BBHS Topicality File

SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Topicality
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military
and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan,
Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.
Topicality....................................................................................................................................................................1
Topicality........................................................................................................................................1
**Substantial**..............................................................................................................................4
1NC – Substantial Reduction – 25%...........................................................................................................................4
1NC – Substantial Reduction – 25%............................................................................................4
Ext: Substantial Reduction = 25%..............................................................................................................................5
Ext: Substantial Reduction = 25%...............................................................................................5
1NC – Substantial Reduction – 50%...........................................................................................................................6
1NC – Substantial Reduction – 50%............................................................................................6
Ext: Substantial Reduction = 50%..............................................................................................................................7
Ext: Substantial Reduction = 50%...............................................................................................7
Substantial = Important...............................................................................................................................................8
Substantial = Important................................................................................................................8
Substantial = Arbitrary................................................................................................................................................9
Substantial = Arbitrary.................................................................................................................9
**Reduce**...................................................................................................................................10
1NC - Reduce CANNOT Eliminate..........................................................................................................................10
1NC - Reduce CANNOT Eliminate............................................................................................10
Reduce CAN Eliminate.............................................................................................................................................11
Reduce CAN Eliminate................................................................................................................11
Reduce = Decrease....................................................................................................................................................12
Reduce = Decrease.......................................................................................................................12
**Its**...........................................................................................................................................13
1NC – Its - Excludes Private Contractors.................................................................................................................13
1NC – Its - Excludes Private Contractors..................................................................................13
Ext: Private Military Contracts are NOT Topical.....................................................................................................14
Ext: Private Military Contracts are NOT Topical....................................................................14
Aff – Private Contractors are topical........................................................................................................................15
Aff – Private Contractors are topical.........................................................................................15
Its = Possession.........................................................................................................................................................16
Its = Possession.............................................................................................................................16
1
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Its = Related To.........................................................................................................................................................17
Its = Related To............................................................................................................................17
**Military Presence**.................................................................................................................18
1NC – Presence Excludes Combat Forces................................................................................................................18
1NC – Presence Excludes Combat Forces.................................................................................18
Ext: Presence is NOT Combat Operations................................................................................................................19
Ext: Presence is NOT Combat Operations................................................................................19
AT: Combat Distinction Excludes Iraq/Afghanistan................................................................................................20
AT: Combat Distinction Excludes Iraq/Afghanistan...............................................................20
C/I - Presence = Only Military Aid, Combat Operations, and Bases.......................................................................21
C/I - Presence = Only Military Aid, Combat Operations, and Bases.....................................21
Aff - Presence = Combat Operations.......................................................................................................................22
Aff - Presence = Combat Operations........................................................................................22
Combat Distinction Excludes Iraq/Afghanistan........................................................................................................23
Combat Distinction Excludes Iraq/Afghanistan.......................................................................23
Combat Distinction Fails..........................................................................................................................................24
Combat Distinction Fails.............................................................................................................24
AT: Greer Evidence..................................................................................................................................................25
AT: Greer Evidence.....................................................................................................................25
1NC – Presence is Only Troops................................................................................................................................26
1NC – Presence is Only Troops..................................................................................................26
Ext: Presence = Troops.............................................................................................................................................27
Ext: Presence = Troops................................................................................................................27
Aff – Presence Includes Both Troops and Infrastructure..........................................................................................28
Aff – Presence Includes Both Troops and Infrastructure........................................................28
Aff – Presence is Defined Broadly...........................................................................................................................29
Aff – Presence is Defined Broadly..............................................................................................29
Broad Aff Interpretations of Presence......................................................................................................................30
Broad Aff Interpretations of Presence.......................................................................................30
Broad Aff Interpretations of Presence......................................................................................................................31
Broad Aff Interpretations of Presence.......................................................................................31
**Police Presence**.....................................................................................................................32
1NC – Police Presence = Actual Police Deployments (vs. affs that claim their withdrawal of military decrease
“police”)....................................................................................................................................................................32
1NC – Police Presence = Actual Police Deployments (vs. affs that claim their withdrawal of
military decrease “police”)..........................................................................................................32
2
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Ext: Police Presence Refers to Civilian Police.........................................................................................................33
Ext: Police Presence Refers to Civilian Police...........................................................................33
1NC – Police Presence Doesn’t Allow Combat Troops...........................................................................................34
1NC – Police Presence Doesn’t Allow Combat Troops............................................................34
Ext: Police Presence refers to post-conflict peacekeeping........................................................................................35
Ext: Police Presence refers to post-conflict peacekeeping........................................................35
**Other Words**.........................................................................................................................36
United States federal government.............................................................................................................................36
United States federal government..............................................................................................36
And/Or Does Means Both or Either (AT: It Only Means Both)...............................................................................37
And/Or Does Means Both or Either (AT: It Only Means Both).............................................37
In = Within................................................................................................................................................................38
In = Within...................................................................................................................................38
3
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
**Substantial**
1NC – Substantial Reduction – 25%
A. Interpretation – a substantial reduction is 25% - military regulations prove.
Major Steven N. Tomanelli et al, has served as a Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force, Chief of
Acquisition and Fiscal Law for the Air Force s Air Mobility Command, and Senior DoD Counsel for the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Army Lawyer, February 1994, Lexis Academic
1. Regulatory Changes--Notification Requirements for Termination or Reduction of Defense Programs.--The DOD has issued an
interim rule requiring military departments and defense agencies to notify contractors of a potential termination of, or
substantial reduction in, a defense program. n581 Under the new rule, each military department and defense agency must establish
procedures for determining which defense programs are likely to be terminated or substantially reduced as a result of the submission of the
President's budget or enactment of an appropriations act. Within thirty days of such submission or enactment, agencies and military departments
must notify affected contractors of the proposed termination or reduction. Affected contractors are those with a contract of $
500,000 or more under a program identified as likely to be terminated or reduced by at least twenty-five percent. Within two
weeks after receiving notice from the government, contractors must notify, among others, their affected employees and subcontractors of the
proposed termination or reduction.
Presence is the totality of military activities in each country.

Barry M. Blechman et al, President of DFI International, Spring, 1997, Strategic Review, p.14
Given its multifaceted nature, neither practitioners nor scholars have yet settled on a single definition of presence. Technically, the term
refers to both a military posture and a military objective. This study uses the term “presence” to refer to a continuum of military
activities, from a variety of interactions during peacetime to crisis response involving both forces on the scene and those based in the United
States. Our definition follows that articulated by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Presence is the totality of
U.S. instruments of power deployed overseas (both permanently and temporarily) along with the requisite
infrastructure and sustainment capabilities."
B. Violation – the aff does not reduce 25% of the US military presence in ______________
C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fair ground for both sides
- Key to limits and ground – Checks based on “substantial” are key to prevent infinite tiny
affirmatives that withdraw specific sections of troops – these destroy core generic negative
ground and educational clash since they don’t have much literature
- Precision – this isn’t your usual substantial argument – our interpretation is based on US
law specific to the military – this best preserves predictability and real-world education
4
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Ext: Substantial Reduction = 25%

25% is the definition used in military legislation.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, PUBLIC LAW 103-160 [H.R. 2401],
NOVEMBER 30, 1993, Lexis Congressional
"(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
"(1) The term 'major defense program' means a program that is carried out to produce or acquire a major system
(as defined in section 2302(5) of title 10, United States Code).
"(2) The terms 'substantial reduction' and 'substantially reduced', with respect to a major defense program,
mean a reduction of 25 percent or more in the total dollar value of contracts under the program.".
5
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
1NC – Substantial Reduction – 50%

A. Interpretation - DOD defines substantial reduction as 50% - official guidelines prove.
US Department of Defense (DOD), produced by the Office of Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics), Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence), Office of Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, “Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense
Acquisition Programs (MDAPS) and Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) Acquisition Programs,” April
5, 2002, http://www.explorationsystems.nasa.gov/documents/TTT_052005/DoD50002R.pdf DA 7/12/2010
C7.10.3.12. The DoD Components shall not terminate or substantially reduce participation in joint ACAT ID programs without Requirements
Authority review and USD(AT&L) approval; or in joint ACAT IA programs without Requirements Authority review and ASD(C3I) approval.
The USD(AT&L) or ASD(C3I) may require a DoD Component to continue some or all funding, as necessary, to sustain the joint program in an
efficient manner, despite approving their request to terminate or reduce participation. Substantial reduction is defined as a funding or
quantity decrease of 50 percent or more in the total funding or quantities in the latest President's Budget for that portion of
the joint program funded by the DoD Component seeking the termination or reduced participation.
Presence is the totality of military activities in each country.

B. Violation – the aff does not reduce 50% of the US military presence in ______________
C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fair ground for both sides
- Key to limits and ground – Checks based on “substantial” are key to prevent infinite tiny
affirmatives that withdraw specific sections of troops – these destroy core generic negative
ground and educational clash since they don’t have much literature
- Precision – this isn’t your usual substantial argument – our interpretation is based on US
law specific to the military – this best preserves predictability and real-world education
6
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Ext: Substantial Reduction = 50%

Military legislation defines substantial reductions as 50%.
Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992 (102 H. R. 4421, Text of the full
bill, introduced by Olympia Snowe, Lexis Congressional)
TITLE I-ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO BE CLOSED SEC. 101. CLEANUP SCHEDULE FOR
CERTAIN BASES ON SUPERFUND NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.
(a) CLEANUP SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN BASES ON NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.-(1) With respect to each military installation
described in subsection (b)-
(A) before the installation is closed or substantial reductions in its operations have occurred, at least 75 percent of the remedial action
required on the installation pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq.) shall be completed; and
(B) not later than two years after the installation is closed or substantial reductions in its operations have occurred, all of the remedial action
required on the installation pursuant to such Act shall be completed.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), substantial reductions in the operations of a military installation shall be
considered to have occurred if more than 50 percent of the personnel assigned to the installation, including employees and
members of the Armed Forces, have been reassigned and moved to another installation.
7
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Substantial = Important
Substantially means significant.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary 2008, Twelfth Edition, Oxford Reference Online,
http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/views/ENTRY.html?
entry=t23.e56062&srn=1&ssid=464527616#FIRSTHIT
substantially
→ adv.
1. to a great or significant extent.
2. for the most part; essentially.
Substantial means important.

Oxford Dictionary of English, 2005, Oxford Reference Online,
http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/views/ENTRY.html?
entry=t140.e76634&srn=7&ssid=1046855207#FIRSTHIT
substantial
→ adjective
1. of considerable importance, size, or worth: a substantial amount of cash.
• strongly built or made: a row of substantial Victorian villas. • (of a meal) large and filling. • important in material or social terms; wealthy: a
substantial Devon family.
2. concerning the essentials of something: there was substantial agreement on changing policies.
3. real and tangible rather than imaginary: spirits are shadowy, human beings substantial.
8
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Substantial = Arbitrary
Their definition of substantial is arbitrary – there’s no consistency in US Code.
Jeffrey M. Colon, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law, Winter 1997, San Diego Law
Review, 34 San Diego L. Rev. 1, Lexis Academic
n138. I.R.C. 877(e). Neither the statute nor the legislative history indicates how much of a reduction in taxes is
necessary in order to constitute a "substantial" reduction. The meaning of "substantial" varies from one
Code section to the other. Compare, e.g., I.R.C. 368(a)(1)(C) (West 1988 & Supp. 1996) (acquisition of "substantially all" of acquired
company's assets for ruling purposes is 70% of gross assets and 90% of net assets (Rev. Proc. 77-37, 1977-2 C.B. 568)) with I.R.C. 1092 (West
1988 & Supp. 1996) ("substantial diminution" of risk of loss).
9
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
**Reduce**
1NC - Reduce CANNOT Eliminate
A. Interpretation - Reduce does not mean to eliminate – judicial rulings prove
Marcus Perrin Knowlton, Late Chief Justice Of The Supreme Judicial Court Of Massachusetts, Opinion in Dora
Green v. Abraham Sklar, June 20, 1905, Lexis Academic
The first question is whether, in applying the statute, the judge may consider the costs of the different cases together as one aggregate, and reduce
them to an amount "not less than the [*364] ordinary witness fees and other costs recoverable in one of the cases"; or, whether he is to consider
the costs of each case by itself, and make the reduction in each case separately. If he is limited to the latter mode, he cannot extinguish or disallow
the costs altogether in any case, for the word "reduce," in its ordinary signification, does not mean to cancel, destroy or
bring to naught, but to diminish, lower or bring to an inferior state. We think HN2Go to this Headnote in the case.the
words above quoted indicate that, in reducing the costs, the amount in all the cases together is to be considered and reduced. This makes it
possible for the judge, in his discretion, to reduce them in such a way as to leave nothing in some of the cases, providing he leaves in the
aggregate an amount not [***3] less than the largest sum recoverable in any of the cases.
B. Violation – the aff eliminates all US presence in _________________
C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fairness and limits
- Key to predictability – our evidence speaks to the common usage of reduce – this is key to
negative ability to predict affirmative ground – which is key to clash
- Key to limits – There are infinite ways for the aff to reduce military presence – our
interpretation limits out small large affs and guarantees negatives solvency ground based
on continued US presence
10
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Reduce CAN Eliminate

Federal code proves elimination is a way to reduce.
US Code 2005 (Code of Federal Regulations - Title 26: Internal Revenue (December 2005), 26 CFR 54.4980F-1,
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/54-significantly-reducing-future-accrual-19711258)
(c) Elimination or cessation of benefits. For purposes of this section, the terms reduce or reduction include
eliminate or cease or elimination or cessation.
Legislation proves reduce can mean eliminate – you can reduce to zero.
Major Samuel W. Kan, Judge Advocate, U.S. Army, citing Virginia Code, January 2010, Army Lawyer,
Lexis Academic
n316 VA. CODE ANN. § 58.1-322 (Westlaw 2010) ("$ 15,000 of military basic pay for military service personnel on extended active duty for
periods in excess of 90 days; however, the subtraction amount shall be reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount which the taxpayer's
military basic pay exceeds $ 15,000 and shall be reduced to zero if such military basic pay amount is equal to or
exceeds $ 30,000.").
Reduce can mean eliminate – contextual evidence.

Major Michael E. Guillory, reservist assigned to the International and Operations Law Division at the Air Force
Judge Advocate General School, Maxwell AFB AL, and member of the Florida State Bar, 2001, Air Force Law
Review, 51 A.F. L. Rev. 111, Lexis Academic
The responses available to the United States, or any other country in jeopardy of using civilians in an inappropriate manner are as varied as the
opinions of international legal scholars. The safest route would be to cease using civilians whenever the possibility exists that
their activities are integrated into combat operations, but this would prove difficult from a political standpoint. The
positions affected are critical for military operations; eliminating them without replacement would
mean a reduction in military capability while replacing them with military personnel would be expensive. Either choice
would not be appealing to Congress or the taxpayers. n157 A less [*137] drastic approach, at least theoretically, would be to discontinue their
usage temporarily while attempts are made to clarify the law (or perhaps amend the law to recognize the aforementioned quasi-combatant status),
but as anyone familiar with international law knows, getting countries to agree on anything is extremely difficult. Although several decades is
considered short-term when it comes to establishing international agreements, n158 it would be prohibitively long-term in addressing the issue of
civilians operating in questionable roles.
11
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Reduce = Decrease
Reduce means to make smaller.
Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2008, Twelfth Edition, Oxford Reference Online
reduce
→ v.
1. make or become smaller or less in amount, degree, or size. • boil (a sauce or other liquid) so that it becomes thicker and
more concentrated. • (chiefly N. Amer.) (of a person) lose weight. • (Photography) make (a negative or print) less dense.
2. (reduce someone/thing to) bring someone or something by force or necessity to (an undesirable state or action). • (reduce someone to) make
someone helpless with (shock, anguish, or amusement).
3. (reduce something to) change something to (a simpler or more basic form). • convert a fraction to (the form with the lowest terms).
4. (Chemistry) cause to combine chemically with hydrogen. • undergo or cause to undergo a reaction in which electrons are gained from another
substance or molecule. The opposite of oxidize.
5. restore (a dislocated body part) to its proper position.
6. (archaic) besiege and capture (a town or fortress).
12
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
**Its**
1NC – Its - Excludes Private Contractors
A. Interpretation – “its” implies ownership.
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005 (http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-
pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show
possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)
Military means belonging to the armed forces.

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2010
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/military_1)
military adjective
relating to or belonging to the armed forces
foreign military intervention
military targets/forces
military uniform
•describes a characteristic that is typical of the armed forces
military precision
B. Violation – Private military contractors don’t belong to the US military.
C. Vote Neg – our interpretation is key to preserve predictability and fairness
- Limits – the topic is already huge – limiting the aff to official members of the military is
key to prevent further expansion – which destroys clash and negative ground
- Predictability – limiting private military contractors excludes link to core generic ground
– which is key to clash and negative ground
- Extra-topicality is an independent reason to vote – even if they remove some official

military forces, removing private contractors still allows them to access extra advantages –
destroys predictability and proves the topic insufficient
13
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Ext: Private Military Contracts are NOT Topical

Military contractors are not part of the USFG – legislation and court rulings.
Aaron E. Garfield, assigned to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade from January to December, 2003, as a
military intelligence analyst, Summer 2006, Georgetown Journal of International Law, 37 Geo. J. Int'l L. 725, Lexis
Academic
With the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), Congress exempted the federal government from tort liability under specified conditions, such as
where a claim arises in a foreign country or from combatant activities. n22 However, the FTCA explicitly excludes private
contractors from its definition of who may be considered to be acting as an agent or instrumentality of the
U.S. government. n23 The courts have not specifically dealt with the issue of independent contractors employed in traditionally
governmental functions in the military operational context. [*730] They have, however, explicitly excluded contractors from
immunity in cases involving outsourced correctional officers in penal and immigration facilities. n24 As with
outsourced employees at domestic facilities, the flow of government authority in Iraq stops at the contracting official, and does not continue down
to the contracted firm or its employees.
Contractors are not agents of the government – Supreme Court rulings prove.
Professor Barbara Bezdek, Associate Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, June 2001,
Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1559, Lexis Academic
Administrative procedure acts n46 and public information laws n47 often do not apply to private contractors. The
Supreme Court has [*1570] held that receiving money under a grant does not turn the recipient into a
government agent, nor create a joint venture between government and grantee. n48 Data generated by
privately controlled organizations, whether or not received and used by the government agency, do not constitute
"agency records." n49 Consultants employed to improve the quality of the agency's work are not "agency"
actors, unless they have legal authority to make decisions as the agency's own. n50
Contractors are not part of the military – fall outside the military chain of command.
Jennifer K. Elsea et al, Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division at the Congressional Research Service,
August 25, 2008, “Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32419.pdf
Can Contractors Be “Combatants”? A critical question appears to be whether the duties of contractors amount to “taking an active part in
hostilities.” In an international armed conflict or occupation,58 only members of regular armed forces and paramilitary groups that
come under military command and meet certain criteria (carry their weapons openly, distinguish themselves from civilians,
and generally obey the laws of war) qualify as combatants.59 Because contract employees fall outside the
military chain of command,60 even those who appear to meet the criteria as combatants could be at risk of losing their right to be
treated as POWs if captured by the enemy.
Contextual evidence proves.

Jeremy Scahill, Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute, August 13, 2007, “Flush with Profits
from the Iraq War, Military Contractors See a World of Business Opportunities,”
http://www.alternet.org/world/59571/
During the 1991 Gulf War, the ratio of troops to private contractors was about 60 to 1. Today, it is the contractors who outnumber U.S. forces in
Iraq. As of July 2007, there were more than 630 war contracting companies working in Iraq for the United States. Composed of some 180,000
individual personnel drawn from more than 100 countries, the army of contractors surpasses the official U.S. military
presence of 160,000 troops.
14
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Aff – Private Contractors are topical

Private contractors meet “police presence.”
Jennifer K. Elsea et al, Legislative Attorney in the American Law Division at the Congressional Research Service,
August 25, 2008, “Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues,”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32419.pdf
The Geneva Conventions and other laws of war do not appear to forbid the use of civilian contractors in a
civil police role in occupied territory, in which case contractors might be authorized to use force when
absolutely necessary to defend persons or property.61 Given the fluid nature of the current security situation in Iraq, it may sometimes be difficult
to discern whether civilian security guards are performing law-enforcement duties or are engaged in combat. If their activity amounts to combat,
they would become lawful targets for enemy forces during the fighting, and, if captured by an enemy government (if one should emerge), could
potentially be prosecuted as criminals for their hostile acts.62 Contract personnel who intentionally kill or injure civilians could be liable for such
conduct regardless of their combatant status.63
Their interpretation of its doesn’t exclude private contractors – they can legally be
considered agents of the government when acting for the government – court rulings prove.
Nancy Gertner, US District Court Judge, May 4, 2009, FRANKLIN D. HOLDREN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 08cv10570-NG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 614 F. Supp. 2d 129; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38253, Lexis
Academic
Private military contractors sued in state court for design defects have also been brought within the ambit of
the federal officer removal statute, but only under certain circumstances. See Ryan v. Dow Chemical Co., 781 F. Supp. 934,
939 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (suggesting that private actors seeking to invoke the federal officer removal statute "bear a special burden"). After all, these
contractors, sued by plaintiffs from the same state, hardly face the kind of state-court bias with which the federal officer removal statute was
originally concerned. What they do face, however, is state tort liability stemming from the execution of federal duties -- much like [**8] the
federal tariff officer who acted at the behest of the national government. See In re Eastern and Southern Dist. New York Asbestos Litigation, 897
F.2d 626, 630 (2d Cir. 1990). Thus, a contractor may assert the "federal contractor defense" only insofar as it has
acted as the federal government's agent by complying with "reasonably precise" design specifications. See Boyle v. United
Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 507-08, 108 S. Ct. 2510, 101 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1988). And, like the federal officer, it may remove the
action only if the federal government was the source of the specific act for which the contractor now faces
suit. See Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 131-32, 109 S. Ct. 959, 103 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1989).
15
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Its = Possession
“Its” implies ownership.
Glossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005 (http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-
pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show
possession or ownership.
EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)
Its implies possession.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2009, Fourth Edition,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its
its (ĭts)
adj. The possessive form of it.
Used as a modifier before a noun: The airline canceled its early flight to New York.
16
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Its = Related To
“Its” means related to.
Merriam Websters Online Dictionary, 2010, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its
Main Entry: its
Pronunciation: \ˈits, əts\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1507
: of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <going to its kennel> <a child proud of its first
drawings> <its final enactment into law>
17
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
**Military Presence**
1NC – Presence Excludes Combat Forces
A. Interpretation - Presence excludes combat activities.
James Thomason – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis, “Transforming US Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options
for DoD,” July, 2002 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Our working definition of US overseas military presence is that it consists of all the US military assets in
overseas areas that are engaged in relatively routine, regular, non-combat activities or functions.1 By this
definition, forces that are located overseas may or may not be engaging in presence activities. If they are
engaging in combat (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), or are involved in a one-time non-combat action
(such as an unscheduled carrier battle group deployment from the United States aimed at calming or stabilizing an
emerging crisis situation), then they are not engaging in presence activities. Thus, an asset that is located (or
present) overseas may or may not be “engaged in presence activities,” may or may not be “doing presence.”
B. Violation – the affirmative withdrawal of troops from _______________ withdraws

combat troops – which are not a part of military presence.
C. Vote neg for fairness and education –
- Key to limits – the topic is already huge – excluding large troop affs is key to keeping the
topic manageable
- Key to precision – Our interpretation relies on precise, qualified definitions with intent to
define – this is key to predictability and real-world education
- Key to neg ground – The US is already withdrawing combat troops from Afghanistan and
Iraq – limiting the aff to non-combat troop affs is key to negative uniqueness, which is key
to generic ground
- Extra-topicality is an independent reason to reject – even if they withdraw some non-

combat troops, action beyond the resolution destroys predictability and clash, and proves
the resolution insufficient
18
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Ext: Presence is NOT Combat Operations

Presence excludes combat forces.
Lieutenant Colonel Charles Greer, United States Army, February 19, 1991, “The Future of Forward Presence,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
To establish a conceptual framework for this paper, I developed the following definition of forward presence within the
context of national defense: the visible employment of US military personnel and/or military materiel as a
deterrent outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational continuum
short of involving major US conventional forces in combat. My simplistic definition could be subject to endless scholarly
debate. It includes small unit combat operations of limited scope and duration and peacetime contingency operations such as Desert Shield in
Saudi Arabia, but it excludes the subsequent combat operation designated Desert Storm. It includes our military activities in Alaska and Hawaii.
It excludes any diplomatic, economic, social or psychological activities that do not have a military component.
Presence excludes crisis response and combat forces.

Bradford Dismukes, representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in
Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe , October 2003, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implications
for Acquisition and Use of Forces,” http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf
Beyond the direct defense of the United States, U.S. conventional forces fulfill three strategic functions: overseas presence,
immediate crisis response, and sustained, large-scale combat. The definitions of the three provide the framework for decision on
forces. Basically, forces needed for other tasks—for example, peace-keeping and peace enforcement—are lesser cases of these three. (The Bush
Administration grouped the latter two together under the label "Crisis Response." The Bottom-Up Review does not address crisis response except
by implication as part of phase 1, before large-scale combat in a "major regional contingency." Mr. Aspin tends to put the label presence on all
forward forces whether they are forces for presence (as will be specified) or whether they are engaged in the tasks of crisis response.) A basic
problem with overseas presence is that the term describes both a military posture (military means) and a military mission
(military means and political objectives). In the case of presence as a mission, the objective is influence on behalf of a variety of U.S.
political goals. This ambiguity is made worse by the fact that the term has been in use since at least the 1960s, but it has
never been defined in the JCS dictionary of military terms. As a strategic task of the armed forces, overseas
presence is here defined as the routine operation of forces forward (the means) to influence what foreign
governments, 113 both adversary and friend, think and do (the ends) without combat.114 Overseas presence does not constitute
a strategy, though it or a similar term may in time become the shorthand name for the national strategy. The national strategy is one of
engagement of U.S. power in the key regions to promote their stability and democratic development. As described in the body of this paper, a
national strategy would integrate the components of U.S. power to achieve stability in the short term and build cooperative relations in the long
term. The latter would address the dangers inherent in the international system, outlined in table 1, on page 23. An important
distinguishing characteristic of overseas presence115— the absence of combat—places it on a continuum of
increasing violence with the other strategic tasks, crisis response and sustained combat. Each form of the application
of power aims to influence political behavior. Presence is nonviolent (though it is their potential for violence that makes forward
forces influential); crisis response involves the threat, or the actual practice, of limited violence; sustained combat
seeks to change an adversary's behavior through largescale violence aimed at destroying his armed forces in the field, denying
him the means to control or continue to support his operations, and so on. Thinking about the three strategic functions as points or bands on a
continuum fits the real world; yet the three define the need for distinct kinds of capabilities.
19
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
AT: Combat Distinction Excludes Iraq/Afghanistan

The US has tens of thousands of non-combat troops in Iraq – plenty of aff ground.
Sam Smith, editor of Undernews (online report of the Progressive Review), January 19, 2009, “The Non-Combat
Troop Trick,” Undernews, http://www.prorev.com/2009/01/non-combat-troop-trick.html
Barack Obama has repeatedly talked about removing all combat troops from Iraq but neither the media nor his
supporters have paid much attention to the critical adjective: combat. Left in Iraq will be an uncertain number of "non-combat"
troops. Among these will be 100,000 mercenaries that Minnesota Public Radio politely calls "the parallel army. . . filling in the gaps." Given that
we have about regular 150,000 troops there now - both combat and non-combat - that's quite a few gaps being filled. The other group being left
in Iraq are "non-combat troops" estimated at somewhere around 30,000 to 70,000 - or about the same number of troops we
had in Vietnam in early 1965. According to war secretary Robert Gates, the number will be "several tens of thousands." What's the
difference between combat and non-combat troops? The former are assigned to offensive operations while, as
Amy Zalman puts it, non-combat troops "may provide training and mentoring, assist Iraqi troops, conduct
intelligence and communications functions, among other tasks."
Not all US troops in Afghanistan are combat troops.

The Guardian, October 13, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/obama-afghanistan-troop-
deployment
President Barack Obama is quietly deploying an extra 13,000 troops to Afghanistan, an unannounced move that is separate
from a request by the US commander in the country for even more reinforcements. The extra 13,000 is part of a gradual shift in priority since
Obama became president away from Iraq to Afghanistan. The White House and the Pentagon both announced earlier this year that the number of
US troops in Afghanistan was to be raised by 21,000, bringing the total at present to 62,000, with the aim of 68,000 by the end of the year. But
the Washington Post, based on conversations with Pentagon officials, said that on top of those an extra 13,000 "enablers" are also being deployed.
They are mainly engineers, medical staff, intelligence officers and military police. About 3,000 of them are
specialists in explosives, being sent to try to combat the growing fatality rate from roadside bombs. The
deployment of such non-combat troops is in line with the professed aim of the new US commander, General
Stanley McChrystal, to try to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan population.
20
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
C/I - Presence = Only Military Aid, Combat Operations, and Bases

“Presence” is only military aid, combat operations, and bases.
American Observer – quoting DOD Reports – “US military presence in foreign countries exceeds rest of
world” – November 10, 2009 – http://inews6.americanobserver.net/articles/us-military-presence-foreign-countries-
exceeds-rest-world
The United States has military presence in over 130 countries, according to a Department of Defense report
for 2008. No other nation in the world has such widespread global military presence. According to The Center for
Research and Globalization, an independent research organization, “The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations than it has
been throughout history.” Not only does the U.S. have military in a significant number of countries, but it also has diplomatic relations with
almost every country. A June 29, 2009 report from the State Department indicated that there are 192 countries in the world. The U.S. has
diplomatic relations with all but four: Bhutan, Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Simply put, foreign policy decisions made by leaders elected in the
United States directly impact the rest of the world. While the effects of our military deployment impact those who know someone in uniform,
many U.S. citizens rarely see the consequences, unless they make headline news. U.S. troops today are stationed throughout the Middle East,
including Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey and Kuwait. While some countries are home to military bases, others require military disaster relief after a
crisis, like a tsunami. Others have become battlefields, resulting in the deaths of U.S. soldiers and foreign civilians. Military presence is
defined by any nation where the U.S. has a military base, where the U.S. is providing military aid, active duty military
personnel, or where U.S. soldiers are engaged in combat theaters.
21
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Aff - Presence = Combat Operations

Presence includes both combat and non-combat operations – official budget planning for
Iraq proves.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), September 20, 2007, “The Possible Costs to the United States of
Maintaining a Long-Term Military Presence in Iraq,” http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8641/09-20-
ConradLTpresenceinIraq.pdf
At the request of Senator Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
estimated the possible costs to the United States of maintaining a long-term military presence in Iraq similar to
the U.S. forces in the Republic of Korea and the Northeast Asia region. The nature and pace of operations of such a presence, if any, in Iraq for
one or more decades into the future are uncertain. To accommodate a range of possibilities, CBO has projected costs under two
scenarios: a “combat” scenario, which would involve rotating military units into and out of Iraq to sustain U.S. operations in a combat
environment (as is now being done); and a “noncombat” scenario, which would involve stationing specific military units indefinitely at
established bases in the region in a less hostile environment. If U.S. military operations in Iraq were to develop into a long-term presence, such
forces could differ substantially from those assumed in either of the scenarios used in this analysis. Moreover, the two scenarios are not
mutually exclusive over time: The more intensive pace of combat operations could give way to the slower pace of noncombat operations
over some number of years. In any event, the ultimate costs of any long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq would depend heavily on the scale
and pace of future operations. Under the combat scenario that CBO considered, the United States would maintain a
long-term presence of approximately 55,000 military personnel in Iraq, deploying military units and their associated
personnel there for specific periods and then returning them to their permanent bases either in the United States or
overseas. The scenario also incorporates the assumption that units deployed to Iraq would operate at the same pace and conduct the same types of
missions as the forces currently deployed there. In CBO’s estimation, this scenario could have one-time costs of $4 billion to $8 billion and
annual costs of approximately $25 billion. (All costs in this analysis are expressed as 2008 dollars; see Table 1.) Under the noncombat
scenario that CBO analyzed, the United States would maintain a long-term presence of approximately 55,000 military
personnel in Iraq by indefinitely stationing specific units at established bases there in a manner similar to the current
practice of assigning personnel to units based in Korea or Germany. The scenario incorporates the assumption of much less intense military
operations than those under the combat scenario. Under this noncombat alternative, units stationed in Iraq would rarely, if ever, be engaged in
combat operations. Up-front costs (mainly for construction) under the noncombat scenario would be approximately $8 billion, with annual costs
of $10 billion or less, CBO estimates.
Korea proves.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), September 20, 2007, “The Possible Costs to the United States of
Maintaining a Long-Term Military Presence in Iraq,” http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8641/09-20-
ConradLTpresenceinIraq.pdf
Senator Conrad requested that CBO estimate the costs of a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq, similar to
the presence maintained by the United States in and around the Republic of Korea since the 1950s. Those forces, which are
spread throughout the Northeast Asia region, include Army ground combat units stationed in Korea itself and Marine Corps
ground combat units stationed in Okinawa, Japan. Similarly, the Air Force maintains units in both Korea and Japan, and the
Marine Corps has aviation equipment and personnel in Okinawa. In particular, from 1991 to 2004 (until a recent Army reorganization), the
United States had maintained the current equivalent of four brigade combat teams, divisional and higher-level Army and Marine headquarters and
support units, six land-based tactical fighter squadrons, and an aircraft carrier battle group in the Northeast Asia region—a total force comprising
about 80,000 personnel.
22
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Combat Distinction Excludes Iraq/Afghanistan

Their interpretation excludes Iraq and Afghanistan – no distinction between combat and
non-combat troops.
Heather S. Ingrum Gipson, J.D. Candidate, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Winter 2005, UMKC Law
Review, 74 UMKC L. Rev. 383, Lexis Academic
n136 Ann Scott Tyson, Bid to Limit Women In Combat Withdrawn, THE WASHINGTON POST, May 26, 2005, at A01. See also Thom
Shanker, House Bill Would Preserve, and Limit, the Role of Women in Combat Zones, N.Y. TIMES, May 20, 2005, at 20. Currently, there are
over 22,000 positions open to women in "forward support companies." Id. Furthermore, given the nature of the warfare in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the "front lines" are ambiguous; therefore, it is harder to differentiate between combat and
non-combat positions. Id.
23
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Combat Distinction Fails

Combat distinction fails – no way to separate combat and non-combat activities.
Colonel David A. Fastabend, Writing Team at the School of Advanced Military Studies, US Army Command
and General Staff College, former Army National Security Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
Summer 1997, Parameters, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/97summer/fastaben.htm
Recognizing that a strategic distinction between war and OOTW is problematic at the tactical level, others are prepared to use tactical distinctions
as the basis of categorization. Combat and non-combat is an alluring way to categorize operations, for there is widespread
agreement that the use or threat of violence dramatically alters the nature of human activity. Fair enough. This distinction is present (but often
overlooked) in the joint doctrine elaboration of MOOTW activities, and it is the basis for discriminating between stability operations and support
operations in the draft revision of FM 100-5. But combat, real or potential, is so interwoven with non-combat activities
in most military operations that it is an impractical means of categorization. To categorize by combat would
suggest that D Company, 3-5 Cav, was on a non-combat operation until the drunk staggered into his front yard
and started firing; then the operation instantly transmuted to combat. It is impossible to associate substantive
planning and execution guidance with such a fleeting, transient model of categorization. As Major General Carl F. Ernst
noted in the Joint Task Force Somalia After Action Report, "All commanders must believe they are always only a heartbeat away from a
gunfight."[27]
Their distinction is outdated – current conflict has collapsed the difference between combat
and non-combat.
Diane H. Mazur, Professor of Law, University of Florida College of Law; former Captain, United States Air
Force, May, 2007, Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 14 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 977, Lexis Academic
n56. In 2005, the Army opened Ranger training to men serving in non-combat roles, recognizing that the Iraq
War had made formal distinctions between combat and non-combat arms less important:
The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) created many new challenges for our Army. Traditional branch roles on
the battlefield are no longer the norm for our forces and the threat facing us today requires that we ensure
additional select leaders of CS [combat support] and CSS [combat service support] units receive the unique skills
taught at Ranger School. MILPER Message No. 05-067, Expansion of Ranger School Attendance to Combat
Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) Branches (Mar. 9, 2005) (alterations added), available at
http://www. military.com/MilitaryCareers/Content/0,14556,MPDC CareerNews Ar my Enlisted 030905,00.html.
The mission-oriented sentiment applies unless, of course, they are women: "Attendance at Ranger school will
remain limited to Soldiers for whom the combat exclusion policy does not apply." Id.
Nature of conflict has changed – can’t distinguish between combat and non-combat.
Steven K. Berenson, Associate Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Fall 2009, Hamline Journal
of Public Law & Policy, 31 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 101, Lexis Academic
Of course, psychological and other less visible forms of injuries have been a feature of warfare from the beginning of human existence. n129
However, a number of features of the current conflicts may be influencing an increase in the prevalence of such injuries. The first of these relates
to changes in military operations, [*127] including extended deployments. n130 "Troops are seeing more-frequent deployments, of greater
lengths, with shorter rest periods in between - factors thought to create a more stressful environment for servicemembers." n131 Additionally,
the line between combat and non-combat situations has blurred in the current conflicts. Thus, rather than
experiencing distinct periods of combat, followed by periods of rest, service members face a constant threat of
guerilla type attacks. n132 The constant vigilance required to defend oneself is a type of stressor that has been linked to PTSD.
24
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
AT: Greer Evidence

Greer admits that his definition is not universal and only applies to his research – prefer
our evidence, which cites US law.
Lieutenant Colonel Charles Greer, United States Army, February 19, 1991, “The Future of Forward Presence,”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
The definition may not be scholastically airtight. It is only offered to provide a conceptual frame of
reference for the study. So for the purpose of this study, let us accept that forward presence is the visible
employment of US military personnel and/or military materiel as a deterrent outside of the continental United
States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational continuum short of involving major US conventional forces in
combat.
25
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
1NC – Presence is Only Troops

A. Interpretation - Presence is limited to troops.
The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military, 2001, Oxford Reference Online
presence n.a group of people, especially soldiers or police, stationed in a particular place: maintain a
presence in the region.
B. Violation – the aff changes military doctrine or weapons policy – it does not remove
troops from _______________
C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fairness and educational clash
- Key to limits – Expanding the topic to include both troops, missions, and weapons leads to
infinite small affs – this destroys negative generic and specific ground, which is key to
fairness
- Key to predictability – Limiting the topic to troops allows viable affs within each topic
country but still guarantees negative ability to predict affirmatives – this is key to research
and clash – which are key to education
26
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Ext: Presence = Troops

Presence is measured based on troops.
Jessie PH Poon, et al, Professor in the Department of Geography, University at Buffalo-SUNY, September 2006,
Political Geography, ScienceDirect
The major source of defense trade data comes from the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) where 1989 forms the earliest
year that the data are available and 2004 the most recent (http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp). From this database, current and historical
records may be searched for U.S. exports to Asia Pacific countries with the end use category ‘‘defense.’’ This ensured that dual use products were
excluded from the search. Seven sectors may be identified for defense trade including military aircrafts, aircraft launching gear/parachutes, etc.,
engines/turbines for military aircraft, military trucks/armored vehicles, etc., military ships/boats, tanks/artillery/
missiles/rockets/guns/ammunition, and parts/special goods, etc. Not all of the sectors will be analyzed because many countries contain only very
sparse data. Approximately thirty Asia Pacific countries are identified to be engaged in defense trade with the US although this number varies
from sector to sector. The countries include all members of APEC and the ARF but also extend to other countries that have been excluded from
these arrangements such as Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Oceania. Defense exports are supplemented by two other sources
of data, that is, US military presence and countries’ military expenditure. US military presence is measured by the number and
shares of active military personnel in the region. This information is compiled by the US Department of Defense
(http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm). Statistics on military expenditures may be obtained from the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (www.sipri. org). In addition, contextual information is also collected from research monographs on US military strategies.
These reports are compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in Washington, D.C., and CRS constitutes the public policy research
arm of the US Congress. Many of these reports include testimonials to the Congress regarding defense and strategic events in the Asia Pacific,
and provide important documentation as well as evidence of US geopolitical interests, policies and developments in the region.
There is no official military definition of presence – common usage proves that troops are
the best definition of presence.
Craig W. Mastapeter, Senior Planning Officer, Department of Homeland Security, December 2008, “The
Instruments of National Power: Achieving the Strategic Advantage in a Changing World,”
According to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, presence is defined as the state of being present, or of being
within sight or call, or at hand; as opposed to absence.438 YourDictionary defines presence as the fact or condition of being present; existence,
ccurrence, or attendance at some place or in some thing.439 From the perspective of the purpose of this paper, the FreeDictionary
provides the most relevant definition: the diplomatic, political, or military influence of a nation in a foreign
country, especially as evidenced by the posting of its diplomats or its troops there.440 Interestingly enough,
The Joint Publications 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms does not
include a definition of presence. However, Joint Publication 1-0, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, clearly states that
an extended U.S. presence will be required, post-termination, to conduct stability operations to enable legitimate civil authority and attain the
national strategic end state441 and that, as a nation, the United States wages war employing all instruments of national power to achieve national
strategic objectives on terms favorable to the United States.442 It can therefore be inferred from this entry that a U.S. presence is necessary prior
to and during operations because presence demonstrates U.S. commitment, facilitates access, enhances deterrence, and supports the transition
from peace to war and a return to peace once hostilities have ended on terms favorable to the U.S.
27
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Aff – Presence Includes Both Troops and Infrastructure

Presence includes both troops infrastructure.
28
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Aff – Presence is Defined Broadly

Official usage of presence is broad – includes forward-deployed troops.
Mary L. Scala, Office of the Secretary of Defense, May 18, 1998, “Theater Engagement Planning: An Interagency
Opportunity,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA351762&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
During the run-up to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Joint Staff and the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy undertook a comprehensive review of overseas presence requirements and issues. The
intention was to ensure the resources committed to presence were consistent with national priorities in the region—and to identify overseas
commitments that were potentially excess to the emerging defense strategy. To make sure everything was considered, the definition of
“presence” was made as broad as possible—from forward-stationed troops, to prepositioned stocks, to naval
deployments, to joint and combined military exercises, to mil-to-mil contacts.3 At about the same time, the Joint Staff
was working to create a notional “baseline engagement force” in order to get a clearer historical picture of how many U.S. forces worldwide were
engaged routinely in engagement or crisis-response operations. Both the overseas presence study and the baseline engagement force analysis
were intended to form one point of departure for the formulation of a new defense strategy. Planners hoped to find relatively painless ways to
increase spending on military readiness and procurement, without undercutting essential warfighting forces or technology
29
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Broad Aff Interpretations of Presence

Five categories of military presence – permanently stationed forces, rotational forces,
temporary deployments for training, defense cooperation, and academic centers.
Richard J. Samuels, Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for International
Studies, 2006, "Forward Basing." Encyclopedia of U.S. National Security, p.370
There are five primary categories of U.S. military presence abroad. These include U.S. forces permanently
stationed overseas; U.S. forces deployed abroad on a rotational basis; U.S. forces deployed temporarily for
exercises, combined training, or military-to-military interactions; programs such as defense cooperation,
security assistance, and international arms cooperation; and regional academic centers that provide training
in Western concepts of civilian control of the military, conflict resolution, and sound defense-resource management for foreign military and
civilian officials.
Military presence includes a broad range of military activities.

US Joint Chiefs of Staff, June 16, 1995, Joint Doctrine for Military Operations other than War, Joint Pub 3-
07, http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/jp3-07.pdf
b. Forward Presence. Forward presence activities demonstrate our commitment, lend credibility to our alliances,
enhance regional stability, and provide a crisis response capability while promoting US influence and access. In
addition to forces stationed overseas and afloat, forward presence activities include periodic and rotational
deployments, access and storage agreements, multinational exercises, port visits, foreign military training,
foreign community support and military-to-military contacts. Given their location and knowledge of the region,
forward presence forces could be the first which the combatant commander commits to MOOTW.
Presence includes forward basing and broad list of deployments.

Richard J. Samuels, Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for International
Studies, 2006, "Forward Basing." Encyclopedia of U.S. National Security, pp.272-3
During peacetime, U.S. overseas military presence in strategic regions of the world, established to support
international security objectives and national interests. Forward basing refers to the equipment, U.S. armed
forces, and military facilities that are stationed in a foreign country or deployed at sea during peacetime. The
more general term forward presence encompasses noncombat overseas U.S. military activities and includes,
but is not limited to, bases, fixed and rotational deployments, access agreements, foreign military assistance,
training of foreign armed forces, joint training exercises, intelligence sharing, and military-to-military
contacts.
Presence includes physical stationing of forces.

Captain Mark A. Patterson, US Navy Reserve, pursuing Master of Strategic Studies Degree , 9-5-2008, “Defend
the Approaches!” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486738&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
Throughout history, U.S. maritime strategy has evolved in response to the realities of a changing world. As world geo-political dynamics change,
US national priorities may change and with it the threats, risks and potential operating environment for the nations’ armed forces. In response, the
Navy (including the Marine Corps) develops new strategies or modifies existing ones to support US national strategy and priorities. One constant
since the end of World War II has been the enduring principle of forward presence as a mainstay of US maritime strategy. The term
presence encompasses many activities from port visits to stationing ships within sight of shore to full scale
operations.1 For this paper, presence is the visible positioning or stationing of ships, aircraft and/or personnel for
the purpose of influencing, assuring or engaging other state actors or non-state actors. The scope of this definition
includes the full range of traditional and emerging military missions, including port visits, training (personnel and forces),
Theater Security Cooperation Programs (TSCP), personnel exchanges, humanitarian assistance and limited or full scale
permissive and non-permissive military operations.
30
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Broad Aff Interpretations of Presence

Military presence includes a broad list of non-combat activities.
Occupying a continuum of operations short of actual combat, presence missions have included the permanent
basing of troops overseas, routine military-to-military contacts, military exercises and training with other
nations, participation in multinational peace and humanitarian operations, the provision of timely
intelligence information and other data to leaders of other nations, military deployments in response to crises,
and, when necessary, the deployment of forces in anticipation of combat.
Military presence includes a broad list of actions, including peacekeeping.

James Thomason – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis, “Transforming US Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options
for DoD,” July, 2002 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Overseas military presence activities are generally viewed as a subset of the overall class of activities that the
US government uses in its efforts to promote important military/security objectives [Dismukes, 1994]. A variety of
recurrent, overseas military activities are normally placed under the “umbrella” concept of military presence. These
include but are not limited to US military efforts overseas to train foreign militaries; to improve inter-
operability of US and friendly forces; to peacefully and visibly demonstrate US commitment and/or ability to
defend US interests; to gain intelligence and familiarity with a locale; to conduct peacekeeping activities; and
to position relevant, capable US military assets such that they are likely to be available sooner rather than later in
case an evolving security operation or contingency should call for them.2
31
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
**Police Presence**
1NC – Police Presence = Actual Police Deployments (vs. affs that
claim their withdrawal of military decrease “police”)
A. Interpretation – Police presence is distinct from military presence – it is limited to actual
deployments of police for training and substitution for indigenous forces.
James Dobbins et al, Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, RAND National Security
Research Division, 2003, America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1753/MR1753.ch9.pdf
INTERNATIONAL POLICE PRESENCE OVER TIME
A more recent innovation has been dispatching U.S. and international police to supplement the efforts of
military forces to provide security for local inhabitants. These initiatives have differed greatly in scope and scale. Some have
principally consisted of training programs for local law enforcement officers; others have been major
operations that have included deploying hundreds or thousands of armed international police to monitor,
train, mentor, and even substitute for indigenous forces until the creation of a proficient domestic police force. Figure 9.3
shows numbers of foreign police per thousand inhabitants over time for the four cases that featured significant deployments of international
police.
B. Violation – Withdrawing military troops can’t reduce police presence – the two concepts
are distinct
C. Vote neg – Our interpretation of the topic is key to preserve fairness and education
- Key to limits – Defining police based on make-up rather than mission is key to preserve
limits on this topic – police missions have no clear defined meaning – which explodes the
topic, destroying clash and negative ground
- Key to precision – The framers included both terms in the topic, proving they were meant
to have distinct meanings - Our interpretation is based in literature comparing military
and police presence – Which proves it’s more predictable and boosts clash
32
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Ext: Police Presence Refers to Civilian Police

Police refers to civilian police forces – proves that police presence should be distinct from
the military.
Mathieu Deflem and Suzanne Sutphin, Professor of Sociology at the University of South Carolina and Research
Assistant Professor in the Research, Evaluation, and Emerging Community Issues Division, November 2006,
“Policing Post-War Iraq: Insurgency, Civilian Police, and the Reconstruction of Society,” Sociological Focus,
http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zpoliraq.html
Our analysis of the police situation in Iraq focuses on developments since an end to major combat operations was announced in the Spring of
2003. Unless explicitly noted otherwise, the term police in this paper refers to the institution and function of civilian public
police forces that are formally legitimated within the context of national states with the tasks of crime control
and order maintenance. Importantly, we make no assertion that the police in Iraq has acquired a degree of popular legitimacy comparable
to that of law enforcement agencies in other nations, especially those with a long history of democratization. Relatedly, when we use such terms
as insurgency and terrorism in this paper, we imply no essentialist positions but instead rely on a constructionist viewpoint and therefore precisely
rely on the terms that are being used, especially on the part of the agents of control, to refer to acts of violence that are responded to accordingly
by police agencies and other institutions of social control. Considering the rapidly evolving and changing nature of the Iraqi situation, also, it is
important to note that this article was completed in August 2006, at a time when discussions on the insurgency in Iraq were for several months
already implying a shift towards civil war.
33
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
1NC – Police Presence Doesn’t Allow Combat Troops

A. Interpretation - Police presence refers to post-combat military forces – contextual Iraq
evidence proves.
Baker Spring and Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in National Security Policy and Research Fellow, Nuclear
Energy Policy at the Heritage Foundation, September 25, 2002, “In Post-War Iraq, Use Military Forces to Secure
Vital U.S. Interests,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/09/In-Post-War-Iraq-Use-Military-Forces-to-
Secure-Vital-US-Interests
At the outset, this task may require up to 30,000 U.S. military personnel, with additional allied troops numbering perhaps 15,000.10 As Iraq's
military proves itself able to defend the country against Iran, this element of the post-war force should be reduced incrementally. 1. To provide
physical protection to Iraq's energy infrastructure. Given Iraq's relatively dispersed energy sources, this element may initially require about 5,000
U.S. military personnel and an equal number of allied personnel. It is uncertain how long this effort could take, but it is a less complex and
narrower mission than the other two. At the outset, protecting the energy infrastructure should involve infantry brigades,
but over time, this element of the force could gradually transition to military police brigades before
eventually drawing down the force size as the situation stabilizes. This would provide the United States military
commanders with the necessary flexibility to transition from a combat force to a military police
presence. The United States also should seek to turn this responsibility over to reconstituted Iraqi security forces.
B. Violation – they attempt to include combat forces under the phrase “police presence”
C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fairness
- Key to limits – Our interpretation preserves the exclusion of combat forces, which is key
to limit our large affs that explode the topic – this is key to preserve negative ground and
clash.
- Extra-topicality is an independent reason to vote – Even if they remove some police

presence, they also go beyond the reach of the topic – this gives the aff unfair advantages,
undermines negative’s ability to generate literature and clash, and proves the resolution
insufficient
34
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
Ext: Police Presence refers to post-conflict peacekeeping

Police presence refers to peacekeepers.
Mary Hope Schwoebel, program officer in USIP’s Education and Training Center/International, July, 2009,
“United States Institute of Peace Teaches International Security Personnel to Resolve Conflicts without Resorting to
the Use of Force,” USIPeace Briefing, http://www.usip.org/files/resources/usip_teaches.pdf
The G-8 Action Plan pledged to train 75,000 international peacekeepers by 2010, 7,500 of whom were to be gendarme-
type peacekeepers specializing in managing the transition from armed violent conflict to a post-conflict
stabilization and reconstruction context. Gendarme-type forces are prepared for rapid deployment, have self-sustained
logistics, have interoperability with military components, and have the capability to establish a strong police presence in
hostile neighborhoods. Stability Police Units (SPUs) are flexible and adaptable, operating in contexts in which both military and civilian tasks
may be required in different combinations and at different times during the course of stabilization and reconstruction. Due to their hybrid nature,
SPUs may be put under both military and civilian chains of command.
35
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
**Other Words**
United States federal government
United States federal government refers to the three branches of the federal government.
US Legal, No Date (“United States Federal Government Law and Legal Definition,”
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/)
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the
United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature,
which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US
Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the
Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly
assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.
36
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
And/Or Does Means Both or Either (AT: It Only Means Both)

And/Or does not mean both – it means you can do both or either.
Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2008, Ed. Robert Allen, Oxford Reference Online
and/or is a formula indicating that the items connected by it can be taken either together or as
alternatives. Its principal uses are in legal and other formal documents (These ratios indicated that the changes in the order of crystallinity
were similar to those with the water content and/or dehydration and temperature for gelatinization among and/
or within cultivars—Annals of Botany, BrE 2001)
, and in logic (The best philosophy…embodies a picture of the world and/
or a set of values—E. Craig, 2002).
In general use the effect can be ungainly:
Stalin, characteristically insensitive to Western public opinion and/or relying on the political ambiguity of these phrases in the existing context,
signed it—Cambridge Review, 1959.
A more comfortable way of expressing the same idea is to use ‘X or Y or both’, and in some cases ‘or’ by itself will do.
37
SDI 2010 Topicality
Topicality Core
In = Within
In means within the relevant country.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 2009, Fourth Edition,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in
in 1 (ĭn)
prep.
1. a. Within the limits, bounds, or area of: was hit in the face; born in the spring; a chair in the garden.
b. From the outside to a point within; into: threw the letter in the wastebasket.
c. Having the activity, occupation, or function of: a life in politics; the officer in command.
d. During the act or process of: tripped in racing for the bus.
e.With the arrangement or order of: fabric that fell in luxuriant folds; arranged to purchase the car in equal payments.
f.After the style or form of: a poem in iambic pentameter.
g. By means of: paid in cash.
h. Made with or through the medium of: a statue in bronze; a note written in German.
38

BBHS Topicality File

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BBHS Topicality File

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SDI 2010 Topicality

Presence is the totality of military activities in each country.

Ext: Substantial Reduction = 25%

1NC – Substantial Reduction – 50%

Presence is the totality of military activities in each country.

Ext: Substantial Reduction = 50%

Substantial means important.

B. Violation – the aff eliminates all US presence in _________________

C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fairness and limits

Reduce CAN Eliminate

Reduce can mean eliminate – contextual evidence.

Military means belonging to the armed forces.

B. Violation – Private military contractors don’t belong to the US military.

C. Vote Neg – our interpretation is key to preserve predictability and fairness

- Extra-topicality is an independent reason to vote – even if they remove some official

Ext: Private Military Contracts are NOT Topical

Contextual evidence proves.

Aff – Private Contractors are topical

Its implies possession.

B. Violation – the affirmative withdrawal of troops from _______________ withdraws

C. Vote neg for fairness and education –

- Extra-topicality is an independent reason to reject – even if they withdraw some non-

Ext: Presence is NOT Combat Operations

Presence excludes crisis response and combat forces.

AT: Combat Distinction Excludes Iraq/Afghanistan

Not all US troops in Afghanistan are combat troops.

C/I - Presence = Only Military Aid, Combat Operations, and Bases

Aff - Presence = Combat Operations

Combat Distinction Excludes Iraq/Afghanistan

Combat Distinction Fails

AT: Greer Evidence

1NC – Presence is Only Troops

Ext: Presence = Troops

Aff – Presence Includes Both Troops and Infrastructure

Aff – Presence is Defined Broadly

Broad Aff Interpretations of Presence

Military presence includes a broad range of military activities.

Presence includes forward basing and broad list of deployments.

Presence includes physical stationing of forces.

Broad Aff Interpretations of Presence

Military presence includes a broad list of actions, including peacekeeping.

Ext: Police Presence Refers to Civilian Police

1NC – Police Presence Doesn’t Allow Combat Troops

C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fairness

- Extra-topicality is an independent reason to vote – Even if they remove some police

Ext: Police Presence refers to post-conflict peacekeeping

And/Or Does Means Both or Either (AT: It Only Means Both)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi