current inefectual policy that attempts to isolate
and punish China for domestic policies.

Space co-op with China risks undermining diplomatic influence

Stone 2013 senior space professional and Flight Commander with the 222nd
Command and Control Squadron supporting National Security Space Operations. In
his civilian capacity he is Senior Space Analyst (Policy Integration) with the DoD
Executive Agent for Space Staf, Pentagon, through Falcon Research, Inc, a space
strategic consulting company. He assumed role of corporate Vice President of Falcon
Research in 2010, 2/25/13, The Space Review, US cooperation with China in space:
Some thoughts to consider for space advocates and policy makers,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2246/1
Some strategic context for consideration
Many may argue, including official Chinese commentators ,10 that the anti-China crowd is living in
an old-fashioned Cold War11 mentality and that international space cooperation results in a
permanent solution to global crisis.12 However, others, such as Colin S. Gray, observe that Strategy has a
permanent nature, while strategies have a variable character.13 In other words, nation states will still
conduct activities that serve their best interest, and that includes greater power and
influence globally. The US National Space Policy speaks of US global leadership in space, yet it has a tone of

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
25

internationalism. In contrast, Chinese space policy, while speaking somewhat on cooperation, is mostly about what is best for China.
European space policy is similar; their space policy communications document from 2011 has spoken similarly about doing whats
best for Europe and its citizens14. What is this permanent nature of strategy that Gray was referring to, and what is the context of
Chinas strategic character? Over the last decade, several reports by commissions and US government agencies have identified
many policy issues that need to be debated and resolved before serious consideration can be given to space cooperation between
China and the United States.

If the debates and discussions lead toward a conclusion that

space cooperation is in the USs best interest, through its diplomatic impacts or
economic leverage, then cooperation could be explored . What are some of these issues? Reports in
the press throughout 2012 highlighted an aggressive espionage campaign by China with regards to American space technologies.15

As a report from the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency (DTRA) states, a decades long efort by China has been underway to
achieve strategic parity with the West. The means to achieving this strategic parity
with the United States has focused heavily on acquiring advanced
technology.16 To clarify what DTRA means by acquisition, the report said that, acquisitions is broadly interpreted,
encompassing a variety of means by which technology comes into PRC possession. It includes external as well as
domestic sources of technology, purchases as well as thefts, foreign-assisted
developments as well as wholly indigenous achievements, and strictly militaryoriented technologies as well as those featuring dual uses. 17 The comment on dualThis refers to knowledge, equipment, and components.

use space technology is important to note, especially given the law passed by Congress in late 2012 to allow some space-related
technologies to be reviewed for removal from the US Munitions List (USML) on ITAR and over to the dual-use list Commerce Control
List (CCL). These reviews must, in this authors opinion, be thorough given the strategic context surrounding space industrial
competition as well as international espionage and technology theft in space technology. Given the attention surrounding this issue
in Congress and industry, this author believes these reviews will be well crafted. Dual-use technology means something that can
have military utility as well as commercial applications. This sounds harmless when thinking of space technology components as
commercial or dual-use items when pursuing cooperative frameworks and perhaps even technology transfers with China in
space. However, its not that simple. How does China collect this information or gain technological insight into American space
technologies? Through several methods, some of which many in the space community might find surprising. China has been working
hard, according to the DTRA report, to harness dual use technologies, often developed or acquired through its commercial sector,
for use in Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) weapons. The principal sources of these technologies are foreign technology purchases,

Strategic risks
not only include the military instruments of national power, but also
economic and diplomatic competitiveness for the United States and its
allies. For example, according to the 2012 Futron Corporation Space Competitiveness Index, of the fifteen spacefaring nations
acquisition of Western companies, and cooperative technology transfers as part of commercial activities.

analyzed in their study, only China has grown more competitive in the five years since the study began. As for the United States,
while still ranked first among spacefaring countries, we were the nation that lost ground consistently in space competitiveness
globally during the studys history.18 So aggressive are Chinas practices in obtaining US high tech products that the 2007 report of
the US China Economic and Security Review Commission described Chinese espionage eforts as the single greatest risk to the
security of American technologies.19 How does China collect this information or gain technological insight into American space
technologies? Through several methods, some of which many in the space community might find surprising. In addition to the
standard state spy-agency-type espionage and collection/theft of US space technologies, there are private sector entities that
collect on behalf of the Chinese government. According to reports, One distinctive feature of Chinese technology acquisition is the
autonomy given to research institutes, corporations, and other entities to devise collection schemes according to their particular
needs. These operations, which often involve surreptitious means of obtaining information, occur outside the direct supervision of
the states intelligence apparatus Another method of acquiring foreign technology involves collecting information from scholarly
literature and other open sources in the West.20 (This includes magazines, newspapers, and journals of space technologies among
others.) Keep in mind, that this open source collection is not just something that the PRC does, but other nations as well. The point
of this part of the report is to acknowledge that regardless of whether a piece of information is classified or not, it could still be
valuable information when paired with other information. Where else have the Chinese taken space technology and policy
information from the United States? A joint CIA/FBI report issued in 1999 on Chinas espionage against the United States described
the activities of military attaches at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C and the Military Staf Committee at the United Nations,
who openly collect information from Western publications, the DTRA report noted. Other Chinese nationals living abroad, who are
usually not in the direct employ of PRC intelligence services, lawfully gather most science and technology and economic
intelligence through open sources, including university libraries, research facilities, and open source databases. The information they
compile, while unclassified is nevertheless highly valuable.21 Some examples include the various strategic space journals, space
advocate organization online libraries, and energy research societies libraries. In addition, there have been increased concerns
about Chinese students serving as embedded spies at American universities.22 While many people seem to believe that the old
strategic constructs of Thucydides of security, prestige and wealth,23 dont apply today in the 21st century, they need to listen
only to the words of the Chinese leadership. According to one report from DTRA in 2011, Evidence of this [technology ensuring
global power and leadership] mentality can be found in the expression Chinese scientists and engineers use to explain Chinas
sizable expenditures on its space programan investment intended to secure a place for ones mat or Chinas rightful place among
spacefaring nations. For decades the sentiment behind this expression has proven remarkably enduring among the top echelons of
the Chinese Communist Party. In a widely quoted remark, Chinese Premier Wen Jaibao argued in a 2005 speech that science and
technology are the decisive factors in the competition of comprehensive national strength.24 What is the reason for Chinas
apparent denial25 of these goals for comprehensive national strength and securing their rightful place in the global pecking

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
26

order of space leadership? According to an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) analysis, Beijing seeks to constrict Americas
presence, alliances, access and influence in Asia and to limit the autonomy of Asian democracies.26 The bottom line, according to
the AEI analysts, is this: China is committed to a strategic deception campaign that masks Beijings ambition to restore what its
leaders see as their countrys rightful place at the apex of an Asian and possibly a global hierarchy.27 In short, there is more to
Chinas space program than just the glory and prestige of exploring space or having the capability to launch people into orbit.

This is part of a grand strategy that seeks to not only lead the world in
science and technology but also prevent US diplomatic influence in the
Asia-Pacific region and even globally in various arenas, including economic
development, national survival, as well as energy resources and control. In addition,
it aids their goal of being able to disrupt U.S. access to intelligence, navigation and
communications satellites28 during conflict or crisis in the Asia-Pacific region as
part of the development of Chinese military space forces doctrine of Assassins
Mace.29

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
27

Links - Cybersecurity
Negotiating cybersecurity takes serious full-fledged diplomatic
effort to establish concrete networks, communication channels, etc.
John W. Little in China, Guest Posts, Hacking, Technology October 2013 Enhancing
the Cyberdiplomacy Arsenal http://blogsofwar.com/tara-maller-enhancing-thecyberdiplomacy-arsenal/
While weve seen cybersecurity rise to the top of the United States
foreign policy agenda, we havent yet seen the full-fledged diplomatic
effort that is needed to address associated issues; nor have we seen concrete results.
Nevertheless, we can identify promising signs that both the US and China are ramping up eforts to engage in
dialogue on these issues. Just this week, Christopher Painter, the US State Department Coordinator for Cyber Issues,
acknowledged the depth of cooperation on the issue by saying, I know Ive been to China more than any other
country since Ive taken this job. In June, Chinas Ministry of Foreign Afairs announced it had set up a cyber afairs

To date, weve seen some

incremental steps that are promising, but more can be done to overcome barriers
office to coordinate deal diplomatic activities related to cyber afairs.

to cyberdiplomacy and enhance the cyberdiplomacy arsenal. Both the US and China play critical roles in ensuring
that a diplomatic strategy lies at the core of joint US-Sino eforts to resolve cybersecurity issues .

Both
countries must work together to establish concrete frameworks, mechanisms
and communication channels for working through these difficult and complex cyber issues.

Cybersecurity solutions will require serious diplomatic outreach

John W. Little in China, Guest Posts, Hacking, Technology October 2013 Enhancing
the Cyberdiplomacy Arsenal http://blogsofwar.com/tara-maller-enhancing-thecyberdiplomacy-arsenal/
political leaders may face more general barriers to strong
diplomatic outreach with regard to complex areas where tensions may be
high or there maybe be areas of disagreement China/US cybersecurity is
no exception. Unfortunately, when mutual suspicions and hostilities are present, leaders tend to
resist diplomatic outreach and it makes cooperation more difficult. It might also be more difficult to

In addition,

find In the United States, historically, weve seen US leaders criticized for wanting to adopt policies predicated on
strong diplomatic engagement with adversaries or states with which we have disagreements. In Anatomy of
Mistrust, Deborah Larson argues that mutual mistrust may actually create self-fulfilling prophecies between states
and failures in cooperation. She argues that officials who fear and distrust one another are likely to take actions
which essentially fuel more fear and distrust, which works to perpetuate a cycle by worsening the dynamic that
already existed at the outset. Political pressures and challenges to diplomacy: In general, political leaders may
also worry about appearing weak to domestic or international audiences if they make diplomatic overtures or
express a willingness to negotiate with certain actors or states. These concerns can be even more salient if they are
thinking about reversing their position. In other words, leaders may worry that their previous strategies will be
perceived as failures if they modify their positions and they may also fear losing credibility. Diplomacy Matters

Diplomacy is not just symbolic. It provides a window into both sides decision-making processes
and motivations and increases trust between the parties involved. Increased diplomatic
interaction also helps clarify the nature of the demands and resolve ambiguity or misperceptions that exist.
All of this is necessary in the context of cybersecurity disagreements between
the United States and China. The United States and China both have legitimate concerns and
grievances. However, these issues can only be resolved by maintaining open lines of communication and making a
strong and concerted efort to cooperate on this very difficult issue and work to institutionalize this cooperation
both bilaterally and multilaterally.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
28

IL Link Extension Diplomatic Capital finite

Diplomatic capital is finite
Cooke 10 [Jennifer G. Cooke and Richard Downie, Jennifer G. Cooke, Director,
Africa Program, CSIS- Richard Downie is deputy director and fellow with the CSIS
Africa Program, based in Washington, DC- African Conflicts and US Diplomacy A
Report of the CSIS Africa Program and the American Academy of Diplomacy- January
10, 2010 http://www.academyofdiplomacy.org/programs/Ross/AAD_CSIS%20Africa
%20Program%20Final%20Report%20Oct2009.pdf]
U.S. engagement can take on many forms, ranging from humanitarian assistance to
diplomacy to military action. Given finite resources and capacities, the U nited S tates
must often make h ard choices on how much diplomatic capital to invest in
crisis or conflict situations. It cannot invest equally in every crisis or potential
crisis. In intervening in these situations, decisionmakers must be careful and sensitive in setting
ground rules for engagement since intervention is never impartialit can decide, for better or worse,
who governs, who eats, and who survives. At the same time, setting rules for where, when, and how to
intervene has become more difficult as U.S. interests in Africa have become harder to define following
the end of the Cold War.

Diplomatic capital is finite leverage is costly

Stephen Walt 2009 Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at
Harvard University, 7/27/09, Foreign Policy, Nibbled to death by ducks,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/07/27/nibbled-to-death-by-ducks
Moreover, trying to advance the ball on so many different fronts
simultaneously carries its own risks. In particular, it provides governments that
are opposed to some or all of Washingtons agenda with an obvious way to respond:
they can just say no. In Taming American Power, I labeled this strategy balking,
(a term suggested to me by Seyom Brown) and I argued that it was a common way
for weak states to prevent a dominant power from imposing its will. In a world
where the United States remains significantly stronger than any other power, few
states want to get into a direct test of strength with Washington. But American
power is not so vast that it can simply snap its fingers and expect
everyone to do its bidding. Why? Because exercising leverage is itself
costly, and the more you do in one area, the more latitude that opponents
somewhere else are likely to have. There are still only 24 hours in a day,
and the White House cant devote equal attention and political capital to
every issue. So states that dont want to do what Obama wants can delay, dither,
obfuscate, drag their feet, or just say no, knowing that the United States doesnt
have the resources, attention span, staying power, or political will to force their
compliance now or monitor it afterwards.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
29

Diplomatic capital is finite

Bellamy and Lupel 15 (Director at the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, Professor
of Peace and Conflict Studies at University of Queensland, and Nonresident Senior Adviser at the International
Peace Institute, Alex, and Director of Research and Publications at the International Peace Institute, Adam, Why We
Fail: Obstacles to the Efective Prevention of Mass Atrocities, https://r2pasiapacific.org/filething/get/918/IPI-E-pubWhy-We-Fail.pdf, International Peace Institute, Winter 2015)

the problem of political will is that states are self-interested

actors that prioritize the well being of their own citizens. As such, they are generally
Another facet of

reluctant to commit extensive resources to prevent atrocity crimes in other countries. The issue here is not whether govern- ments
support atrocity prevention as a goal but the depth of their support relative to their other goalsincluding cherished domestic

Political and diplomatic capital is also a finite

resource. Sometimes, states may judge that trade-offs have to be made to
achieve the greatest good or least harm overall. For example, at the outset of the crisis in
objectives such as health care and social welfare.

Darfur, several states decided not to press the government of Sudan too hard, fearing that this action might jeopardize negotiations
to end the governments war with the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) in the south.33

Diplomatic resources are finite.

Michael Fullilove, 6-1-2007, directs the global issues program at the Lowy
Institute for International Policy in Sydney, The Costanza doctrine, http://www.thediplomat.com/article.aspx?aeid=2875
Similarly, in its geopolitical incarnation, adherents to the Costanza
doctrine cast aside many of the fundamental tenets they learnt at staf college or
graduate school. Let me name a few. First, military and diplomatic resources are finite and should
be directed towards your greatest priority. An example of the opposite approach would be for a country that
has been attacked by a non-state terrorist group to retaliate by removing a state regime that had nothing to do with the attack.

short, sharp
victories (such as that in the 1991 Gulf war) that get your adversaries worrying about the
extent of US power. The opposite would be to launch a war of choice involving the drawn-out occupation of an Arab
country the kind of thing that gets your allies worrying about the limits of
US power.
Second, take care not to weaken your intimidatory powers through poor military performance. Aim for

Diplomatic resources are finite the plan forces a trade-off.

Jed Babbin, June/July 2003, The American Spectator, Lord Palmerstons
Principle, Lexis Nexis
America is not some colossus bestriding the world. Both our military and our
diplomatic resources are finite. We need to spend them wisely and in the
priority our interests dictate. Some may not get done at all . First priority is NATO.
After that come the Middle East, Central and South America, the Far East, and others.

Too many issues overstretch senior level diplomats.

Financial Times, 11-1-2002,
http://feeds.isyndicate.com/x/f/ft.asiaall.ft/20021031/3dc18f77.1a0e.236/index.xml
According to several US officials, these conservatives have found themselves frozen out of decisionmaking on North Korea by the State Department and career Foreign Service officials
specializing in Asian afairs on the national Security Council. They have been further stymied by Mr. Bush's
view that the administration should concentrate on one crisis at a time and that
the current focus should remain on Iraq, these officials say. Sean McCormack, spokesman for the national Security Council,
dismisses such accounts. "This idea that we put on the red light because we don't need another thing on the plate is just not the

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
30

way foreign policy works. You don't get to pick and choose your crises." </p><p> However,
outside analysts believe the North Korean challenge has exposed the most significant shortcoming in US foreign policy: "the
brainpower of the national security apparatus", as Kurt Campbell, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington, puts it. "The

way to overwhelm the US is not through military capability but through

the amount of time available for senior people to focus on one or more crises."

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
31

IL Extension - A2 Dip-cap theory wrong

History proves the theory of dip-cap is true presidential prestige.
Jonathan Rauch, 9-7-2006, is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal,
JWR Insight, Unwinding Bush,
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/rauch090706.php3
Carter's weak leadership drained American confidence and prestige, and his
clumsy regulation of energy markets and dithering on inflation damaged the economy. Reagan, however, moved
briskly to restore confidence, decontrol energy, and support the monetary tightening that subdued inflation. By the
end of Reagan's first term, Carter's mistakes were memories. Carter took only a few years to undo, which made
him more a downer than a disaster. Nixon was a disaster. Unwinding him took decades, not years. It was Nixon
whose cynical pump priming and absurd wage and price controls ignited double-digit inflation and bequeathed it to
three succeeding presidents, with aftershocks (for instance, the savings and loan crisis) that lasted into the George
H. W. Bush years. It was Nixon whose fiscal policies-cutting defense unsustainably while expanding entitlement
programs-caused the deficit crisis that would torment every president through Clinton. Watergate and the
administration's mendacious handling of Vietnam undermined confidence in government for a generation.

Nixon's mistakes-and there were others-were gifts that kept on giving. As

for the current president, Buckley isn't quite right. Bush will leave a legacy, in the form of four
headaches. The fiscal mess. Bush's tax cuts and spending increases turned a $236 billion federal surplus in fiscal
2000 into a deficit of more than $400 billion four years later, an astonishing reversal. That the current year's deficit
may come in at something like $300 billion is little cause for comfort; with Baby Boomers due to retire and an
expensive Medicare drug benefit kicking in, the country's fiscal position is weak. The Iraq mess. The invasion was a
gamble; the failure to scrub the prewar intelligence and properly manage the postwar occupation were mistakes.

The gamble might still pay off, but the mistakes have astronomically
raised the gamble's cost in lives, money, prestige, and U.S. strategic focus and position (Iran
has been the invasion's signal beneficiary). International opprobrium. The Iraq adventure fueled a precipitous

decline in America's image abroad, and Bush's pugnacious style during his first term and his tin
ear for foreign opinion made a bad situation worse. This is more than just a public-relations problem. National
prestige is diplomatic capital; the more unpopular America becomes, the higher the price of
foreign support. Mark Malloch Brown, the UN's deputy secretary-general, recently said that suspicion of the United
States has grown to the point where "many otherwise quite moderate countries" are inclined to oppose anything
we favor.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
32

Impact Extension Deal will work

Deal will work Russia is observing cease fire regime and can be
trusted to reduce hostilities
TASS July 3 2016 Ceasefire regime generally observed in Syria Russian
reconciliation center World July 03, 23:50 UTC+3 http://tass.ru/en/world/886219
MOSCOW, July 3. /TASS/. The ceasefire regime has been generally observed
over the day in most of Syrias province however terrorists continue
provocations to break it down, the Russian center for reconciliation of the
warring parties in Syria said in its regular daily news bulletin posted on the Russian
defense ministrys website on Sunday. Reconciliation of conflicting parties "No
reconciliation agreements were signed during the day with representatives of Syrian
settlements," the renter said. "The number of settlements joining the
reconciliation process remains unchanged - 172." Talks on joining the regime
of cessation of hostilities were continued with field commanders of armed
opposition groups in the provinces of Aleppo, Daraa, and al-Quneitra, as follows
from the bulletin. The number illegal armed groups that declared their commitment
to the ceasefire terms remains unchanged - 61. Ceasefire observance The
ceasefire regime has been generally observed over the day in most of Syrias
province, with four violations reported during the day in the province of Damascus,
the center said. "Units of the Jaysh al-Islam group which affiliates itself with the
opposition conducted mortar fire at positions of Syrian government troops in the
settlements of Harasta, Arbil, Douma and Haush al-Fara," the bulletin say. "No air
strikes were delivered by the Russian air group and the Syrian air force at
armed opposition group which have declared cessation of hostilities and
informed the Russian or U.S. reconciliation centers about their locations."
According to the Russian reconciliation center, groups constituting the international
terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra continue attempts to break down the regime
of cessation of hostilities. "During the day, terrorists used multiple missile launcher
systems and mortars to shell the settlements of Handrat and Al-Hader in the
province of Aleppo and Aleppos districts of al-Zahra, Sheikh Maksoud and AlKhalidiya," the bulletin says. "Apart from that, terrorists conducted fire at the
settlements of Bleliye, Zamalka, Khuteita al-Jarash, Bakhariya and a railway bridge
near the village of Meyda in the province of Damascus and the settlement of
Rashah in the province of Latakia. Humanitarian deliveries Humanitarian cargoes flour, rice, canned meat and fish - were delivered to low-income families in the
settlements of Tel Snan in the province of Homs and Ain-Assan in the province of
Aleppo, the center said. A ceasefire regime brokered by Russia and the
United States on February 22 officially came into effect in Syria at
midnight Damascus time on February 27. This does not cover terrorist groups
such as Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra, both outlawed in Russia, and other
groups recognized as terrorist by the United Nations Security Council. An hour
before the ceasefire came into force, the United Nations Security Council adopted a
resolution in support cessation of hostilities in Syria. The document was initiated by
Russia and the United States and won support from all the 15 members of the
United Nations Security Council. The Russian reconciliation center aims to assist

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
33

armed groups in Syria in concluding ceasefire agreements, maintain the truce

regime, control its observance and organize the delivery of humanitarian cargoes to
civilians.

Russia support continued military coordination to resolve air strike

and terror coordination concerns in Syria.
TASS, July 4 2016 YEREVAN, July 4 /TASS/. More: http://tass.ru/en/politics/886338
Russia to continue military coordination with US in Syria Lavrov
Moscow will continue military coordination with the United States in Syria
with an aim to disengage Syrian opposition units from terrorists, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday. "Our military communicate
daily both during video conferences between the Hmeymim air base and US
representatives in Amman, Jordan, and within the framework of the Geneva-based
Russia-US truce monitoring center for Syria," the Russian minister said. "Very
concrete issues linked to the delivery of air strikes at terrorist-held
positions are discussed," Lavrov added. "We are actively using these
mechanisms to make our American partners to live up to a promise made a long
time ago to disengage the opposition forces and separate the units cooperating with
the US coalition from the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist groups [both
banned in Russia - TASS]," the Russian foreign minister said. "We are concerned
that this disengagement [between the opposition and terrorists] has not taken place
everywhere, including near Aleppo," Lavrov said. "We will continue developing
this coordination in hope of achieving concrete results," the Russian foreign
minister stressed.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
34

Impact Extension Negotiations prevent escalation

Tensions rising between the US and China over air space in Syria.
Negotiations necessary to prevent further escalation.
Rick Moran June 21, 2016 US and Russian jets in confrontation over Syria Read
more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/us_and_russian_jets_in_confrontation
_over_syria.html#ixzz4DS5LxeME
Things are getting dicey in the skies above Syria as Russia continues to
pound U.S.-backed rebels who are fighting ISIS as the U.S. looks to
counter. On June 16, the two sides nearly came to blows, as the Daily Beast
reports: The incident began when at least two twin-engine Su-34 bombers, some of Moscows most advanced
warplanes, struck what the Pentagon described as a border garrison housing around 200 U.S.-supported rebels in
At Tanf on the Syrian side of the Syria-Jordan border. The rebels had been conducting counter-ISIL operations in the
area, the Pentagon stated on June 18, using an alternative acronym for ISIS. The United States and its allies in
Syria clearly did not expect the air strike. The rebels in At Tanf are party to a shaky ceasefire agreement between
rebel forces and the regime of Syrian president Bashar Al Assadand, by extension, the Russian military contingent
backing Al Assad. The Los Angeles Times reported that Russian planes had not previously been active over At Tanf.
The Su-34s initial strike wounded, and perhaps killed, some of the rebels in At Tanf. The U.S. Navy scrambled F/A18 fighters to intercept the Russians, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Navy has deployed two aircraft carriers
to the region for strikes on ISIS. As the F/A-18s approached the Su-34s, officials with U.S. Central Commandwhich
oversees Americas wars in the Middle East and Afghanistanused a special hotline to contact their Russian
counterparts directing Russias own intervention in Syria. Arriving over At Tanf, the American pilots apparently
spoke directly to the Russian aviators. Pilots CAN communicate with one another on a communications channel set
up to avoid air accidents, Central Command confirmed in a statement to The Daily Beast. Washington and
Moscow had established the hotline as part of a so-called Safety of Flight Memorandum of Understanding that the
two governments signed in October specifically in order to avoid the kind of aerial confrontation that occurred over

With the American jets flying close enough to visually identify

the Su-34s, the Russians departed the air space over At Tanf. Some time
shortly thereafter, the F/A-18s ran low on fuel and left the area in order to
link up with an aerial tanker. Thats when the Su-34s reportedly returned
to At Tanfand bombed the rebels again. According to the Los Angeles Times, the second
Syria last week.

strike killed first-responders assisting survivors of the first bombing run. It's not known what rules of engagement
American pilots are operating under over Syria, but you have to think, given the consequences, that the fighters
would be allowed to open fire only under direct orders from their superiors. If our F-18s had caught the Russians

The day after the attack, what the Daily

Beast describes as an "extraordinary" conference call was convened at the
Pentagon with senior U.S. military officials and their Russian counterparts.
We can assume that the U.S. expressed its displeasure at Russian
bombing anti-ISIS rebels who were also part of the ceasefire arrangement.
bombing the rebels, would those orders have been given?

What the Russians replied is anyone's guess. The Russians seem determined to force a military victory in the civil
war. That can't be done until all rebels either are dead or give up. Moscow doesn't care who is backing the rebels
and whom they are fighting. Russia will apparently risk war with the U.S. to achieve its strategic objectives. And
since the U.S. has no discernible strategic objectives, we are stuck with reacting to Russia's aggressive moves.

The danger of overreacting isn't far away.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
35

US-Russian escalation danger from lack of cooperation

over Syria
Tom Kutsch, 10-2-2015,Digital News producer at Al-Jazeera 20 years
experience covering the middle east including frontline coverage of the U.S. war in
Iraq and Israels interventions in Gaza, "Russia may be wading into a quagmire in
Syria," Al-Jazeera, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/2/the-risks-ofrussias-intervention-in-syria.html
-Disengagement from direct military interventions is the only way to avert U.S.
Draw in
-U.S. calculus is diferent than Sunni Allies diverging interests
The airstrikes

launched this week by Russian President Vladimir Putin against Syrias rebels have
already been called Russias boldest military intervention outside the former Soviet Union since Afghanistan in the
1980s. Like that decade-long entanglement, Russias entry into the Syrian conflict in which Putin appears to be
taking aim at ISILs rival rebel factions more than ISIL itself, in order to bolster the regime of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad carries significant strategic risks. As Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma, put it:

consequence of
Russian intervention is dramatic escalation of a proxy war in Syria, pitting Russia
and Iran the regimes benefactors against regional rivals in the rebel camp, namely Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey and the United States. Moscow may be betting that by going to the wall to
prevent the Assad regime from falling, it will erode the resolve of Assads
antagonists and hasten a political solution that keeps him in power. That calculation may prove
correct for the U.S. and Europe. Both fear that a power vacuum in Damascus would only allow ISIL (the
Russia has gotten itself into the tar pit." Every action has a reaction The most likely

Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) as well as its chief rival, the hardline Jaysh al-Fatah coalition led by AlQaedas affiliate in Syria, the Nusra Front to expand even further, dismantling what's left of the Syrian state and

The calculations for Turkey and the Gulf States are

diferent. They have invested major financial and military resources in Syria's rebels
in order to face down Iran, which has deployed its elite Revolutionary Guard forces
along with Lebanese Hezbollah militias to defend the regime. Every action has a reaction in the
exacerbating the European refugee crisis.

Middle East, said William Pomeranz, a Russia expert at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. And so I
dont think just because Russia has dropped some bombs in Syria that the opposition simply melts away. Indeed my

So theres every reason to think

things will escalate.The worst-case scenario for Putin is direct conflict with the U.S.led campaign against ISIL. Hawkish American lawmakers are already riled by President Barack Obama's
anticipation is that they will find a way to challenge the Russians.

dual failures to respond to the Russian show of strength in Ukraine, and to adequately pressure Assad from the
beginning. They may be provoked further by reports that Russia has already struck CIA-trained rebel factions, which

If Russian jets collide with the American ones

that are striking ISIL positions daily an inherent risk when two military powers
carry out parallel air raids Obama will face mounting domestic pressure for a
more forceful response.
could be considered an assault on American assets.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
36

Diplomatic coordination between US and Russia necessary to

compromise and air space disagreements over Syria.
M.K. BHADRAKUMAR on JUNE 21, 2016 Hawks hog the Syrian skies but doves
need not despair
http://atimes.com/2016/06/hawks-hog-the-syrian-skies-but-doves-need-not-despair/
On June 16, US and Russian fighter jets had a near-clash over Syria. The two
American F-18 Hornet air-to-air fighter aircraft could not prevent Russias Su-34
Fullback bombers from hitting U.S.-backed rebels in southern region with a barrage
of airstrikes. After the incident, Pentagon officials and Russian Ministry of Defence
discussed steps to avoid accidents and misunderstandings in the Syrian air space
If President Barack Obama ever nurtured the secret desire to have one final eyeball-to-eyeball with Vladimir Putin

It
almost got serious on June 16 when two American F-18 Hornet air-to-air
fighter aircraft took off from a carrier in the Mediterranean but failed to
prevent two Russian Su-34 Fullback bombers from hitting US-backed
moderate opposition fighters in the south of the country. The hawkish opinion in
before his presidency ends, it has to happen in Syria. The two militaries are tiptoeing around each other in Syria.

America interpreted the incident as an in-your-face rejection of US military superiority by Russia. Moscow blandly
explained that its pilots could not distinguish the moderate fighters from al-Qaeda jihadists of Nusra Front.

high level video-conference ensued between senior Pentagon officials and Russian Ministry of
Defence to discuss the need to adhere to measures to enhance operational
safety and avoid accidents and misunderstandings in the air space over
Syria. Last week, again, there was a stunning media leak of a memo through the US state departments socalled dissent channel calling for a judicious use of standof and air weapons (against the Syrian regime), which
would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process. Was it orchestrated
psywar? The Russian media thinks so. Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry since commended the dissent memo

hardline opinion is cascading in the RussianIranian camps that Washington brilliantly conned Moscow into agreeing
with the ceasefire in Syria in February, which provided a much-needed respite for opposition
and hopes to meet its authors. Equally,

groups to recoup and regain some lost territories. Putin has acted cautiously so far. The Russian strategy aims to
expand the scope of ceasefire and bring about proximity between government forces and rebel groups, thereby
shifting the locus to the negotiating table in Geneva. A difficult decision now awaits Putin: Does Moscow return to
the war, reversing the drawdown of forces ordered in mid-March? The impetus for a full-bodied intervention is
obvious: US has failed to fulfill its part of the ceasefire plan to separate the moderate groups from Nusra Front;

The expectation that the ceasefire would galvanize the peace track proved
wrong; Military balance is shifting adversely for Syrian government forces; Russias allies Iran and Hezbollah
are taking heavy casualties, and without robust air support, unable to make significant progress on war front; US is
either unable or unwilling to stop its allies from supplying opposition groups; US shows no interest in an entente
with Russia. On the other hand, the risks of wading deeper into the Syrian conflict are weighing on the Russian
mind. A military surge is senseless unless followed up with a viable peace plan. Russia is wary of a quagmire in
Syria. It has tactical convergence with Iran, but strategic congruence is lacking. Most certainly, two upcoming
events are hugely consequential for Russian interests NATO summit in Warsaw and European Unions review of
sanctions beyond July. Above all, Putin would factor in that Obamas focus would be to salvage his reputation
through a signal military victory over Islamic State rather than seek confrontation over Syria with Russia. Moscow
ought to feel encouraged by the calm, rational explanation by the White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday
apropos the very same dissent memo that apparently excites Kerry. Earnest said: The United States will not be
successful, nor will anyone else, in imposing a military solution on the problems inside of Syria. That, I think, is a
basic lesson that we learned after the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was ordered by the previous (US) administration.
Arguably, Earnest transmitted an unequivocal, reassuring message to the Kremlin that their current dissatisfaction
over the Syrian situation is mutual, but a full-scale escalation is not the answer, given the serious repercussions for
regional and international security. The White House seems to appreciate that Putin also faces similar challenges
back home from the war party as Obama does. Interestingly ,

the Pentagon readout on the

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
37

video-conference with Russian Defence Ministry over the almostdogfight between American and Russian aircraft in the Syrian skies last
week also took care to tamp down ruffled feathers. All in all, Russian and
American forces in Syria are coming under compulsion to grope their way
toward further collaboration, if only for no other reason than their mutual
need to avoid confrontation and conflict.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
38

Impact Extension - US-Russia War

Russia will use nuclear weapons, even in regional conflicts
Weitz 11 (Richard, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military
Analysis at Hudson Institute, November 2011, Can We Manage a Declining Russia?
Hudson Institute)
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/CanWeManageDecliningRussiaWeitzNov201
1.pdf
The cornerstone of Russia's defense has been, and continues to be, nuclear
weapons. Russia's ongoing difficulties in modernization and reconfiguration of its
conventional forces have led the country to rely increasingly on its nuclear
weaponsfor even limited conflict scenarios along Russia's periphery . The
Russian attitude towards nuclear weapons should be taken in context: Russia expects a rise in the number of
nuclear states by 2020, leading to calls for increased, rather than decreased, nuclear arms production. Given
Russia's limited conventional military forces, its reliance on nuclear defense will continue, despite their limited
efectiveness. Russia's thinking about nuclear weapons will be strongly afected by whoever is its chief decision

Given the lack of democracy in defense

policy, there is a strong temptation to use military force to solve political
problems at home and abroad. In addition, Russian leaders' rhetoric constantly support
the perception of war and conflict against domestic and foreign enemies, mostly due to the
structure of Russian politicscreating a tendency to militarize elements of everyday life. Along with
perceived internal pressures, Russia sees itself as essentially isolated in the world. Its consistent
paranoia is that outside rivalsand countries desire to seize Russia's natural resources or
deny it its rightful place in world affairs. This perception of enemies on all sides
supports the Russian militaristic attitudes, and its attachment to nuclear
weapons. The emphasis on nuclear use also reflects Russia's weaknesses in other, more conventional areas.
The fact that Russia views the use of nuclear devices in regional conflicts
maker and the coalition supporting him (or her).

(rather than the worldwide conflicts that many Western analysts perceive as the only time such weapons should be

shows the huge divergence between Russian perceptions of the

usefulness of nuclear weapons and that of the West. Russia also rationalizes its
use of nuclear weapons by assuming local internal conflicts could lead to
larger conflicts (falling more into the Western model of conventional nuclear weapons use). To Russian
used)

leaders, NATO's recent behavior in Libya reflects an international decision to act on behalf of one side in a civil war
only because of its values (Libya being a significant Russian client), with similar fears that Syria will become another
element in NATO's moralistic foreign policy.

Magnitude Other wars dont lead to extinction this one does,

account for future generations
Nick Bostrom 2, winner of the Gannon Award, March, Existential Risks: Analyzing
Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards, Journal of Evolution and
Technology, p. http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR .

An allout nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and
with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and
terminal . There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that
a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or
permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
39

arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or

deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that

smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential
risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently. Such a war
might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that
nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter
in the 21st century.

Counterforce strategies wont work all nukes will be used

LPAC 3-22
(U.S. Preparing for Nuclear War Against Russia,
http://larouchepac.com/node/30250)
the war immediately in prospect will not be a European war, but a
completely global thermonuclear war, as Lyndon LaRouche has pointed out. The preparations noted
by Sivkov and Kristenson are for a counterforce capability to try to wipe out Russia's and China's second
strike capability before and during an all-out thermonuclear attack on Eurasia. Anybody who doubts this only need read the Obama
In reality,

Administration's report to Congress, last summer, on nuclear employment strategy. That document states that the new guidance it describes, "requires the
United States to maintain significant counterforce capabilities against potential adversaries."

But that won't work.

TFOnce triggered, there would be total nuclear destruction in a

matter of minutes
Blair 2008Bruce Blair (President, World Security Institute) February 2008
Increasing Warning and Decision Time (De-Alerting)
http://disarmament.nrpa.no/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Paper_Blair.pdf
If the Kremlin and the White House ordered the launch of their alert
strategic missiles right now, this minute, without any prior notice and advance preparation, the
amount of firepower unleashed and the speed of its release would be
astonishingly large and rapid. U.S. land-based launch crews would receive
the order almost instantaneously, remove launch keys and codes from their safes, compare the
authorization codes in the launch order with those in their safes, insert their launch keys, punch in the number of
the selected war plan that automatically instructs their missiles which specific target file to pull from their computer
files and what trajectory to fly, key in the enabling code contained in the launch order that arms the warheads on
the missiles, and turn the launch keys that transmit the fire command to the dispersed unmanned missiles in

The time needed to execute all of these steps in the

Minuteman fields of central plains America: one to two minutes. (They are
called Minuteman for a reason.) At sea, analogous steps taken by
submarine crews include retrieving a special firing key from a safe inside a safe, the access code to which
is provided by the launch order from higher authority. From that point in time until missiles
leave their tubes in quick succession only about 12 minutes would elapse.
Very similar procedures and timelines apply in Russia. Extremely high
launch readiness for large numbers of alert missiles prevails on both sides .
About one-third of their total strategic forces are poised for immediate launch under normal conditions. The
combined firepower that could be unleashed within these short time
frames measured in minutes is 3 approximately 2,654 high-yield nuclear warheads (1,382 U.S. and
1,272 Russian) the equivalent of approximately 100,000 Hiroshima bombs
underground silos.

(assuming the Hiroshima bomb yielded 15 kilotons of explosive power).

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
40

This impact is the most likely scenario for extinction only

the U.S. and Russia have enough nukes and they are on
hair trigger alert
Babst 2Dean Babst, retired government research scientist and Coordinator of
the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Accidental Nuclear War Studies Program
[February 2002, Preventing an Accidental Armageddon,
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/babst-armageddon.html]
Although international relations have changed drastically since the end of the Cold War, both Russia and the U.S.
continue to keep the bulk of their nuclear missiles on high-level alert. The
U.S. and Russia remain ready to fire a total of more than 5,000 nuclear
weapons at each other within half an hour. These warheads, if used, could
destroy humanity including those firing the missiles. A defense that destroys the defender
makes no sense. Why then do Russia, the U.S., and other countries spend vast sums each year to maintain such defenses?

Since 400 average size strategic nuclear weapons could destroy humanity,
most of the 5,000 nuclear weapons that Russia and the U.S. have set for
hair-trigger release, present the world with its greatest danger -- an
enormous overkill, the potential for an accidental Armageddon.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
41

Impact Extension Turns Warming

US/Russia war would cause warming that would make the world
uninhabitable
Starr 2010Steven Starr, Member of International Network of Engineers and
Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) and Physicians for Global Survival (Canada),
May 12, 2010, The climatic consequences of nuclear war, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-climaticconsequences-of-nuclear-war
Moreover, in the United States, there appears to be a legal basis to force the
Defense Department to evaluate the likely consequences of its nuclear
arsenal. According to the EPA's website, "The National Environmental Policy Act
[NEPA] requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their
decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their
proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet NEPA
requirements, federal agencies [must] prepare a detailed statement known as
an Environmental Impact Statement." If that's the case, why not require
Defense to create an Environmental Impact Statement for the more than
1,000 U.S. strategic nuclear weapons now on high-alert? To date, the
discussion of a nuclear-weapons-free world has included no mention of the
environmental consequences of nuclear war. I fear that without such a
dialogue, the debate lacks the sense of urgency required to change the nuclear
status quo. That's why I believe that a wake-up call from the scientific community is
seriously needed. Regardless of how "safe from use" U.S. and Russian nuclear
weapons are considered to be, they still could wipe out humanity. Thus, the
recognition by Washington that its nuclear arsenal, if used in conflict, will make
the whole world--including all of its territory-- uninhabitable, is long
overdue.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
42

Affirmative Answers

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
43

Thumpers
High level US diplomatic effort now dealing with PakistanAfghanistan border disputes.
Express Tribune, July 3 2016 Washington backs Pak-Afghan border
management plan, says Olson http://tribune.com.pk/story/1135292/frontiersafghanistan-washington-backs-border-management-plan-says-olson/
ISLAMABAD: Top civil and military authorities have conveyed to a high-level
US Senate delegation that Pakistans effort to manage its border with
Afghanistan is vital for its security as President Barack Obamas point-man for
the region said Washington supported Pakistans border management eforts. The
issue was highlighted by top civil and military officials in their meetings
with a high-level American delegation and Obamas senior aide Richard
Olson. The US Senate delegation, led by Senator John McCain, Chairman of Senate
Armed Services Committee, met army chief General Raheel Sharif at the GHQ in
Rawalpindi. ISI chief Lt Gen Rizwan Akhter also attended the meeting.

US is pushing India NSG entry more diplomacy is needed to sway

China
CHOWDHURY 6/22 (Swaptik; Swarajy Magazine, Why Should China Support
Indias Bid For NSG, http://swarajyamag.com/world/why-should-china-supportindias-bid-for-nsg)
The geo-political ascendancy of India achieved a new milestone this month when it was granted the membership of missile technology control regime (MTCR). This was considered as a
major achievement of Prime Minister Narendra Modis foreign policy. The membership allows India to buy or sell advanced missile technology and military know-how from a third-party, in
accordance with the guidelines of membership. However, many analysts viewed the MTCR membership of India as a stepping stone to get into the elite Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG),
which was ironically founded after the first nuclear test conducted by India in 1974. The NSG is poised to meet in Seoul for the 23-24 June plenary and Indias membership will be an

The United States (US) is strongly supporting Indias NSG membership

and has been quite vociferous about it, with US Secretary of State John Kerry writing letter
to support Indias candidature. Also, in his recently concluded five-nation visit, Prime Minister Modi was able to build a consensus in Indias
important issue to be discussed.

favour and garner support from Mexico, Japan and Switzerland. The countries which are still opposing Indias membership are, New Zealand, Ireland, Turkey, South Africa, Austria and
China.

China, however, has softened its stand and said: the door is open for the admission of non-NPT

members but the members of the NSG should stay focused on whether the criteria should be changed. The chief contention among the opposing countries is Indias refusal to sign the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India maintains that military use of nuclear technology is a matter of its national security and thus denies any negotiation on the topic. Many argue
that allowing India would set a precedent for other non-NPT countries such as Pakistan, and weaken the stringent NSG eligibility criteria. However, many diplomats attribute the
opposition of China to its more congenial relationship with Pakistan. The US is trying to negate the growing influence of China in South-East Asia and aims to develop India as an ally in
the developing world. Several new India-US agreements such as Logistics Exchange Agreement, which provides provision of sharing military facilities between the two nations are in
negotiation and may harm the geo-strategic interest of China as it threatens Beijing hegemony in South-East Asia. This increasing bilateral ties between India and the US is a cause for
concern for China and thus it was refusing to recognise India in NSG and lobbying for Pakistan. The trade benefits associated with NSG is also an important factor in Chinas resistance to
Indias membership as it is sceptic of granting New Delhi the same benefits as it enjoys in international nuclear market. India has sizeable deposit of uranium and thorium, which can be
traded in international market and thus have huge trade potential. New Delhi argues that it was applying for membership based on merit and not on guidelines and asserts that it is
not required to be a NPT-signed country to be a member of NSG. At a Press Conference, External Afairs Ministry spokesman Vikas Swarup argued that France was a member of NSG while

But it is evident that the moves are

in play and finer diplomacy is needed to advance respective national
interest (China, India and the US), before any satisfactory conclusion could
be reached. However, many officials and diplomats argue that China should
support Indias NSG application. India already has trade exemption which was granted
in 2008 under George Bush government and allows India to engage in civil nuclear commerce. It also led to exchange of novel nuclear technologies between US and India. China
supported India in this endeavour albeit on the insistence of the then US
president but it is strategically important that China does the same in
Seoul too. China is widely viewed as a proliferator of nuclear technology as it has helped states such as North Korea and Pakistan in the past to gain access to nuclear
it was not a NPT nation and thus, Chinas objection on India being a non-NPT nation is ambiguous.

technology for military purpose.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
44

Link Defense No tradeoff

Diplomatic capital doesnt trade off the state department can
collaborate and hire more people to avoid any tradeoff.
GAO, Government Accountability Office, 2003
(Government Accountability Office, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department
Expands Eforts but Faces Significant Challenges: GAO-03-951., 4 September 2003,
GAO-03-951, EBSCO)
To improve the planning, coordination, execution, and assessment of U.S. public diplomacy efforts,
we recommend that the Secretary of State develop and widely disseminate throughout the department a
strategy that considers the techniques of private sector public relations firms in integrating all of States public
diplomacy efforts and directing them toward achieving common and measurable objectives; consider ways to
collaborate with the private sector to employ best practices for measuring efforts to inform and influence
target audiences, including expanded use of opinion research and better use of existing research; designate more
administrative positions to overseas public affairs sections to reduce the administrative burden;
strengthen efforts to train Foreign Service officers in foreign languages; and program adequate time for

public diplomacy training into States assignment process.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
45

IL Link Defense Not finite

Diplomatic capital already overstretched, and it doesnt matter
because not finite
Ribar 14 [Matthew- guest contributer to the Diplomatic Courier, How Much
Diplomacy is Too Much?, DiplomaticCourier.com, June 6th,
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/how-much-diplomacy-is-too-much/] Skoulikaris and
Aralis
President Obamas recent commencement speech at West Point (full transcript here) provoked a variety of

the President is trying to do too much in

terms of diplomacy, stretching too thinly the U.S.s limited supply of
diplomatic capital. For example, Shannon Tiezzi at The Diplomat argues that President Obama is once
reactions, but one frequently heard claim is that

again ignoring his much-vaunted pivot to Asia in favor of embroiling himself in the Middle East. The speech, Tiezzi
asserted, showed that the administrations diplomatic efforts are overstretched, and that the
Asia-Pacific region still plays second fiddle to more traditional areas of U.S. concern. These criticisms come in the
wake of Secretary of State John Kerrys involvement in the failure to secure a deal at peace talks between Israel and
the Palestinian Authority. The collapse of the talks, some say, confirms allegations that Kerry overestimates his
capabilities as Secretary of State. Senator John McCain has called Kerry a human wrecking ball. Kori Schake
argues that Kerry must prioritize, and that Many countries in the region argue that if only the United States
would put a little efort and attention to the problem, if it would lean just a little on the Israelis over whom we have
such enormous leverage, there could be justice for Palestinians, thus removing a major obstacle to public support
for the United States throughout the region. By the sound of the pundits and foreign policy wonks, general
agreement exists in the foreign policy community that Kerry and Obama have bitten of more than they can chew.
However, on Monday, the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (T.R.I.P.) project at the College of William &
Mary published the results of the most recent snap poll. Though a small number of individual I.R. scholars write
blogs or publish in policy journals like Foreign Policy or Foreign Afairs, the snap polls are an innovative way to
provide systematic evidence on the views of I.R. scholars regarding contemporary policy issues. These snap polls
aim to connect academia to the policy world by identifying and communicating opinions of scholars in the academic
I.R. community. On the most recent snap poll, scholars were asked if heavy diplomatic involvement by the United
States in Ukraine, Syria, the South China Sea, and Iranian nuclear talks hampered U.S. eforts to facilitate Middle
East peace talks. This question has direct relevance to President Obamas speech: if the U.S. has too much on its
plate in terms of diplomacy, then it would be counterproductive to lean even more heavily on the already

there is broad consensus

amongst I.R. scholars. Of the respondents, 71.4 percent of scholars reported that heavy
diplomatic involvement by the U.S. around the world did not hamper U.S.
efforts to facilitate Middle East peace talks. Only 16.8 percent of scholars answered yes
overstretched diplomatic tools available to U.S. policy makers. In fact,

(11.8 percent responded dont know). Often, the academic community faces allegations of liberal bias. These
range from memoirs about a conservative academic being met with enmity, suspicion, and a refusal to engage in
reasoned debate to Senator Rick Santorums famous response to President Obama wanting every American to go
to college: what a snob. So, perhaps liberal professors are blindly following the president in foreign policy. If this
were the case, one would expect a much larger ratio of yes answers among conservatives. The following chart
shows responses to the snap poll question broken down according to political ideology and gender: Matt Ribar
Graph 2 Variations are underwhelming, and consensus is again strong: 18.8 percent of conservatives replied that
the U.S. is stretched too thin diplomatically, whereas 16 percent of liberals also agreed. That diference, 2.8
percent, is minuscule. Gender played a bigger role in responses than ideology, with women more likely to say that
the U.S. is overstretched. But even amongst women, 60.7 percent replied no. T.R.I.P. also conducts more
substantive polls every few years. One question asked on the larger 2011 T.R.I.P. poll was how much influence, on
a scale of one to ten, will the U.S. have on the world in 2020. An answer of 10 means that the scholar thought the
U.S. would be very influential in 2020. Broadly, scholars who think the U.S. will be more influential in 2020 are less
likely to say that the U.S. is overstretched diplomatically. Even amongst those with the gloomiest opinions of the
U.S.s future efect on the world overwhelmingly answer no. Only 16.6 percent of those who said the influence of
the U.S. would be from 1 to 2 and 23.2 percent of those who responded with answers from 3 to 4 said that the U.S.
was overstretched diplomatically. Matt Ribar Graph 3

Despite frequent criticism that the

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
46

administration needs to focus on a smaller number of diplomatic

initiatives, there is actually an overwhelming consensus amongst I.R.
scholars, irrespective of gender, ideology, or predictions of the future of U.S. power. The takeaway is that
even though there are certainly plenty of critiques to be made of the
presidents foreign policy, there is agreement amongst I.R. scholars that
diplomatic multitasking is not one of them.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
47

IL Defense Dip Cap Fails

Diplomatic capital is ineffective past engagement examples with
countries like Yemen prove.
Phyllis Bennis, December 2006, Director of the New Internationalism Project at
the Institute for Policy Studies, Transnational Institute, United Nations v. United
States, http://www.tni.org/archives/archives_bennis_unvus
despite its huge investment of high-profile diplomatic
capital, the U.S. couldnt get its way either. Perhaps it failed because the General
Assembly votes were taken by secret ballots, so U.S. threats had less resonance. Perhaps
On the other hand,

it failed because in 2006 Latin America is the center of a rising bloc of progressive governments ready to challenge
U.S. economic and political strategies, and with the political and economic clout to do so safely. But whatever the

the U.S. defeat was a far cry from the most famous example of U.S.
pressure at the U.N., the so-called Yemen precedent, still spoken of in
whispers throughout U.N. headquarters. In that instance, during the November 1990 U.S. efort to win
unanimous Security Council support for its resolution endorsing war against Iraq, U.S. bribes and
threats had won a large majority of support in the Council. (Even China, which had
long threatened to veto the resolution, was bribed into abstaining rather than using a veto.) But two
countries voted noCuba, which opposed the war on principle, and Yemen, the sole Arab country on the
reason,

Council. No sooner had the Yemeni ambassador put down his hand after voting against the resolution, the U.S.
ambassador was at his side saying that will be the most expensive no vote you ever cast. The remark was
picked up on an open U.N. radio microphone, and broadcast throughout the building and ultimately around the
world. So three days later, when the U.S. cut its entire aid budget to Yemen, the world took notice. So far the score
was 1, for the U.S. domination, only a point for U.N. independence. Next came the moment to appoint a new
head of the World Food Program, one of the most vital of the U.N.s emergency assistance agencies. The WFP
director is, by tradition, an American. (The same tradition holds true for UNICEF, the U.N.s childrens agency.) The
appointment would be made by out-going Secretary-General Kofi Annan, but with consultation and approval of his
successor, Ban Ki-Moon. It was a moment to express at least a hint of independence. But instead, the U.S.
preference carried the day, and the selection went to Josette Shiner, the nominee of the Bush administration.
Shiner is a former editor of the right-wing Washington Times, owned by Unification Church founder Sun Myung
Moon, and was a long-time member of the church itself. Perhaps more relevant, Shiner is currently the U.S.
Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Afairs. What she knows about global hunger and
feeding starving people appears to be nothing; the slick pamphlet produced by the State Department to push her
candidacy focuses on her management skills. U.S. business interests as well as ideology appear to be the key
bases for the nomination. Shiners appointment was not unlike that of Ann Venemen, the current director of
UNICEF, who came to the position directly from her post as Secretary of Agriculture in the Bush administration. In
both instances, supporting U.S. agricultural interests (just where will WFP and UNICEF be most likely to buy
sorghum and wheat for high-protein emergency rations?) trumped the knowledge of how to feed hungry children.
Score one for Washington. Perhaps looking to catch up, Secretary-General Annan moved to reassert U.N. power in
his leading role at the international global warming conference last week in Nairobi. He berated world leaders,
singling out most major industrialized countries for special scorn. Political leaders who continue to resist the
massive changes that will be required, Annan went on, are out of step, out of arguments and out of time. Score

It is still possible for the U.N. to reclaim its

independence, and with it, the global support of the worlds people,
something now endangered by the perception of the U.N. giving in to
Washingtons pressure. It is still possible for the incoming Secretary-general Ban Ki Moon to claim the global
one for the United Nations.

role of defender of the U.N. Charter, international law and multilateralism, and to speak out against U.S.
domination. It is still possible for the General Assembly to answer Washingtons most recent Security Council veto,
once again of a resolution designed to hold Israel accountable for its illegal actions in the Gaza artillery attack that
left 19 people dead, including 7 children and 6 women, by passing its own resolution condemning the assault and
calling for international protection for Palestinians in Gaza.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
48

Impact Defense Agreement fails

Military cooperation with Russia over Syria will fail they will
selectively violate agreements.
Josh Rogin July 3 at 7:18 PM Rogin is a Washington Post Global Opinions
columnist. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-us-cantignore-russia-or-its-increasingly-horrendous-behavior/2016/07/03/c2533b08-3fa711e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html
the administration is proposing increased military
cooperation with Russia in Syria, in exchange for Russian agreement to
abide by the cease-fire it had already agreed to, was a stark example of
how the administrations theory about how to work with Russia is being
misapplied on the ground. Washington is ofering Moscow both a reprieve from the political and military
Last weeks revelation that

isolation it imposed after the invasion of Ukraine and a reward for taking unilateral military action designed to

The White House and the State Department believe

that the only way to make progress in Syria is to work with Moscow, even
if that means setting the isolation effort to one side . That makes some sense, but only
undermine U.S. policy in Syria.

if Russia actually honors its agreements in Syria and makes progress toward resolving the Ukraine crisis. But
neither of these things is happening. Ukraines recently departed prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, told me last
week that while Russia has successfully distracted the world from the Ukraine crisis, the Russian military continues
a medium-boil military campaign in violation of the Minsk agreement. Every single day they kill Ukrainian soldiers,

There is no ceasefire on the ground, he said. To Yatsenyuk, Russian President Vladimir Putins strategy is clear.
Russia will pretend to work with Western powers and even strike deals
when the deals are sweet enough. But by selectively violating the
agreements while manipulating other governments and the media, Putin
will continue to make steady progress toward his anti-Western, antidemocratic objectives. For Yatsenyuk, theres simply no way to work
constructively with the current Kremlin.
every single day the death toll is rising, every single day weve got civilian casualties.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
49

Agreement will fail and cause further instability US looks

weak for giving in despite Russias betrayals and the deal will
collapse the anti-Assad rebels backed by the US.
Magic Valley, July 3 2016 Other View: Another retreat in Syria
http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion/columns/other-view-another-retreat-in-syria/article_1093cb28-1e94-5063-af9cf164ec0502fd.html

the Obama administrations Syria policy has been stuck in a

cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end
the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that
if they are not respected by Russian President Vladimir Putin or Syrian President Bashar
Assad, the United States will consider other options , such as stepping up support for
Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed
their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to
besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return
to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal.
And so it goes again. Senior U.S. officials have publicly confirmed that Syria and
Russia have grossly violated a cessation of hostilities negotiated by Kerry
in February. They have continued to attack Western-backed rebels, deliberately
targeted hospitals and other civilian infrastructure, and blocked aid
convoys to besieged towns where children are starving to death. Kerry
warned that the consequence of such breaches would be a Plan B of
stepped-up U.S. support for anti-Assad rebels. Instead , as The Posts Josh Rogin has
reported, the administration delivered a new proposal to Moscow on Monday
that offers Mr. Putin what he has been seeking for months: greater U.S.Russian collaboration in targeting those anti-Assad rebels deemed to be
terrorists. In exchange, Russia wouldagainpromise to restrain its own and the Assad regimes bombing
For several years,

of areas where Western-backed forces are located. As several experts on Syria told The Post, it is a deal whose only
tangible result would likely be the reinforcement of the Assad regimewhose relentless brutality has empowered
the Islamic State and al-Qaida. The U.S.-Russian collaboration would target an ofshoot of al-Qaida called Jabhat alNusra, whose forces are fighting the Assad regime in several areas, including the key city of Aleppo. In practice,
the Jabhat al-Nusra forces are intermixed with other rebel units; many Syrian fighters joined the presumed terrorists

An assault on them could have the effect of

allowing the Assad regime to achieve what it says is its foremost
objective, the recapture of Aleppo, tipping the balance of the civil war in
its favor. The anti-Assad rebels backed by the West could be decisively
undermined, even if Russia and the Syrian regime respected the no-bombing zoneswhich, given the history
for practical rather than ideological reasons.

of past agreements, is a most unlikely prospect. Administration officials claim they have no alternative but to go
along with Putin. The former Plan B, more support for rebels, would merely lead to more fighting with little result,
they say. Its the same logic that President Barack Obama has used to deflect proposals for U.S. action in support of
anti-Assad forces since 2012even as the country, and the region around it, spiraled deeper and deeper into
bloodshed, chaos and humanitarian crisis. Obama appears fiercely determined to learn nothing from his tragic

The latest U.S. proposal, if accepted by Putin, would

compound the damage.
mistakes in Syria.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
50

Deal will fail new offensives by the Islamic State in Syria prove
Omar Sanadiki July 1 2016 US Lacks Bargaining Credibility With Russia After
New Syrian Army Fiasco REUTERS/ OPINION 23:37 01.07.2016Get short URL
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20160701/1042319642/usa-lacks-bargainrussia.html
A new proposal by the United States to Russia seeking Moscows aid in
ending Syrian government bombing of US-backed rebels will fail following the
total defeat of the latest New Syrian Army (NSA) attack earlier this week at Abu Kamal, US analysts told Sputnik.

the New Syrian Army operation was complete

operational fiasco, which resulted in the Islamic States acquisition of yet
more US arms," Syria expert and historian Helena Cobban said. The US proposal, sent to
Moscow on Monday, calls for sharing targets and coordinating an extended
bombing campaign against the terrorist organization al-Nusra Front, according to a US media report citing
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) "As it turned out,

an Obama administration source. The United States reportedly also proposed that Russia pressure the Syrian
government of President Bashar Assad to stop carrying out strikes against US-supported rebels. On Wednesday,
Daesh smashed an attack by the US-backed New Syrian Army forces seeking to recapture Abu Kamal, a crucial
border crossing between Syria and Iraq. The terror group also seized crates of US ammunition, mortars and a
vehicle. Following the defeat, "The

idea that the United States now has any

additional bargaining chips in its interactions with Russia/Syria is
completely unrealistic. Indeed, its plans for regime change in Syria seem to have come apart worse
over the past two weeks than ever before," Cobban observed. The New Syrian Army defeat, Cobban noted,
undermined the plan leaked to US media on Thursday to ofer Russia increased military cooperation in Syria in
return for Russia getting the government of President Bashar Assad to stop bombing US-supported rebels, including
the New Syrian Army. "My best guess is that this overture was prepared quite a while ago and delivered on
Monday, at the same time the Pentagon was making its final preps for the big assault by the New Syrian Army on

Had the New Syrian Army operation

gone well, then the Obama administration would have had some
significant new bargaining chips to put into its negotiation with Russia and Syria, but the defeat
the Islamic State positions at Abu Kamal," Cobban stated.

destroyed that plan, Cobban suggested. Independent Institute Center for Peace and Liberty Director Ivan Eland
said despite threats to ramp up aid to Syrian rebels against the Assad regime, the United States will now indirectly
help Assad take on al-Nusra Front in order to save weaker US-backed rebels. "This implicitly seems to buy into the
original Russian notion that it was better to have Assad still in power than have Islamist extremists take over all of
Syria," Eland commented. The United States would be able to provide better targeting and intelligence than the
Russians are likely have on al-Nusra Front and a cooperative campaign to eradicate them, Eland pointed out. "The
big question is not whether Russia will come through, but whether they can bring along the Assad regime," he
noted. Assad has always wanted to destroy the so-called "moderate" US-backed rebels so that he could say the
choice was only between him and Islamist extremists to rule Syria, Eland concluded.

Wont solve political deal not possible in Syria

Reuters July 1 2016 US, Russia discuss Syria cooperation
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/us-russia-discuss-syria-cooperation-.aspx?
pageID=238&nID=101148&NewsCatID=352
That Washington is even considering such a plan, however, reflects the
unraveling of a Feb. 27 cessation of hostilities agreement that was
supposed to bring some calm to a country riven by five years of civil war and promote a political
settlement, as well as the weakness of the U.S.-backed moderate opposition forces.

In one sign of their

predicament, U.S.-backed Syrian rebels on June 29 were pushed back from alBukamal, an ISIL-held town on the Iraq border, sufering casualties and seeing some of their fighters and arms

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
51

captured, a rebel source said. Finally, targeting the al-Nusra Front could end up boosting the popularity of the alQaeda affiliate, which is widely hailed by anti-government Syrians as the most efective fighting force seeking to
oust al-Assad. Prospects for a political deal to end the conflict appear dim , not
least because there is no agreement on the future of al-Assad, whom the United States wants to step down, but
whom Russia has supported with its military intervention since last September. U.N. Syria envoy Stafan De
Mistura is in Washington this week to meet senior U.S. officials to discuss eforts to reduce attacks on civilians and
the provision of humanitarian aid as he continues to work to advance a political transition, National Security
Council spokesman Carl Woog said June 30.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
52

Impact defense No US-Russia war

Zero risk of war with Russia
David E. Hoffman 12, contributing editor to Foreign Policy and the author of The
Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy,
which won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction, "Hey, Big Spender,"
Foreign Policy, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/22/hey_big_spender?
page=full
Despite tensions that flare up, the United States and Russia are no longer
enemies; the chance of nuclear war or surprise attack is nearly zero . We
trade in each other's equity markets. Russia has the largest audience of
Facebook users in Europe, and is open to the world in a way the Soviet
Union never was.

No US-Russia war-consensus of scholars

Shukla, reporter and value investor. He has an MBA in finance and a deep interest
in tech, science and politics, 1-30- 15 (Vikas, A War Between U.S. And Russia Or
China Unlikely, Say Scholars, http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/01/war-us-andrussia-or-china/)
Gorbachev said in an interview with Interfax that the United States was
dragging Russia into a new Cold War. Gorbachev warned that it could eventually turn into an armed conflict. Amid
escalating tensions over the Ukraine conflict, European Union is considering further
sanctions on Russia. On Wednesday, Russia sent two of its nuclear bombers very close to the British airspace, which defense experts say
was an act of aggression. Scholars differ from the mainstream public opinion Meanwhile, China is
Yesterday, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail

involved in a conflict with most of its neighbors, including Japan, which has a security pact with the United States. If a war breaks out between China and

Rising tensions in these geographies have sparked

fears that a war is imminent . But international relations scholars believe that
a war is unlikely between the U.S. and Russia or China. Foreign Policy conducted a survey in
Japan, the U.S. will have to jump in to protect its ally.

collaboration with Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP). They interviewed 1,395 international relations scholars across the United States.
Findings of the study revealed that the opinion of scholars was dramatically diferent from the mainstream public opinion. What experts say about a new

When asked how likely was a war between the U.S. and Russia or China
in the next 10 years, they said that war between these powers was unlikely . They
Cold War with Russia

added that war between the U.S. and China was far less likely than between the U.S. and Russia. Foreign Policy also surveyed scholars in Russia and East

for all scholars , the average perceived risk of war with China was
1.91. The figure was a little higher at 2.55 for the likeliness of a war with Russia .
Then they asked scholars whether the U.S. and Russia were headed back to a Cold
War. Less than 38% scholars believed that the two countries were on the
verge of a new Cold War. Over 47% said a Cold War was unlikely, while
about 15% were uncertain.
Asia.On a scale of 0 to 10,

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
53

No US-Russia war 7 reasons

Peck 14 [Michael Peck (Contributor on defense and national security for Forbes);
7 Reasons Why America Will Never Go To War Over Ukraine; 3/05/2014;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/03/05/7-reasons-why-america-willnever-go-to-war-over-ukraine/]
America is the mightiest military power in the world. And that fact means absolutely nothing for the Ukraine crisis. Regardless of
whether Russia continues to occupy the Crimea region of Ukraine, or decides to occupy all of Ukraine,

the U.S. is not

going to get into a shooting war

with Russia. This has nothing to do with whether Obama is strong or weak. Jimmy
Carter or Ronald Reagan would face the same constraints. The U.S. may threaten to impose economic sanctions, but here is why
America will never smack Russia with a big stick: Russia is a nuclear superpower. Russia has an estimated 4,500
active nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Unlike North Korea or perhaps Iran, whose nuclear
arsenals couldnt inflict substantial damage, Russia could totally devastate the U.S. as well as the rest of the planet. U.S. missile

For the 46 years of the Cold

War, America and Russia were deadly rivals. But they never fought. Their proxies
fought: Koreans, Vietnamese, Central Americans, Israelis and Arabs. The one time
that U.S. and Soviet forces almost went to war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Neither Obama nor Putin is crazy enough to want to repeat that. Russia has a
powerful army. While the Russian military is a shadow of its Soviet glory days, it is still a formidable force. The Russian army
defenses, assuming they even work, are not designed to stop a massive Russian strike.

has about 300,000 men and 2,500 tanks (with another 18,000 tanks in storage), according to the Military Balance 2014 from the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. Its air force has almost 1,400 aircraft, and its navy 171 ships, including 25 in the Black
Sea Fleet of Ukraines coast. U.S. forces are more capable than Russian forces, which did not perform impressively during the 2008
Russo-Georgia War. American troops would enjoy better training, communications, drones, sensors and possibly better weapons
(though the latest Russian fighter jets, such as the T-50, could be trouble for U.S. pilots). However, better is not good enough. The

With
advanced weapons like T-80 tanks, supersonic AT-15 Springer anti-tank missiles,
BM-30 Smerch multiple rocket launchers and S-400 Growler anti-aircraft missiles,
Russian forces pack enough firepower to inflict significant American
losses.Ukraine is closer to Russia. The distance between Kiev and Moscow is 500
miles. The distance between Kiev and New York is 5,000 miles. Its much easier for
Russia to send troops and supplies by land than for the U.S. to send them by sea or
air. The U.S. military is tired. After nearly 13 years of war, Americas armed forces need a breather.
Russian military is not composed of lightly armed insurgents like the Taliban, or a hapless army like the Iraqis in 2003.

Equipment is worn out from long service in Iraq and Afghanistan, personnel are worn out from repeated deployments overseas, and

The U.S. doesnt have many troops to send.

The U.S. could easily dispatch air power to Ukraine if its NATO allies allow use of
their airbases, and the aircraft carrier George H. W. Bush and its hundred aircraft are
patrolling the Mediterranean. But for a ground war to liberate Crimea or defend Ukraine, there is just
there are still about 40,000 troops still fighting in Afghanistan.

the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit sailing of Spain, the 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment in
Germany and the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. While the paratroopers could drop into the combat zone, the
Marines would have sail past Russian defenses in the Black Sea, and the Stryker brigade would probably have to travel overland

would be logistically
difficult, and more important, could take months to organize. The American people
are tired. Pity the poor politician who tries to sell the American public on yet another
war, especially some complex conflict in a distant Eastern Europe nation. Neville
through Poland into Ukraine. Otherwise, bringing in mechanized combat brigades from the U.S.

Chamberlains words during the 1938 Czechoslovakia crisis come to mind: How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be
digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know

Americas allies are tired. NATO sent troops to support the American
campaign in Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. Britain sent troops to Iraq and
Afghanistan, and has little to show for it. It is almost inconceivable to imagine the
Western European public marching in the streets to demand the liberation of Crimea,
especially considering the regions sputtering economy, which might be snufed out should Russia stop exporting natural gas. As
nothing.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
54

for military capabilities, the Europeans couldnt evict Libyan dictator Muammar
Gaddafi without American help. And Germans fighting Russians again? Lets not even go there.

No US-Russia war - Ukraine proves all these warrants

Tebin, PhD in Political Science, RIAC expert, 2013 *yellow
(Prokhor, Why a War With the US Is Unlikely, 11-19,
http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=2709#top
One of the key reasons is that both in Washington and in Moscow, there is a high
proportion of pragmatic policy-makers, with many staunch supporters of Realpolitik.
Even George W. Bush, a favorite target of jokes and whose Bushisms have given so much joy to his opponents, was in fact a rather
pragmatic and reasonable politician. And while his doctrine of preventive military operations led to two relatively large regional
conflicts, when it came to the nuclear program of theocratic Iran, so vehemently anti-American and anti-Semitic, the position of the
Bush Administration was as balanced as it gets. The anti-Russian rhetoric used in particular by Republican presidential nominee Mitt
Romney during the 2012 campaign would have been unlikely to afect the US foreign policy framework into the foreseeable future.

One of the key factors underlying the infinitesimally low likelihood of an armed
confrontation between Russia and the U.S. is the lack of a realistic political objective
for such an incident. The dispute over the Arctic Ocean, Russian-Japanese
diferences, and hypothetical Pacific territorial disputes between the US and Russia are
efectively at the very end of the list of priorities for both countries . The top issues
for both Russia and the U.S. are issues related to the domestic economy
and political stability . While actual economic links between Russia and the U.S. are insignificant, 48.4 per cent of
Russian exports and 43.4 per cent of imports are with the EU countries. With this in mind, initiating an open conflict
with the EUs key military and political ally is bordering on political and economic
suicide . The U.S., concerned as never before with issues of sovereign debt and a
range of domestic social issues, has not really indicated any desire to take up arms
against any of the nuclear powers without dire necessity. As for the scenario where Russia is
to be dragged into some local war with a third country that gradually evolves into a
Russian-American conflict, the history as well as patterns of behaviour of
both Moscow and Washington appear to depict an extremely low
likelihood of a conflict . Suffice it to recall that at the time of the five day war,
Moscow and Washington were very seriously pitched in opposition against each
other. Russia was then targeted by a large- scale media campaign, and NATO ships were dispatched to the Black Sea. However,
the U.S. did not offer Georgia any substantial assistance , while Russia, in
turn, prudently limited the scale of its operations and abstained from the
Washington-favoured policy of regime change. The U.S. is conscious of the fact that the
demonstration of force in the Black Sea had a very limited objective. Commenting on the USS MacFaul, the most powerful
destroyer of all NATO ships deployed in the Black Sea in August-September 2008, U.S. observers noted that, a Navy deployment in
the Black Sea could well be an efective counter, threatening Russian sea lanes. While it was a warship, however, it was only a
destroyer so it is a gesture, but not a threat. In the mid-term perspective, the focus of the U.S. military and political strategy will
be locked on China. Finding an adequate answer to the Chinese Question is bound to remain among the least trivial objectives for
Washingtons foreign policy. Close U.S.-Chinese economic ties, on the one hand, and the threat of looming global competition
between China and the U.S., on the other, have been attracting considerable attention from the U.S. leadership. This is not limited to
rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific region, since Washington is faced with the obvious need of counteracting Chinese influence in
Africa and South America. In addition to the economic, diplomatic, and political challenges posed by China, one also needs to

The U.S. still

has to recover after its campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. One should also not
consider Beijings growing military power as well as its military and political ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region.

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
55

discount the war weariness of the U.S. public . At the same time, the U.S. needs to
respond adequately to Chinas growing military capacity. It is only logical that U.S.
defense strategy efectively will rule out any major land operations in the near
future. The U.S. Armed Forces will pursue low-intensity expeditionary operations and ensure in parallel the presence of a
conventional deterrence capacity vis--vis China. Russian foreign policy, too, has articulated various
priorities that are hardly reconcilable with the launch of a confrontation with the
U.S. Take, for example, economic and security cooperation with post-Soviet
countries and China. Finally, both Russia and the U.S. are faced with several
pressing global issues where the two countries need to cooperate, rather than
compete. The most obvious of those are nuclear non-proliferation, complete with its
North Korea and Iran angles; international terrorism and regional security and
stability in Central Asia and Afghanistan. It is time to throw away the hostile rhetoric, abandon ideological
confrontations in through tit-for-tat acts (the so-called Dima Yakovlev law in response to the Magnitsky Act), and develop proper,
pragmatic collaboration on the pressing issues of international security, which extend far beyond arms control.

No U.S. Russia War

Brzezinski 2005 (Zbigniew Brzezinski. (National Security Adviser Under the
Carter Administration). "US Russia: Zbigniew Brzezinski Assesses US Russia
Relations." Radio Free America. 11 May 2005.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/05/b62307e1-832c-4fbc-ab91ba8fa7a0eb24.html)
There can be no cold war because Russia is in no position to wage either a hot or a cold war.
It's a brutal efort to wage war in Chechnya which verges on genocide; it's at the same
time a testimony to the incompetence of the Russian military. Russia's in no position to
wage a cold war with America, either. Because Russia is essentially right now in a very
serious social and demographic crisis. So a real cold war is not possible. Some issues are
likely to continue being conflictual. In a broader sense, the American-Russian relationship is

probably going to be described in less euphoric terms than has recently been the case, but the
basic reality of a mixed relationship -- partially antagonistic, partially cooperative -- I think is
going to endure. Former 'Sphere Of Influence' RFE/RL: Unlike in the rest of the world, where
as you noted the United States is increasingly isolated and politically unpopular, the former
Soviet sphere of influence embraces the United States. Seventy-two percent of Georgians
approve of President Bush's visit on [9 April] there.... Under the circumstances that you
outline, and given that this policy is bound to exacerbate tensions with Moscow, what do
you think is the U.S. plan in that region, and what do you think it should be? Brzezinski:
The United States is supporting and de facto promoting geopolitical pluralism in the space
of the [former] Soviet Union. That is to say, it is supporting the independence of the postSoviet states without seeking to turn them into American satellites -- but with the objective
of making them viable as independent states. Part of the dilemma that Russia faces is that
its nostalgia for an imperial status creates sustained and extensive hostility with all of its
neighbors. It is impossible to mention a single neighbor of Russia with whom Russia has
genuinely good relations. It is impossible to mention a single neighbor of Russia that likes
Russia. And that is a problem which only the Russians can correct; it cannot be corrected
for them by the Americans p

MSDI 2016
#debatelikeabear

Syria DipCap DA
56