1AC (1/13)

Contention One: Inherency

The United States military is experiencing a downfall in troop levels.

NPP 08 (The National Priorities Project is an organization that analyzes and clarifies
federal data)
The Iraq War began to have an impact on recruiting in 2005
when the Army missed its goal for the number of recruits.
Despite increases in spending on recruitment and advertising
such as new arcade games designed to draw more youth into
the Army, the Army has failed to meet its benchmark for the
level of educational attainment of recruits for the fourth year
in a row. The percentage of recruits with high school diplomas reported in early
October by the Department of Defense was considerably greater than what the data
actually show. This difference is due to the Army's reporting on the number of
"contracts" rather than the number of "accessions" with high school diplomas. Contracts
are recorded at the time of sign-up, whereas accessions are those who actually enlist.
Each year there are losses of individuals who, despite signing the contract, do not end up
enlisting. Because of this, NPP requested zip code level data on accessions from the
Army, and this report is based on those numbers.

Additionally – this lack of recruits is causing a reduction in the quality of our

military pool
Boot, Max.(a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.) "Defend America, Become American."
Los Angeles Times 16 June 2005. <http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/16/opinion/oe-boot16?pg=1>.
The Army is getting desperate. Having fallen 25% short of
already reduced recruiting goals last month, it is raising
enlistment bonuses to $40,000 in some cases and lowering standards
to accept and retain soldiers who would have been turned
away in years past. A minor criminal record? No high school
diploma? Uncle Sam still wants you. Down this way disaster lies -- the
undoing of the finest armed forces in U.S. history. But what choice
is there? With combat dragging on in Iraq and plenty of jobs
available at home, there aren't enough volunteers. So far, a real crisis
has been averted only because the Army has exceeded its retention goals and kept some troops in uniform
past their discharge dates, but it will only get tougher to keep volunteers in uniform if troops are constantly
deployed overseas. There are two obvious, and obviously wrongheaded,
solutions to this problem: Pull out of Iraq now or institute a
draft. The former would hand a victory to terrorists and undo everything that more than 1,700
Americans have given their lives to achieve. The latter option, aside from being a political non-starter,
would also dilute the high quality of the all-volunteer force. Having reviewed all the
other possibilities and found them wanting, I return to the solution I
proposed on this page in February: Broaden the recruiting
base beyond U.S. citizens and permanent, legal residents.
Legislation has been drafted to make a modest start in that
direction.

1AC (2/13)

The current application pool is uniquely inept at addressing the army’s challenges

NPR, 08, [NPR April 17, 2008, The Impact of War, Army Documents Show Lower
Recruiting Standards, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89702118]
The Army is meeting its recruiting goals partly by accepting more enlistees
who lack high school diplomas, who have low scores on the military's aptitude test
or receive waivers for criminal and medical problems. Army documents obtained by
NPR link the lowered standards to a drop since November 2001 in the number of
men interested in joining up. "They are trying to grow the Army during wartime,
during an unpopular war, so some of the best recruits are deciding not to, come into
the Army," NPR's Tom Bowman tells Steve Inskeep. Back in the early 1990s almost
100 percent of Army enlistees had a high school diploma. But the Army documents
show the percentage has dropped to 79 percent in recent years. "That's a real problem
because a high school diploma, recruiters see that as an indicator of success … of
completing training and actually becoming a better soldier," Bowman says. "That's
something they've watched for years and they're really concerned about it." The
documents also show that waivers for serious misdemeanors increased from 3,002 in
2005 to 8,259 in 2007. The most serious criminal misconduct charges include
burglary, narcotics/drug charges, aggravated assault, larceny, and breaking and
entering. The number of medical waivers granted also increased, climbing from 4,348 in
2005 to 5,985 in 2007. The medical conditions that most often resulted in waivers were
high blood pressure and eye refraction. An Army analysis of this "waiver pool," shows
that these soldiers tended to have better performance in basic training, re-enlist at a
higher rate, are promoted to the rank of sergeant more quickly and receive more medals
for valor than those without waivers. But the analysis also shows that waiver recruits
are more likely than non-waiver recruits to be drummed out of the Army due to
misconduct, desertion and failure to complete alcohol rehabilitation.
 1AC (3/13)

Thus the plan: The United States federal government should allow illegal
immigrants in the U.S. to gain citizenship by serving four years in the military
 1AC (4/13)

Contention 2: Hegemony

The U.S. is incapable of fighting another large-scale war without an increase in

recruitment- Iraq proves
CNN.com, Officers: U.S. military stretched 'dangerously thin', February 19, 2008,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/19/military.survey.iraq/index.html
The Iraq war has strained U.S. forces to the point where they could not fight
another large-scale war, according to a survey of military officers . Of those
surveyed, 88 percent believe the demands of the Iraq war have "stretched the U.S.
military dangerously thin." On the other hand, 56 percent of the officers disagree that the war has
"broken" the military. Eighty percent of officers believe it is unreasonable to expect the
U.S. military to wage another major war successfully at present. Foreign Policy magazine
and the Center for a New American Security on Tuesday issued the U.S. Military Index, a survey of 3,400
present and former U.S. military officers. "We asked the officers whether they thought the U.S. military
was stronger or weaker than it was five years ago," said Michael Boyer, who helped write the report.
"Sixty percent said the U.S. military is weaker than it was five years ago," Boyer told reporters. The
report found that officers "see a military apparatus severely strained by the
grinding demands of war." More than half of the officers responding cited the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the "pace of troop deployments" needed for those conflicts, the survey said. The report
comes a few weeks before the five-year anniversary of the Iraq war, where a troop "surge" is winding down
by summer. The U.S. military is proposing a pause in troop reductions for a period of
review before any more decisions on withdrawals. The officers have "an overwhelmingly
negative view" of many of the early decisions shaping the Iraq war, but most believe the present U.S.
counterinsurgency strategy and troop increases are good omens for success in Iraq.

Specifically, Low quality troops are hurting military progress

Fred Kaplan, January 9, 2006. (“GI Schmo,” Slate Magazine, 1/19, Lexis.
http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/)
Three months ago, I wrote that the war in Iraq
was wrecking the U.S. Army, and since
then the evidence has only mounted, steeply. Facedwith repeated failures to meet its
recruitment targets, the Army has had to lower its standards dramatically. First it
relaxed restrictions against high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more
applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test—a group,
known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small numbers, as a matter of
firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is also a Category V—those who score in the lowest 10th
percentile. They have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and, presumably, always will
be.)
The bad news is twofold. First, the number of Category IV recruits is starting to
skyrocket. Second, a new study compellingly demonstrates that, in all realms of
military activity, intelligence does matter. Smarter soldiers and units perform their
tasks better; dumber ones do theirs worse.
 1AC (5/13)
And - Counterinsurgency is the greatest and most likely future threat to U.S.
Hegemony
(William Newmann, author, April 3rd, 2008. “Hegemonic Competition, Hegemonic Disruption and
the Current War.” Retrieved 6/28/09)
Al-Qaeda does not command large armies from Indonesia to Morocco, nor does it or its
ideological brethren have control of even a regionally powerful state; however, it does provide
inspiration, operational support, and, most importantly, an ideological blueprint for
many groups who seek to overthrow the status quo in their nations and region. For
this reason, al-Qaeda as the centerpiece of a revolutionary and violently militant
ideology can be seen as a global insurgency which presents an asymmetric challenge
to US hegemony throughout Asia and Africa. While not an existential threat, nor capable of producing
a peer competitor for the US, the al-Qaeda network’s ability to propagate its revolutionary
ideology could plunge at-risk nations into instability or civil war or even come to
power through short-lived alliances of convenience with non-violent Islamists or
non-Islamist opponents of the ruling regime. Each scenario can undermine the
hegemonic legitimacy and/or dominance of the US on a region by region basis

Hegemony is key to national security – only U.S. primacy can protect the country
from existential threats.
Bradley A. THAYER, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri
State University, 2006 [“In Defense of Primacy,” National Interest, Issue 86, November/December,
Available Online via Academic Search Premier]
In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these
fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United
States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will
exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington
cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states
or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the
United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-
pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American
wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression.
In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than
confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no
diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and
strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats.
And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging
enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to
attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries
to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-
ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has
noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global
commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to
project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies.
As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are
reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent
capabilities is increased. This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly.
 1AC (6/13)
And - Hegemony is key to the global economy – free trade and globalization.
Bradley A. THAYER, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri
State University, 2007 ["The Case For The American Empire," American Empire: A Debate, Published by
Routledge, ISBN 0415952034, p. 43-44]
Economic Prosperity
Economic prosperity is also a product of the American Empire. It has created a
Liberal International Economic Order (LIEO)—a network of worldwide free trade and
commerce, respect for intellectual property rights, mobility of capital and labor
markets—to promote economic growth. The stability and prosperity that stems
from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit,
particularly states in the Third World. The American Empire has created this network not
out of altruism but because it benefits the economic well-being of the United States. In
1998, the Secretary of Defense William Cohen put this well when he acknowledged that
“economists and soldiers share the same interest in stability”; soldiers create the
conditions in which the American economy may thrive, and “we are able to shape the
environment [of international politics] in ways that are advantageous to us and that are
stabilizing to the areas where we are forward deployed, thereby helping to promote
investment and prosperity... business follows the flag.” Perhaps the greatest testament to
the benefits of the American Empire comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign
service diplomat, researcher at the World Bank, prolific author, and now a professor who
started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India that
strongly condemned empire. He has abandoned the position of his youth and is now one
of the strongest proponents of the American Empire. Lal has traveled the world and, in
the course of his journeys, has witnessed great poverty and misery due to a lack of
economic development. He realized that free markets were necessary for the development
of poor countries, and this led him to recognize that his faith in socialism was wrong. Just
as a conservative famously is said to be a liberal who has been mugged by reality, the
hard “evidence and experience” that stemmed from “working and traveling in most parts
of the Third World during my professional career” caused this profound change.61 Lal
submits that the only way to bring relief to the desperately poor countries of the
Third World is through the American Empire. Empires provide order, and this
order “has been essential for the working of the benign processes of globalization,
which promote prosperity.”62 Globalization is the process of creating a common
economic space, which leads to a growing integration of the world economy through
the
 1AC (7/13)

Harms:

American Hegemony is collapsing due to imperial overstretch

of military forces

Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 08,
[Robert Kagan, 10/30/09, The Washington Post, Still No. 1,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903202.html]

One hopes that whoever wins next week will quickly dismiss all this faddish
declinism. It seems to come along every 10 years or so. In the late 1970s, the foreign
policy establishment was seized with what Cyrus Vance called "the limits of our power."
In the late 1980s, the scholar Paul Kennedy predicted the imminent collapse of
American power due to "imperial overstretch." In the late 1990s, Samuel P.
Huntington warned of American isolation as the "lonely superpower." Now we have the
"post-American world."

Loss of US Power forces the US to turn inward

Christopher Layne, Associate Professor of International Affairs at Texas A&M, 07,
American Empire: A Debate, p. 132
There are two mechanisms that can constrain the United States. First is a roughly
equal distribution of power in the international system, because if confronted by
countervailing power the United States would be forced to forego primacy in favor
of a more cautious strategy." The other possible restraining mechanism is that America's own
domestic political system will prevent "national leaders from dangerous and unnecessary adventures.?" For
the present, at least, there is no counterbalancing power that can compel the United States to forsake its
pursuit of primacy and empire. Thus, the United States must follow a policy of self-restraint if it is to avoid
primacy's adverse geopolitical and domestic consequences. Since World War II, such self-restraint seldom
has been abundant-and has completely vanished during the Bush II administration. Grand strategic self-
restraint can be developed only-ifat all-by engaging in a vigorous intellectual debate about the
consequences of primacy and empire and about America's grand strategic options-and only if that debate
carries over into the public policy arena." Here, the torch has been passed to a new generation of realists
both to make the case against American Empire and its accompanying perils and to simultaneously make
the case for a new U.S. grand strategy.
 1AC (8/13)

Hegemony ! – Power Vacuums – Asia

Asian arms race will inevitably trigger a nuclear war
Cirincione, Director of Non-Proliferation Project at Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Spring 00, Foreign Policy, “The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain,”
EBSCO
The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are
already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout
takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been
painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United
States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six
decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding
behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea
continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea
wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders
while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal
amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced
to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East
nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain
territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are
capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's
actions can trigger reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate
additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain
that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity
of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these
governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon
proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and,
perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.
 1AC (9/13)

Hegemony ! – Power Vacuums – Middle East

An intense power struggle would occur for regional hegemony. The Saudi Arabian
government would be forced to acquire nuclear weapons to protect itself from
Iran. This would ensure nuclear war which would escalate globally
Sharad Joshi, Student international relations, March 00, Strategic Analysis,
http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_00jos01.html]
The introduction of nuclear weapons in an already hostile region could increase the
possibility of actual use of nuclear weapons in a tense situation. The continuous
hostility of varying levels over the past five decades, might lead to the inclusion of
nuclear and other WMD in existing “war-fighting” doctrines. 18 If the states in the
region see WMD simply as weapons to be used in a conflict, the probability of these
weapons being used increases drastically. The Arabs have tried to counter Israel’s
nuclear superiority, by developing a sizeable chemical and biological weapons
arsenal. The greater the number of powers in a region possessing WMD, the greater
the risk of escalation. Wars in history have more often than not been limited; but
the main reason for this has been constraints due to resources and technological
know-how. Instances are very rare of a war being limited due to considerations of
the consequences of existing capabilities. 19 The indiscriminate effect of Weapons of
Mass Destruction makes it very difficult to keep a war involving such weapons,
limited.
 1AC (10/13)

Hegemony ! - Globalization
A. Continued American Hegemony allows for global economic prosperity
Bradley A. Thayer, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic
Studies of Missouri State University, 07, American Empire: A Debate, p. 43-44
Economic prosperity is also a product of the American Empire. It has created a
Liberal International Economic Order (LIEO)-a network of worldwide free trade and
commerce, respect for intellectual property rights, mobility of capital and labor markets-
to promote economic growth. The stability and prosperity that stems from this
economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly states in
the Third World. The American Empire has created this network not out of altruism but because it benefits
the economic well-being of the United States. In 1998, the Secretary ofDefense William Cohen put this
well when he acknowledged that "economists and soldiers share the same interest in stability"; soldiers
create the conditions in which the American economy may thrive, and "we are able to shape the
environment [of international politics] in ways that are advantageous to us and that are stabilizing to the
areas where we are forward deployed, thereby helping to promote investment and prosperity...business
follows the flag."60 Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the American Empire comes from
Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat, researcher at the World Bank, prolific author, and
now a professor who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India that
strongly condemned empire. He has abandoned the position of his youth and is now one of the strongest
proponents of the American Empire. Lal has traveled the world and, in the course of his journeys, has
witnessed great poverty and misery due to a lack of economic development. He realized that free markets
were necessary for the development of poor countries, and this led him to recognize that his faith in
socialism was wrong. Just as a conservative famously is said to be a liberal who has been mugged by
reality, the hard "evidence and experience" that stemmed from "working and traveling in most parts of the
Third World during my professional career" caused this profound change." Lal submits that the only wayto
bring relief to the desperatelypoor countries of the Third World is through the American Empire.
Empires provide order, and this order "has been essential for the working of the
benign processes of globalization, which promote prosperity."62 Globalization is the
process of creating a common economic space, which leads to a growing integration
of the world economy through the increasingly free movement of goods, capital, and
labor. It is the responsibility of the United States, Lal argues, to use the LIEO to
promote the well-being of all economies, but particularly those in the Third World,
so that they too may enjoy economic prosperity
 1AC (11/13)

The plan solves

First, Immigrants will join the military
Bryan Bender, (Globe Staff), Immigration bill offers a military path to US dream, June 16, 2007,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/16/immigration_bill_offers_a_military_path_to_us_dream/
The pool of qualified young people would be significant: The government
estimates that there are at least 750,000 undocumented youths of military age in the
United States. Only some of them would meet the standards of the DREAM Act, but
even 10 percent would equal a typical full year's worth of new recruits. The
Migration Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, estimates that as many as
280,000 illegal immigrants between 18 and 24 would qualify for the program. "A
significant share . . . may join the military as it offers college tuition and job training
benefits, as well as for patriotic reasons," according to a policy paper about the issue
drafted by the institute. Choosing military service could bring expedited citizenship for
family members of undocumented residents, according to the institute. "It's a substantial
pool of people and I think it's crazy we are not tapping it," said Max Boot , a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Boot has previously suggested the United
States go a step further by recruiting foreigners overseas to serve in the military. Josh
Bernstein , director of federal policy at the National Immigration Law Center,
which advocates for low-income immigrants, said most illegal immigrants who
would be eligible for military service under the law come from a demographic group
that is already disposed toward voluntary military service. For example, a 2004
survey by the government-funded Rand Corporation found that 45 percent of
Hispanic males and 31 percent of Hispanic females between ages 16 and 21 reported
they were "very likely" to serve on active duty in the next few years, compared with
24 percent for white men and 10 percent for white women.
 1AC (12/13)
Recruiting Immigrants in the Army would significantly increase readiness
The Boston Globe, 07 [June 16; Bryan Bender; “Immigration bill offers a military path to US
dream”;
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/16/immigration_bill_offers_a_military_path_to
_us_dream/]
WASHINGTON -- A little-noticed provision in the proposed immigration bill would grant instant
legal status and ultimately full citizenship to illegal immigrants if they enlist in the US military, an idea the
Pentagon and military analysts say would boost the Pentagon's flagging efforts to
find and recruit qualified soldiers.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or DREAM Act, is part of the
stalled package of proposals that many in Congress are seeking to resurrect. The proposal, applicable to an
estimated 750,000 undocumented residents of military age, stipulates that those who arrived in the United
States before age 16, graduated from high school, and meet other qualifications could immediately enter the
path to citizenship in exchange for at least two years' service in the armed forces.
Though the overall immigration bill was sidetracked earlier this month amid bitter infighting, the
prospect of using military service as one pathway to citizenship appeals both to
lawmakers who side with immigration rights advocates and those who want tougher
immigration laws and tighter borders.
The DREAM Act is among a series of proposals that make up the immigration bill, the subject of
high-stakes negotiations between President Bush and congressional lawmakers from both parties.
Proponents urged Bush to use his influence to get it passed, and the president predicted the controversial
changes would succeed, despite lingering opposition from some in his own party.
Bill Carr , the Pentagon's acting deputy undersecretary of defense for
military personnel policy, said the measure should become law because it would be
"good for readiness" -- particularly at a time when the military, under pressure
from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is struggling to attract high-quality recruits.
At the same time, the Army and Marine Corps want to increase their ranks by
nearly 100,000 over the next five years.
 1AC (13/13)

Immigrants Have Served in the Past, and it seems to be the best alternative to
spending huge amounts of money and recruiting felons. Boot, Max.(a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations.) "Defend America, Become American." Los Angeles Times 16 June
2005. <http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/16/opinion/oe-boot16?pg=1>.
When I first made this suggestion, I got a lot of positive responses but also some scathing
critiques. A retired Army sergeant in Houston wrote (expletives deleted): "Are you out of your mind? The
last thing we need in our military is a bunch of illegal immigrants serving in combat operations for a
country to which they are not culturally bonded!" But there is no better way to build that bond
than through military training and discipline. Drill sergeants have been forging cohesive units out
of disparate elements since the days of the Roman legions. In the past, the U.S. military had many
more foreigners than we do today. (During the Civil War, at least 20% were immigrants.
Now it's 7%.) The British army, among many others, has also made good use of
noncitizens. Nepalese Gurkhas still fight and die for the Union Jack despite not being "culturally
bonded" to it. No doubt they would do the same for the Stars and Stripes. Some letter writers invoke the
specter of mercenaries leading to the fall of the U.S. as they supposedly led to the fall of Rome. That's a
misreading of Roman history. As classicist Victor Davis Hanson points out, by the 1st century AD, the
legions "were mostly non-Italian and mercenary, and the empire still endured for nearly another 500 years."
If only the Pax Americana were to last half as long! Other critics think it's repugnant to ask
foreigners to face dangers that citizens won't. But there is always an element of
unfairness in war. Unless you institute a truly universal draft (we've never done it), some
will always be more at risk than others. Besides, the U.S. already makes ample use of
mercenaries. We rely on tens of thousands of contractors in Iraq, Colombia and
elsewhere, many of them not Americans. They would be a lot more useful if they were in
uniform and subject to military orders so that we could avoid mix-ups like the one that
just happened in Iraq, where Marines detained 19 employees of an American engineering
firm for allegedly firing on them. Would foreigners sign up to fight for Uncle Sam? I
don't see why not, because so many people are desperate to move here. Serving a few
years in the military would seem a small price to pay, and it would establish beyond a
doubt that they are the kind of motivated, hardworking immigrants we want. Anyway,
what's the alternative? $100,000 signing bonuses? Recruiting felons?
The US is the Leader in high-tech Warfare, but Utterly Fails
When it comes to Nation Building and Counterinsurgency
Operations.
Boot, Max(a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.), and Jean J. Kirkpatrick(Senior
Fellow for National Security Studies). "The Struggle to Transform the Military." Council on Foreign
Relations (2005). Foreign Affairs. Mar.-Apr. 2005. CFR.
<http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60626/max-boot/the-struggle-to-transform-the-military>.
Today, the U.S. lead in high-tech warfare is even greater than the British Empire's was in
the nineteenth century. The U.S. military, with a panoply of advanced strike, surveillance,
and communications systems, can bomb any target on the planet with impunity, dominate
any ocean, and move its forces anywhere to defeat just about any army. But when it
comes to old-fashioned nation building and counterinsurgency operations, the United
States lags behind both the Victorian British army and its modern successor.
Transforming the U.S. military to address these deficiencies is not a matter of spending
money on expensive weapons systems (the Pentagon's preferred solution to problems).
Instead, it will take organizational and cultural changes to emulate some of the strategies
employed by the British. This, in turn, will require changing a military personnel system that dates
from World War II and an organizational structure that dates from the Napoleonic Wars. Both are so
encumbered with red tape that they hinder the U.S. armed forces' basic ability to respond to threats. The
American military is already making some much-needed changes in response to its experiences in Iraq, but
much more has to be done. The challenge of the second Bush term will be to continue to crack through
institutional resistance that comes not only from the usual suspects— service bureaucracies, defense
contractors, and their allies on Capitol Hill— but also from some "transformation" advocates overly
enamored of advanced technology. It will be necessary not only to reform the Pentagon, but also to
integrate it more closely with other parts of the government, such as the Central Intelligence Agency and
the State Department. It is a daunting agenda, especially with a war in progress, but it is a
necessary one.
Immigrants Have No Negative Impacts on the US Economy
Boot, 07 (Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributing editor to
Opinion and the author of "War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern
World."). "Immigrants are a boon, not a curse." Los Angeles Times 03 Dec. 2007.
<http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/03/news/OE-BOOT3>.
We constantly hear that immigrants are taking jobs from Americans. Yet over the past
quarter-century, even as illegal immigration has remained high, the U.S. economy has
outperformed the rest of the industrialized world. Although a recession may be on the horizon,
our economy has been booming since the early 1980s, with consistently low unemployment (currently
4.7%). Per-capita income in the U.S., when adjusted for purchasing power, is $41,399, or the
third-highest in the world. Per-capita income after taxes has risen by 12.7% since 2001. We have seen
8.3 million jobs created since August 2003 -- 50 straight months of job growth. It is hard to see how
immigration, legal or otherwise, has put a damper on the economy. Quite the reverse:
Immigrants contribute significantly to economic growth. The economic arguments against
immigrants reflect a zero-sum mind-set that holds that there are only a given number of jobs to go around
and that they will go either to "foreigners" or "Americans." The reality is that the job market is
dynamic, and that newly arrived Americans can create more jobs for native-born
Americans or can free up low-wage jobs allowing the native-born to take more skilled
(and higher-paying) positions.

Current recruitments for the military leave too early to get the job done.

Zia Mian, Research Scientist, Program on Science and Global Security, 2005, Zia Mian, September
14, 2005, The Unraveling of the US Military, Anti-War.com, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/mian.php?
articleid=7258]

It is not just recruitment. The military has been having problems keeping its soldiers.
Almost 30 percent of new recruits leave within six months. Some of this is at least due to
the vast gap between the day-to-day experiences of young people before they join up and
the life of a recruit during training. Stories talk of recruits who "can't eat, they literally
vomit every time they put a spoon in their mouths, they're having nightmares." Bonuses
are being offered to encourage soldiers to re-enlist once their service is over. It is reported
that re-enlistment bonuses can be as high as $150,000, depending on the specialty and
length of re-enlistment.
Some reports suggest the Army has started to lower its standards for soldier performance,
and so reduce losses. The Wall Street Journal has reported a military memo directing
commanders not to dismiss soldiers for poor fitness, unsatisfactory performance, or even
for pregnancy, alcoholism, and drug abuse. There are problems with desertion. The
Pentagon has admitted that more than 5,500 soldiers have deserted since the start of the
Iraq war. In comparison, 1,509 deserted in 1995. The cases that have become public have
said that they did so because they are opposed to the war. A telephone hotline to help
soldiers who want to leave the military has reported that the number of calls it is
receiving is now double of what it was in 2001 – the hotline answered 33,000 calls last
year.