Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

Hegemony File
Poverty Destroys Hegemony...................................................................................................................20 Inequality Undermines Hegemony..........................................................................................................21 Environmental Leadership Critical to Global Leadership.......................................................................22 Economic Competitiveness Key to Leadership.......................................................................................23 Economic Competitiveness Key to Leadership.......................................................................................24 Economic Decline Collapses Leadership................................................................................................25 Anti-Americanism Undermines U.S. Power..........................................................................................26 *** Uniqueness Issues Hegemony/Leadership Low Now ***...........................................................27 Hegemony Collapsing General............................................................................................................28 Hegemony Collapsing General............................................................................................................29 Hegemony Collapsing General............................................................................................................30 Hegemony Collapsing General............................................................................................................31 Hegemony Collapsing General Leadership..........................................................................................32 Hegemony is Collapsing.........................................................................................................................33 Hegemony is Collapsing.........................................................................................................................35 No U.S. Global Leadership/Credibility...................................................................................................36 U.S. Collapse Now, No Multipolarity....................................................................................................37 Hegemony Collapsing Soft Power.......................................................................................................38 Hegemony Collapsing Obama Policies................................................................................................39 Hegemony Collapsing Obama Policies................................................................................................40 Apolarity Collapsing...............................................................................................................................41 Apolarity Now.........................................................................................................................................42 Apolarity Now.........................................................................................................................................43 Apolarity Now.........................................................................................................................................45 Economic Decline Now..........................................................................................................................46 Economic Decline Now...........................................................................................................................47 U.S. Decline Now Multipolarity Now..................................................................................................48 U.S. Decline Now Perception...............................................................................................................49 U.S. Decline Now EU/China Will Supplant U.S. Leadership..............................................................50 U.S. Decline Now Europe Will Supplant U.S. Leadership..................................................................51 U.S. Decline Now European Soft Power Outpacing U.S. Soft Power.................................................52 U.S. Decline NowChina Will Supplant U.S. Leadership....................................................................53 U.S. Decline Now China Will Overtake the U.S. Economically.........................................................54 Collapse Inevitable - Counterbalancing..................................................................................................55 ................................................................................................................................................................55 Collapse Inevitable -- Public Support....................................................................................................56 Soft Balancing Now................................................................................................................................57 Military Power Wont Secure Our Leadership.......................................................................................58 Status Quo Hard Power Causes Counterbalancing................................................................................59 Apolarity Collapses Multilateralism.......................................................................................................60 Hegemony Declining Asia....................................................................................................................61 Hegemony Declining - - China Power Increasing General..................................................................62 Hegemony Declining China Power Increasing Economy.................................................................63 Hegemony Declining -- China Power Increasing -- Military.................................................................64 Hegemony Declining -- China Power Increasing Soft Power.............................................................65 Hegemony Declining -- China Power Increasing -- Asia.......................................................................66 Hegemony Declining Human Rights Leadership Declining................................................................67 Multipolarity Now...................................................................................................................................68 Multipolarity Now...................................................................................................................................69 *** Uniqueness Issues Hegemony/Leadership High Now ***..........................................................70 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining General...............................................................................................71 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining General...............................................................................................72 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General..............................................................................................73 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General..............................................................................................74 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General..............................................................................................75

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General..............................................................................................76 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General..............................................................................................77 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Will be the Hegemon of the Future....................................................78 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining India Focused Inward.........................................................................79 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining................................................................................................................80 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining................................................................................................................81 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining................................................................................................................82 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining................................................................................................................83 U.S. Hegemony Will Rebound................................................................................................................84 No Counterbalancing Now......................................................................................................................85 U.S. Will Remain a Global Hegemon.....................................................................................................86 U.S. Hegemony Sustainable....................................................................................................................87 U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be...........................................................................................88 U.S. Global Hegemon Now 30 Years...................................................................................................90 U.S. Global Hegemon Now....................................................................................................................91 Hegemony Now, Sustainable .................................................................................................................92 U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be...........................................................................................93 U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be Educational System Strong...........................................94 U.S. Hege Now, Iraq doesnt Threaten....................................................................................................95 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be University Educational System Strong...........................96 U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be Secondary Educational System Strong.........................97 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be U.S. Will Lead Global Growth........................................98 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be U.S. Will Lead Global Growth........................................99 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be U.S Will Dominate Europe............................................100 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be No Economic Declne Now............................................102 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be...........................................................................................103 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be No Asia Threat..............................................................104 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be No European Economic Threat....................................105 U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be No China Threat...........................................................106 Hegemony Not Declining Asia...........................................................................................................107 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Chinese Soft Power Doesnt Threaten.............................................108 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Chinas Economic Power Doesnt Threaten...................................109 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Low Population Growth Doesnt Threaten.....................................110 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining No Eastern Shift...............................................................................112 U.S. Hegemony Not a Threat Europe Not a Threat............................................................................113 U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Environmental Problems Dont Destroy..........................................114 Hegemony U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be Iraq Hasnt Hurt.....................................115 U.S. Hege High Now, No Challengers.................................................................................................116 Collapse Leads to Apolarity..................................................................................................................117 No Isolationism Now............................................................................................................................118 No Isolationism Now.............................................................................................................................119 Iraq Not Causing Isolationist Backlash in the US.................................................................................120 Bandwagoning Not Balancing...............................................................................................................121 Military Lead Now................................................................................................................................122 Military Lead Now................................................................................................................................123 Global Military Dominance Now..........................................................................................................124 No Economic Hege Decline Now.........................................................................................................125 No Economic Hegemony Decline Now................................................................................................126 No Economic Hegemony Decline Now................................................................................................127 No Economic Hegemony Decline Now................................................................................................128 No Economic Overstretch.....................................................................................................................129 Answers to: Foreign Debt Causes Overstretch ................................................................................130 Answers to: Foreign Debt Causes Overstretch.................................................................................131 Answers to: Dollar Collapse............................................................................................................132 No Military Hegemony Decline Now...................................................................................................133 A2: Layne Primacy Sustainable / No Overstretch..............................................................................134 A2: Layne Primacy = Bandwagoning................................................................................................135 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File A2: Layne War On Terrorism Is Winnable.........................................................................................136 A2: Layne War On Terrorism Is Winnable.........................................................................................137 A2: Layne Iraq War Was/Is Good......................................................................................................138 A2: Layne Iraq War Was/Is Good......................................................................................................139 A2: Layne Layne Relies On Ad Homs...............................................................................................140 Multipolarity Now.................................................................................................................................141 *** Advantage Answers ***.................................................................................................................142 Leadership Advantage Answers -- Frontline.........................................................................................143 Leadership Advantage Answers Frontline..........................................................................................144 Leadership Advantage Answers -- Frontline.........................................................................................145 *** More Links to the Hegemony Debate ***.....................................................................................146 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................147 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................148 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................149 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................150 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................151 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................152 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................153 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................154 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................155 Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony........................................................................................156 Links: Recession Threatens Hegemony................................................................................................157 Links: Economic Decline Threatens Hegemony...................................................................................158 Links: Economic Decline Threatens Hegemony...................................................................................159 Links: Increased TROOP Deployments Threaten Hegemony...............................................................160 Links: Loss of Public Support Threatens Hegemony............................................................................161 *** Hegemony Good Frontlines, Key Cards, and Modular Impacts ***..........................................162 Hegemony Bad Answers -- Frontline................................................................................................163 Hegemony Bad Answers -- Frontline................................................................................................165 Hegemony Bad Answers Frontline.................................................................................................174 Hegemony Bad Answers -- Frontline................................................................................................175 Hegemony Bad Answers -- Frontline................................................................................................176 Hegemony Bad Answers Frontline (Multilateralism Fails)............................................................177 Hegemony Bad Answers Frontline (Multilateralism Fails)............................................................178 Hegemony Sustains International Cooperation.....................................................................................179 U.S. Hegemony Generally Good...........................................................................................................180 Unipolarity Good: Global Nuclear Exchange (Khalilzad)....................................................................181 Unipolarity Good: Global War (Thayer)...............................................................................................183 Unipolarity Good: Global War (Thayer)...............................................................................................184 Unipolarity Good: Global War (Ferguson)............................................................................................185 Unipolarity Good: Extinction (Smil).....................................................................................................186 Hegemony Net-Beneficial.....................................................................................................................187 Hegemony Net-Beneficial.....................................................................................................................188 Hegemony Produces Global Stability..................................................................................................189 U.S. Leadership Key to Global Peace...................................................................................................190 Hegemonic Collapse Causes War..........................................................................................................191 Hegemony Critical to Democracy Promotion.......................................................................................192 Hegemony Critical to the Global Economy..........................................................................................193 Hegemony Critical to Free Trade..........................................................................................................194 Hegemony Critical to Humanitarianism................................................................................................195 Hegemony Critical to East Asian Stability Module..............................................................................196 Hegemony Hegemony Critical to East Asian Stability.........................................................................197 Hegemony Necessary to Stop East Asian Proliferation .......................................................................198 Hegemony Necessary to Stop Taiwan War...........................................................................................199 Hegemony Necessary to Stop Taiwan War...........................................................................................200 Hegemony Stops Japanese Rearmament...............................................................................................201 Hegemony Protects Middle Eastern Stabilit.........................................................................................202 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File Hegemony Sustains Balkan Stability....................................................................................................203 Hegemony Stops Indo-Paki Wars..........................................................................................................204 A2: Decreased Hegemony Solves Proliferation (1/1)...........................................................................205 ..............................................................................................................................................................205 A2: Decreased Hegemony Solves Terrorism........................................................................................206 A2: Can't Deter Everyone.....................................................................................................................207 Counter-Balancing A2: China...............................................................................................................208 Counterbalancing A2: European Union................................................................................................209 Counterbalancing A2: European Union................................................................................................210 Counterbalancing A2: European Union.................................................................................................211 Hegemony Causes Bandwagoning, Not Counterbalancing..................................................................212 Isolationism Bad: Terrorism..................................................................................................................213 Off-Shore Balancing Bad Frontline (1/3)...........................................................................................214 Off-Shore Balancing Bad Frontline (2/3)...........................................................................................215 Off-Shore Balancing Bad Frontline (3/3)...........................................................................................216 Off-Shore Balancing Bad China (1/2)................................................................................................217 Off-shore Balancing Bad Primacy K2 Stability (1/2)........................................................................218 Off-shore Balancing Bad Primacy K2 Stability (2/2)........................................................................219 *** Hegemony Good Impact Extensions ***....................................................................................220 Isolationism Bad: Asian Draw-Down Bad............................................................................................221 Isolationism Bad: Asian Draw-Down Bad............................................................................................222 Isolationism Bad: Economic Collapse..................................................................................................223 Isolationism Bad: Economic Collapse..................................................................................................224 Isolationism Bad: Economic Collapse..................................................................................................225 Unipolarity Good: Alternative is Apolarity...........................................................................................226 ..............................................................................................................................................................227 Unipolarity Good: Human Rights.........................................................................................................227 Unipolarity Good: Stops War................................................................................................................228 Unipolarity Good: Stops War................................................................................................................229 Unipolarity Good: Stops War................................................................................................................230 Unipolarity Good: Stops War................................................................................................................231 Unipolarity Good: Stops War................................................................................................................232 Unipolarity Good: Hard Power Impacts................................................................................................233 Unipolarity Good: Credible Hard Power key to Deterrence.................................................................234 Unipolarity Good: Khalilzad Impact Extensions..................................................................................235 Unipolarity Good: Asian Wars..............................................................................................................236 Unipolarity Good: Asian Wars..............................................................................................................237 Unipolarity Good: Democracy Promotion ...........................................................................................238 Unipolarity Good: Nuclear Proliferation...............................................................................................239 Unipolarity Good: Economy ................................................................................................................240 Unipolarity Good: European Wars .......................................................................................................241 Unipolarity Good: Free Trade ..............................................................................................................242 Unipolarity Good: India-Pakistan War .................................................................................................243 Unipolarity Good: Middle East Proliferation........................................................................................244 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative.........................................................................................................245 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative.........................................................................................................246 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative.........................................................................................................247 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative.........................................................................................................248 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative.........................................................................................................249 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative.........................................................................................................250 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative.........................................................................................................251 Unipolarity Good: No European Alternative to U.S. Leadership..........................................................252 Unipolarity Good: No Effective Alternative to U.S. Unipolarity..........................................................253 Unipolarity Good: Free Trade/Military Hegemony Key to Global Democracy...................................255 Unipolarity Good: No Country Can Replace U.S. Leadership.............................................................256 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative Will Arise in Response to U.S. Decline.........................................257 Unipolarity Good: Unipolarity Best/Multipolarity Fails.......................................................................258 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File Unipolarity Good: Unipolarity Best/Multipolarity Fails.......................................................................259 Unipolarity Good: Unipolarity Best/Multipolarity Fails.......................................................................260 Unipolarity Good: Unipolarity Best/Multipolarity Fails.......................................................................261 Unipolarity Good: Unipolarity Best/Multipolarity Fails.......................................................................262 Unipolarity Good: Unipolarity Best/Multipolarity Fails.......................................................................264 Unipolarity Good: Unipolarity Best/Multipolarity Fails Wont Stop Prolif.......................................266 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Bad Arms Sales..........................................................................267 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Bad Arms Sales..........................................................................268 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism/International Cooperation Isnt Needed to Solve Global Problems270 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism/International Cooperation Isnt Needed to Solve Global Problems271 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: Multilateralism Fails.....................................................................272 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: Multilateralism Fails.....................................................................273 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: Multilateralism Fails.....................................................................274 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Fails: U.N. Fails............................................................................275 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Fails: U.N. Fails............................................................................276 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Fails: U.N. Fails............................................................................277 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Fails: U.N. Fails............................................................................278 Unipolarity Good: Multipolarity Increases Terrorism...........................................................................280 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Wont Solve Proliferation..............................................................281 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Wont Solve Proliferation..............................................................282 Unipolarity Good: NATO Fails.............................................................................................................283 Unipolarity Good: Alliances Fail..........................................................................................................284 Unipolarity Good: Alliances Fail..........................................................................................................285 Unipolarity Good: Alliances Fail..........................................................................................................287 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity ....................................................................................289 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity ....................................................................................290 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity ....................................................................................291 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity ....................................................................................292 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity ....................................................................................293 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity ....................................................................................295 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity ....................................................................................296 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity.....................................................................................297 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity ....................................................................................298 Unipolarity Good: Creates False Multipolarity.....................................................................................299 Unipolarity Good: Multilateralism Doesnt Make US Power More Effective......................................300 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: Multipolarity Fails Net Worse....................................................301 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: No European Alternative...............................................................302 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: No European Alternative...............................................................303 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: No European Alternative...............................................................304 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: No European Alternative...............................................................305 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: No Japan Alternative.....................................................................306 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: No NATO Alternative....................................................................307 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: No Asian Alternative.....................................................................308 Unipolarity Good: No Islamic Alternative............................................................................................309 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: No U.N. Alternative......................................................................310 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: The U.N. Doesnt Increase Legitimacy........................................311 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: The U.N. Doesnt Increase Legitimacy........................................312 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: War is Less Likely in Unipolar Worlds Than Any Other..............313 Unipolarity Good: No Alternative: Soros Specific................................................................................314 Unipolarity Good: AT: Multilateralism Solves Anti-Americanism.................................................315 Unipolarity Good: Answers to: Hegemony Causes War....................................................................316 Unipolarity Good: Answers to: Unipolarity Causes Terrorism..........................................................317 *** Unilateralism & Bush Doctrine Good ***.....................................................................................318 Unilateralism Good: Preemption Bad Answers (Defense)....................................................................319 Unilateralism Good: Preemption Good: Frontline................................................................................320 Unilateralism Good: Preemption Good: Regime Change Good...........................................................323 Unilateralism Good: Preemption Good: Answers to: Pre-emption Sets a Precedent........................324 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Unilateralism Good: Preemption Good: Prolif......................................................................................325 Unilateralism Good: Preemption Good: Wont Snowball.....................................................................326 Unilateralism Good: Preemption Good: General..................................................................................327 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Generally Good...........................................................................328 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Generally Good...........................................................................329 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Emphasis on Democracy Promotion Good......................330 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Middle East Democratization Succeeding Now ..............331 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: PSI Effective Against Proliferation..................................332 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: PSI Effective Against Proliferation..................................333 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: PSI Effective Against Proliferation..................................334 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: PSI Effective Against Proliferation..................................335 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Key to stop Iranian Prolif ................................................336 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Key to stop Iranian Prolif.................................................337 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Nuclear proliferation Alternatives Fail to Deter Prolif..338 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: General Answer to harms not unique in its embrace of unilateralism or preemption.............................................................................................................................................339 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: General Answer to harms not unique in its embrace of unilateralism or preemption.............................................................................................................................................340 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Violates International Law..........................................341 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Violates International Law..........................................342 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Endless Military Involvements for the US ................343 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Violates International Law..........................................344 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Endless Military Involvements for the US.................345 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Endless Military Involvements for the US.................346 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Endless Military Involvements for the US.................347 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Endless Military Involvements for the US.................348 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Undermines Cooperation and Multilateralism............349 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Undermines Cooperation and Multilateralism............350 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Undermines Cooperation and Multilateralism............351 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Hurts EU Relations not unique many threats........352 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Hurts EU Relations not unique many threats........353 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Doesnt Undermine Relations..........................................354 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Doesnt Undermine Relations..........................................355 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Doesnt Undermine Relations..........................................356 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Doesnt Undermine Relations..........................................357 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Hurts EU Relations Will Never Collapse-Economic Interdependence ....................................................................................................................................358 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT spurs immoral or unjustified military interventions. . .359 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Grounded in Realism..................................................360 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT Props Up Capitalism...................................................361 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Appeasement Bad.............................................................362 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: AT- Iraq Proves Bush Doctrine Bad................................364 Unilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Good: Bush Doctrine Not Responsible for Reversing Libyan Nuclear Program ...............................................................................................................................................................365 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers ....................................................................................366 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers.....................................................................................367 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers.....................................................................................368 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers.....................................................................................369 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers: Russian/China............................................................370 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers: Russian/China............................................................371 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers: Only Soft Balancing .................................................372 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers: European Balancing Answers....................................373 Unilateralism Good: Hard Balancing Answers: Brooks & Wolforth Are Wrong..................................374 Unilateralism Good: China Counterbalancing Answers.......................................................................375 Unilateralism Good: China Counterbalancing Answers.......................................................................376 Unilateralism Good: Russia/India Counterbalancing Answers.............................................................377 Unilateralism Good: Russia/India Counterbalancing Answers.............................................................378 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Unilateralism Good: European Counterbalancing Answers..................................................................379 Unilateralism Good: European Counterbalancing Answers..................................................................380 Unilateralism Good: European Counterbalancing Answers..................................................................381 Unilateralism Good: European Counterbalancing Answers..................................................................382 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers.......................................................................................383 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers.......................................................................................384 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers.......................................................................................385 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers.......................................................................................386 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers.......................................................................................387 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers ......................................................................................388 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers.......................................................................................389 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers.......................................................................................390 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers.......................................................................................391 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers: Opposition to the Iraq War Wasnt Driven by Counterbalancing.....392 Unilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Answers: Opposition to the Iraq War Wasnt Driven by Counterbalancing.....393 .............................................................................................................................................................393 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Need Soft Power to Reduce Global Opposition and Terror Recruiting............394 ..............................................................................................................................................................395 Unilateralism Good: U.S.-European Relations Advantage Answers/AT -Turn.....................................395 Unilateralism Good: U.S.-European Relations Advantage Answers/AT -Turn.....................................396 Unilateralism Good: U.S.-European Relations Advantage Answers/ AT - Turn...................................397 Unilateralism Good: U.S.-European Relations Advantage Answers/ AT -Turn....................................398 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Intl Coop/Multilat Reduces Hatred/Terrorism Toward the U.S.. .399 ..............................................................................................................................................................400 Unilateralism Good: No Value to Anti-Terror Cooperation..................................................................400 Unilateralism Good: No Value to Anti-Terror Cooperation..................................................................401 Unilateralism Good: No Value to Anti-Terror Cooperation..................................................................402 Unilateralism Good: Doesnt Hurt Democracy.....................................................................................403 Unilateralism Good: Doesnt Hurt Democracy.....................................................................................404 Unilateralism Good: No Value to Anti-Terror Cooperation..................................................................405 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Military Power Projection/War Triggers Animosity Toward the U.S................406 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Unilateralism Causes U.S.-China War.........................................407 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Unilateralism Causes U.S.-China War.........................................408 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Unilateralism Causes U.S.-China War.........................................409 Unilateralism Good: Answers To: Hegemony = Militarism .............................................................410 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Hegemony Means Empire...........................................................411 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Hegemony Means Empire...........................................................412 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Hegemony Means Empire...........................................................413 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Hegemony Means Empire...........................................................414 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Hegemony Means Empire...........................................................415 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Hegemony Means Empire...........................................................416 Unilateralism Good: Stops Terrorism....................................................................................................417 Unilateralism Good: Stops Terrorism ...................................................................................................418 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Hegemony Means Empire...........................................................419 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Hegemony Means Empire...........................................................420 Unilateralism Good: Doesnt Increase Terrorism..................................................................................421 Unilateralism Good: Doesnt Increase Capitalism................................................................................422 Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Realism Flawed...........................................................................423 Unilateralism Good: Multilateralism Decreases Soft Power................................................................424 Unilateralism Good: No Isolationism....................................................................................................425 Unilateralism Good: Unilateralism Leads to Effective Multilateralism................................................426 Unilateralism Good: Global Nuclear War ............................................................................................427 Unilateralism Good: Global Nuclear War.............................................................................................428 Unilateralism Good: Global Nuclear War.............................................................................................429 Unilateralism Good: Global Proliferation.............................................................................................430 Unilateralism Good: Transition Wars....................................................................................................431 Unilateralism Good: Global Peace .......................................................................................................432 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File Unilateralism Good: Answers to: Need Soft Power for International Cooperation..........................433 Unilateralism Good: Democracy Promotion.........................................................................................434 Unilateralism Good: Democracy Promotion.........................................................................................435 Unilateralism Good: Democracy Promotion.........................................................................................436 Unilateralism Good: Democracy Promotion.........................................................................................437 Unilateralism Good: Democracy Promotion.........................................................................................438 Unilateralism Good: Shouldnt Kick Us Off the Planet..................................................................439 Unilateralism Good: U.S. Exceptionalism Bad Answers.................................................................440 *** Hegemony Bad ***........................................................................................................................441 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................442 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................443 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................444 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................446 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................448 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................451 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................452 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................453 Hegemony Bad: Frontline.....................................................................................................................454 Collapse By 2030 2nd Line A2: Sustainable Collapse Inevitable (1/1).......................................455 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................456 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................457 Hegemony Good Impact Answers.........................................................................................................458 Hegemony Good Impact Answers.........................................................................................................459 Hegemony Bad: War.............................................................................................................................460 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................461 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................462 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................463 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................464 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................466 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................467 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................469 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................470 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................471 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................472 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................473 Hegemony Bad: Doesnt Solve Global War..........................................................................................474 Hegemony Bad: U.S. Leadership Doesnt Avoid the Impacts..............................................................475 Hegemony Bad: U.S. Leadership Doesnt Avoid the Impacts..............................................................476 Hegemony Bad: U.S. Leadership Doesnt Avoid the Impacts..............................................................477 Hegemony Bad: U.S. Leadership Doesnt Avoid the Impacts..............................................................478 Hegemony Bad: U.S. Leadership Doesnt Solve Middle East Conflict................................................479 Hegemony Bad: U.S. Leadership Doesnt Solve Global Environmental Problems..............................480 Hegemony Bad: Extinction...................................................................................................................481 Hegemony Bad: Extinction...................................................................................................................482 Hegemony Bad: Threatens Global Peace..............................................................................................483 Hegemony Bad: Threatens Global Peace..............................................................................................484 Hegemony Bad: Capitalism...................................................................................................................485 Hegemony Bad: Proliferation................................................................................................................486 Hegemony Bad: Proliferation................................................................................................................488 Hegemony Bad: Proliferation ...............................................................................................................490 Hegemony Bad: Proliferation...............................................................................................................491 Hegemony Bad: Terrorism....................................................................................................................492 Hegemony Bad: Terrorism....................................................................................................................493 Hegemony Bad: Terrorism....................................................................................................................494 Hegemony Bad: Terrorism....................................................................................................................495 Hegemony Bad: Terrorism....................................................................................................................497 Hegemony Bad: Terrorism....................................................................................................................499 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Bad: Economy.....................................................................................................................501 Hegemony Bad: Economy.....................................................................................................................502 Hegemony Bad: Economy.....................................................................................................................504 Hegemony Bad: Proliferation................................................................................................................506 Hegemony Bad: Middle East War.........................................................................................................507 Hegemony Bad: Middle East War.........................................................................................................508 Hegemony Bad: Middle East War.........................................................................................................509 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing.......................................................................................................510 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing........................................................................................................511 Hegemony Bad: Proliferation................................................................................................................512 Hegemony Bad: Proliferation................................................................................................................513 Hegemony Bad: Proliferation................................................................................................................514 Hegemony Bad: Imperialism.................................................................................................................515 Hegemony Bad: Democracy Promotion Bad........................................................................................516 Hegemony Bad: U.S.-EU Relations......................................................................................................517 Hegemony Bad: U.S.-EU Relations......................................................................................................518 Hegemony Bad: U.S.-EU Relations: Russian Aggression....................................................................519 Hegemony Bad: U.S.-EU Relations: Terrorism....................................................................................521 Hegemony Bad: Space Weapons...........................................................................................................522 Hegemony Bad: Global Economy.........................................................................................................523 Hegemony Bad: Global Economy.........................................................................................................524 Hegemony Bad: Japanese Rearmament................................................................................................525 Hegemony Bad: Japanese Rearmament................................................................................................526 Hegemony Bad: Iran Strikes.................................................................................................................527 Hegemony Bad: AT: Empirically Denied..........................................................................................529 Hegemony Bad: AT: Preemption Solves............................................................................................530 Hegemony Bad: Counter-Balancing 2nd Line A2: U.S. Is A Benevolent Hegemon (1/2).............531 Hegemony Bad: Counter-Balancing 2nd Line A2: U.S. Is A Benevolent Hegemon (2/2).............532 Hegemony Bad: Counter-Balancing 2nd Line A2: U.S. Is A Status Quo Power (1/1)...................533 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing.......................................................................................................534 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing.......................................................................................................535 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing.......................................................................................................536 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing -- Europe Will Counterbalance.....................................................537 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing -- Answers to: The U.S. is a Benevolent Power States Wont Counterbalance That......................................................................................................................................................538 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing -- Answers to: Other States Wont Fear Us Because We are a Democracy.....539 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing -- Answers to: U.S. Seen as Benevolent...................................540 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing Impacts.......................................................................................541 Hegemony Bad: Counterbalancing Wolforth Answers......................................................................542 Hegemony Bad: Khalizad Indites..........................................................................................................543 Hegemony Bad: Ferguson Wrong About The Value of Empire/Imperialism........................................544 Hegemony Bad: Ferguson Wrong About The Value of Empire/Imperialism........................................545 Primacy Causes U.S.-Sino War 1st Line (1/2)...................................................................................546 Primacy Causes U.S.-Sino War 1st Line (2/2)...................................................................................547 Primacy Causes U.S.-Sino War 2nd Line Offshore Balancing Solves (1/1)...................................549 Primacy Causes U.S.-Sino War 2nd Line U.S.-Sino War Impacts (1/1).........................................550 Primacy Causes U.S.-Sino War 2nd Line Most Probable Scenario For Conflict (1/1)...................551 Primacy Causes U.S.-Iran War 1st Line (1/1)....................................................................................552 Primacy Causes Demo Promo 1st Line (1/1).....................................................................................554 Primacy Causes Demo Promo 2nd Line Demo Promo Causes War (1/2).......................................556 Primacy Causes Demo Promo 2nd Line Demo Promo Causes War (2/2).......................................558 Primacy Causes Demo Promo 2nd Line Next Wave Uniquely Bad (1/1).......................................560 Primacy Causes Demo Promo 2nd Line Impact Chinese Demo Promo Causes War (1/1)..........561 Primacy Causes Demo Promo 2nd Line Impact ME Demo Promo Causes War (1/2)................562 Primacy Causes Demo Promo 2nd Line Impact ME Demo Promo Causes War (2/2)................563 Hegemony Ineffective 2nd Line Domestic Politics (1/1)................................................................564 Hegemony Ineffective 2nd Line Paradox of Hegemony (1/1)........................................................566 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Conflicts General (1/2)............................................567 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Conflicts General (2/2)............................................568 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Conflicts Regional (1/1)..........................................569 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Conflicts Great Power (1/1)....................................570 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Conflicts ME and Asia (1/1)...................................571 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Conflicts U.S. Draw-In (1/1)...................................572 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Conflicts A2: Countries Wont Start (1/1)...............573 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Burden-Sharing (1/1).................................................574 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line Solves Terrorism (1/1)...........................................................575 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line A2: Isolationism Bad (1/3).....................................................576 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line A2: Isolationism Bad (2/3).....................................................577 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line A2: Isolationism Bad (3/3).....................................................578 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line A2: Still Need Military (1/1)..................................................580 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line A2: U.S. Still Needs Influence (1/1)......................................581 Offshore Balancing Good 2nd Line A2: Too Modest / Pessimistic (1/1)........................................582 *** Hegemony Bad Europe Turn Scenario *** ................................................................................583 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn -- 1NC....................................................................................................584 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn -- 1NC....................................................................................................585 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader.................................................................586 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader.................................................................587 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader.................................................................588 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader.................................................................589 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: European Leadership Model Better.....................................................590 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader: Soft Power.............................................591 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader: Soft Power.............................................592 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader: Soft Power.............................................593 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader: Soft Power.............................................594 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader: Economic Power...................................595 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe is the Global Leader: Soft Power.............................................596 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: U.S. Decline Has Boosted Europe.......................................................597 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: European Power Turn: U.S. Decline Has Boosted Europe.................598 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe Supports Multilateralism Now................................................599 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe A Unified Global Power..........................................................600 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe A Unified Global Power..........................................................601 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe A Unified Global Power..........................................................602 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Zero-Sum Competition........................................................................604 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: AT: Europe Doesnt Have Military Power........................................605 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: AT: Europe Doesnt Have Military Power........................................606 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe Doesnt Need Military Power..................................................607 Hegemony Bad: Europe Turn: Europe Can Resolve Global Conflicts.................................................608 Europe Supports Multilateralism...........................................................................................................609 Unilateralism Destroys U.S.-European Relations.................................................................................610 U.S.-European Relations Impact: Iraq...................................................................................................611 *** Multilateralism Good ***..............................................................................................................612 Multilateralism Good: U.S. Leadership................................................................................................613 Multilateralism Good: UN Is Effective/Good.......................................................................................614 Multilateralism Good: Key to Solving Global Problems......................................................................615 Multilateralism Good: Solves War........................................................................................................616 Multilateralism Good: Key to Global Survival.....................................................................................617 Multilateralism Good: Key to US Hegemony.......................................................................................618 Multilateralism Good: Solves counterbalancing...................................................................................619 Multilateralism Good: Key to Solve Terrorism.....................................................................................620 Multilateralism Good: Cosmopolitanism..............................................................................................622 Multilateralism Good: Israeli Strikes....................................................................................................623 Multilateralism Good: Sino-Franco Alliance........................................................................................625 Multilateralism Good: Sino-Franco Alliance........................................................................................626 Multilateralism Good: Sino-Russia Relations.......................................................................................627 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Multilateralism Good: Naval Power......................................................................................................628 Multilateralism Good: US/Brazil Relations..........................................................................................629 Multilateralism Good: Space Militarization..........................................................................................631 Multilateralism Good: Space Militarization..........................................................................................632 Multilateralism Good: US/Russia Relations.........................................................................................633 Multilateralism Good: US/Russia Relations.........................................................................................634 Multilateralism Good: US/Turkey Relations.........................................................................................635 Multilateralism Good: US/Japan Alliance.............................................................................................636 Multilateralism Good: Trade Blocks.....................................................................................................637 Multilateralism Good: US/Europe Relations........................................................................................638 Multilateralism Good: US/Europe Relations........................................................................................639 Multilateralism Good: U.S.-European Relations Impact: Clash of Civilizations.................................641 Multilateralism Good: US-Canada Relations........................................................................................642 Multilateralism Good: WTO.................................................................................................................643 Multilateralism Good: Multilateralism Key to WTO............................................................................644 Multilateralism Good: Unilateralism Fails............................................................................................645 Multilateralism Good: Key to Sustained US Support for Global Leadership.......................................646 Multilateralism Good: Key to Decrease Terrorism...............................................................................647 Multilateralism Good: Presumptively Best...........................................................................................648 Multilateralism Good: Russia Isnt a Threat.........................................................................................649 Multilateralism Good: Regionalism Good............................................................................................650 Multilateralism Good: China.................................................................................................................651 Multilateralism Good: Unilateralism Not Key to Primacy...................................................................652 Multilateralism Good: Perceptions of Legitimacy Key to Primacy......................................................653 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Militarism.........................................................................654 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Militarism.........................................................................655 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Militarism Will attack other countries.........................656 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Undermines U.S. Hegemony...........................................657 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Undermines U.S. Hegemony...........................................658 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Bush Doctrine Violates International Law.......................659 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Nuclear Proliferation .......................................................660 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Nuclear Proliferation........................................................662 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Nuclear Proliferation........................................................663 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Nuclear Proliferation........................................................664 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Nuclear Proliferation........................................................665 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Nuclear Proliferation AT Libya.....................................666 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Undermines Multilateralism............................................667 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: Undermines Multilateralism............................................668 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: EU Relations-AT Relations Resilient...............................669 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: EU Relations-AT Economic Interdependence Means No Impact..........670 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: American Exceptionalism ..............................................671 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: American Exceptionalism ..............................................672 Multilateralism Good: American Exceptionalism Bad: Undermines US Security...............................673 Multilateralsim Good: American Exceptionalism Bad: Undermines Legitimate US Leadership.........674 Multilateralsim Good: American Exceptionalism Bad: Undermines Legitimate US Leadership.........675 Multilateralism Good: American Exceptionalism Bad: Undermines International Law......................676 Multilateralism Good: American Exceptionalism Bad: American Exceptionalism Can Repair Damage to US leadership...............................................................................................................................................677 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: North Korea.....................................................................678 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: North Korea.....................................................................679 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: North Korea: Policy Fails to Stem North Korean Proliferation.............680 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Bad: North Korea: Policy Fails to Stem North Korean Proliferation.............682 Multilateralism Good: Unilateralism Fails............................................................................................683 Multilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Now..........................................................................................684 Multilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Now..........................................................................................685 Multilateralism Good: Unilateralism Soft Balancing.......................................................................686 Multilateralism Good: Unilateralism Soft Balancing.......................................................................687 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File Multilateralism Good: Unilateralism Soft Balancing.......................................................................688 Multilateralism Good: Bush Doctrine Soft Balancing.....................................................................689 Multilateralism Good: Preventive War Soft Balancing....................................................................690 Multilateralism Good: Preventive War Bad: Deterrence Works...........................................................691 Multilateralism Good: Preventive War Fails.........................................................................................692 Multilateralism Good: Preventive War Fails.........................................................................................693 Multilateralism Good: Preventive War Fails.........................................................................................694 Multilateralism Good: Multilateralism Reduces Soft Balancing..........................................................695 Multilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Bad: Readiness........................................................................696 Multilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Hard Balancing...................................................................697 AT: International Institutions Constrain U.S. Hegemony......................................................................698 Multilateralism Critical to Solve Global Problems...............................................................................700 Multilateralism Good: Soft Balancing Bad: Readiness........................................................................701 ..............................................................................................................................................................701 *** Unilateralism Bad ***....................................................................................................................702 Unilateralism Bad: Undermines Leadership.........................................................................................703 Unilateralism Bad: Fails........................................................................................................................704 Unilateralism Bad: Fails........................................................................................................................705 Unilateralism Bad: Undercuts Democracy Promotion..........................................................................706 Unilateralism Bad: AT- Multilateralism constrains US power..............................................................707 Unilateralism Bad: AT- Multilateralism Constrains US Power.............................................................708 ..............................................................................................................................................................709 *** Military Readiness Good ***.........................................................................................................709 Military readiness Advantage Answers.................................................................................................710 Military Readiness Advantage Answers................................................................................................711 Readiness Good: Troop Overstrech......................................................................................................712 Readiness Good: Global Nuclear War...................................................................................................713 Readiness Good: Readiness Key to Leadership....................................................................................717 Readiness Good: Readiness Key to Leadership....................................................................................718 Readiness Good: Readiness Key to War on Terror...............................................................................719 Readiness Good: Deterrence.................................................................................................................720 Readiness Good: Power Project Solves Nuclear War...........................................................................721 Readiness Good: Power Project Solves Nuclear War...........................................................................722 Readiness Good: Stops Allied Prolif, Deterrence.................................................................................723 Readiness Good: Taiwan.......................................................................................................................725 Readiness Good: Taiwan.......................................................................................................................726 Readiness Good: Taiwan War Impact Extensions.................................................................................727 Readiness Good: North Korea...............................................................................................................728 Readiness Good: Iraq............................................................................................................................729 Readiness Good: Iraq............................................................................................................................730 Readiness Good: Iraq............................................................................................................................731 Readiness Good: War on Terror............................................................................................................732 Readiness Good: Diplomacy.................................................................................................................733 Readiness Good: Global Democracy....................................................................................................734 Readiness Good: Global Economy........................................................................................................735 Readiness Good: U.S. Military Power Checks Global Aggression.......................................................736 Readiness Good: U.S. Military Power Checks Global Aggression.......................................................737 Readiness Good: TROOPS Key to Readiness.......................................................................................738 Readiness Good: US Military Action/WOT Effective: Afghanistan.....................................................739 Readiness Good: US Military Action/WOT Effective: Afghanistan.....................................................740 Readiness Good: Doesnt Threaten Soft Power....................................................................................742 Readiness Good: Hard Power Key to Soft Power.................................................................................743 Readiness Good: Deter WMD Use........................................................................................................744 Readiness Useless: General...................................................................................................................745 *** Military Readiness Bad ***...........................................................................................................746 A2: Military Power Good 1st Line (1/1)............................................................................................747 A2: Military Power Good 2nd Line - A2: Key To War On Terrorism (1/1).......................................748 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File A2: Military Power Good 2nd Line - A2: Key To U.S. Interests (1/1)..............................................749 A2: Military Power Good 2nd Line - A2: Key To Allied Defense (1/1)............................................750 A2: Military Power Good 2nd Line - A2: Forward Deployment Good (1/2)....................................751 A2: Military Power Good 2nd Line - A2: Forward Deployment Good (2/2)....................................752 A2: Military Power Good 2nd Line Drawdown Of Armed Forces Solves (1/1)............................753 Military Power Bad: Useless (No Wars, Mandlebaum-Style)...............................................................754 Military Power Bad: Useless (Wont Solve).........................................................................................755 Military Power Bad: Useless.................................................................................................................756 Military Power Bad: Useless.................................................................................................................757 Military Power Bad: Useless.................................................................................................................758 Military Power Bad: Useless.................................................................................................................759 Readiness Useless: Terrorism................................................................................................................760 Readiness Useless: Terrorism................................................................................................................761 Military Power Bad: Terrorism.............................................................................................................762 Military Power Bad: Middle East..........................................................................................................763 Military Power Bad: Overstretch..........................................................................................................764 Readiness Bad: US Military Action/WOT Fails Military success in Afghanistan Irrelevant............765 Readiness Bad: US Military Action/WOT Fails Military success in Afghanistan Irrelevant............766 Readiness Bad: US Military Action/WOT Fails Military success in Afghanistan Irrelevant............767 Readiness Bad: AT: WOT Successful No Attacks on the US Since 9/11...........................................768 Readiness Bad: Undermines Soft Power...............................................................................................769 Readiness Bad: Undermines Soft Power...............................................................................................770 Readiness Bad: Undermines Soft Power...............................................................................................771 Readiness Bad: Undermines Soft Power...............................................................................................772 *** Supwerpower Syndrome Kritik ***...............................................................................................773 Superpower Syndrome Kritik................................................................................................................774 Superpower Syndrome Kritik................................................................................................................775 Superpower Syndrome Link Extensions...............................................................................................776 Superpower Syndrome Alternatives......................................................................................................777 Superpower Syndrome Alternatives......................................................................................................778 Superpower Syndrome Impacts.............................................................................................................779 Definition of Superpower Syndrome.................................................................................................780 *** No Solvency for Anti-Americanism ***........................................................................................781 No Solvency for Anti-Americanism......................................................................................................782 Anti-Americanism Solvency Answers..................................................................................................782 Plan Cant Solve U.S. Unilateralism.....................................................................................................783 Can Solve Anti-Americanism By Changing Policies............................................................................784 Can Solve Terrorism By Changing Policies..........................................................................................785 The U.S. Needs to Follow International Norms and Rules...................................................................786 Answers to: Terrorism Proves Realism Useless................................................................................787 ..............................................................................................................................................................787 Cant Solve Unilateralism Bad..............................................................................................................788 *** Etc ***............................................................................................................................................789 Pivotal Power Cooperation Good..........................................................................................................790 Pivotal Power Cooperation Good..........................................................................................................791 Naval Power Counterplan.....................................................................................................................792 Sea Power Emphasis Solves Hegemony Bad Arguments.....................................................................793 China is a Threat....................................................................................................................................794 China is A Threat...................................................................................................................................795 China Threat Answers...........................................................................................................................796 China Threat Answers...........................................................................................................................797 Soft Power Answers..............................................................................................................................798 Western Decline.....................................................................................................................................799 U.S. Hard Power Increases Chinese Soft Power...................................................................................800 U.S. Hard Power Increases Chinese Soft Power...................................................................................802 China Threatens Hegemony..................................................................................................................803 Allies are Bad Hurt the U.S................................................................................................................804 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File Alliances Are Bad..................................................................................................................................805 Alliances Are Bad..................................................................................................................................806 *** Author Indicts ***..........................................................................................................................807 Indict: Kristol........................................................................................................................................808 Indict: Brooks & Wohlforth...................................................................................................................809 Indict: Brooks & Wohlforth...................................................................................................................810 Indict: Brooks & Wohlforth...................................................................................................................811 Indict: Kagan.........................................................................................................................................812 Indict: Ferguson.....................................................................................................................................813 A2: Thayer 1st Line (1/1)...................................................................................................................815 A2: Thayer 2nd Line Extension Unwarranted (1/1).....................................................................816 A2: Thayer 2nd Line Extension Offshore Balancing Solves (1/1)...............................................817 A2: Thayer 2nd Line Extension Schmitt Evidence (1/1).............................................................818 A2: Mandelbaum 1st Line (1/2).........................................................................................................819 A2: Mandelbaum 1st Line (2/2).........................................................................................................821 A2: Mandelbaum 2nd Line Extension Not Specific To Primacy (1/1).......................................823 A2: Mandelbaum 2nd Line Extension Rieff Evidence (1/1).......................................................824 A2: Mandelbaum 2nd Line Extension Doesnt Assume Offshore Balancing (1/1)....................825 A2: Mandelbaum 2nd Line Extension Lieven Evidence (1/1)....................................................826 A2: Mandelbaum 2nd Line Thesis Is Wrong (1/1)..........................................................................827 A2: Mandelbaum 2nd Line Iraq Disproves (1/1)............................................................................828 A2: Mandelbaum 2nd Line Doesnt Assume Bush (1/1)................................................................829 A2: Mandelbaum 2nd Line Economic Assumptions Wrong (1/1)..................................................830 A2: Khalilzad 1st Line (1/1)...............................................................................................................831 A2: Khalilzad 2nd Line Extension Unwarranted (1/1)................................................................832 A2: Khalilzad 2nd Line Extension Doesnt Assume Offshore Balancing (1/1)...........................833 A2: Khalilzad 2nd Line Extension Neo-Conservative Hack (1/1)...............................................834 A2: Khalilzad 2nd Line Extension Seaver Evidence (1/1)...........................................................835 *** Soft Power & Smart Power***......................................................................................................836 Smart Power Good................................................................................................................................837 Soft Power Solvency Answers..............................................................................................................838 Soft Power Solvency Answers..............................................................................................................839 ..............................................................................................................................................................839 *** Soft Power Good ***.....................................................................................................................840 Soft Power Good 1AC Card...............................................................................................................841 Soft Power Good -- Multiple Scenarios................................................................................................842 Soft Power Good Multiple Scenarios.................................................................................................843 Soft Power Good Multiple Scenarios.................................................................................................844 Soft Power Good Multiple Scenarios.................................................................................................845 Soft Power Good Multiple Scenarios.................................................................................................846 Soft Power Good Multiple Scenarios.................................................................................................847 Soft Power Good Russia Scenario......................................................................................................848 Soft Power Good Russia Scenario......................................................................................................849 ..............................................................................................................................................................849 Soft Power Good Russia Scenario......................................................................................................850 Soft Power Good Russia Scenario......................................................................................................851 Soft Power Good Russia Scenario......................................................................................................852 Soft Power Good Democracy Scenario..............................................................................................853 Soft Power Good Democracy Scenario..............................................................................................855 Soft Power Good Democracy Scenario..............................................................................................856 Soft Power Good Democracy Scenario..............................................................................................857 Soft Power Good Relying on Hard Power Collapses Hegemony......................................................858 Soft Power Critical to Hegemony.........................................................................................................860 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Terrorism..............................................................................................861 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Terrorism..............................................................................................861 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Terrorism..............................................................................................863 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Terrorism..............................................................................................865 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Soft Power Necessary to Stem Terrorism..............................................................................................866 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Terrorism..............................................................................................867 Soft Power Necessary to Stem TerrorismTerrorists Using Soft Power.............................................868 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Terrorism -- Hard Power Response Undermines Critical Soft Power. 869 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Proliferation.........................................................................................870 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Proliferation.........................................................................................871 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Proliferation.........................................................................................872 Soft Power Necessary to Stem Proliferation.........................................................................................873 Soft Power Key to Global Stability.......................................................................................................874 Soft Power Key to Global Stability.......................................................................................................875 Soft Power Key to Hegemony...............................................................................................................876 Soft Power Key to Leadership...............................................................................................................877 Soft Power Key to Leadership...............................................................................................................878 Soft Power Key to Leadership...............................................................................................................879 Soft Power Key to Leadership...............................................................................................................880 Soft Power Key to Leadership...............................................................................................................881 Soft Power Key to Leadership...............................................................................................................882 Soft Power Key to Leadership...............................................................................................................883 Soft Power Solves Counterbalancing....................................................................................................884 Soft Power Solves Counterbalancing....................................................................................................885 Soft Power Solves Many Problems.......................................................................................................886 Soft Power Best for Democracy and Human Rights Promotion...........................................................887 Soft Power Solves Mid East Conflict....................................................................................................888 Soft Power Solves North Korea Conflict..............................................................................................889 Soft Power Solves Trade.......................................................................................................................890 Soft Power Reduces Soft Balancing......................................................................................................891 Soft Power Key to Effective Democracy Promotion ...........................................................................892 Soft Power Key to Effective Democracy Promotion............................................................................893 Soft Power Key to Effective Democracy Promotion............................................................................894 Soft Power Key to Effective Democracy PromotionBush Doctrine for Democracy Promotion Fails Because it Doesnt Incorporate Soft Power............................................................................................................895 Soft Power Key to Effective Democracy PromotionBush Doctrine for Democracy Promotion Fails Because it Doesnt Incorporate Soft Power............................................................................................................896 Soft Power Key to Effective Democracy PromotionBush Doctrine for Democracy Promotion Fails Because it Doesnt Incorporate Soft Power............................................................................................................897 Soft Power Critical to Mid East Democracy Promotion.......................................................................898 Soft Power Critical to Mid East Democracy Promotion.......................................................................899 Soft Power Key to Middle East Peace...................................................................................................901 Soft Power Good: US Faces Stiff Competition for Soft Power Leadership in the Middle East...........902 Soft Power Good: US Faces Stiff Competition for Soft Power Leadership in the Middle East...........903 Soft Power Best for Russian Democratization......................................................................................904 Soft Power Good: North Korea: Soft Power Necessary for North Korean Prolif Resolution..............905 Soft Power Good: North Korea: Soft Power Necessary for North Korean Prolif Resolution..............906 Soft Power Good: North Korea: Soft Power Necessary for North Korean Prolif Resolution..............907 Soft Power Good: North Korea: Loss of Soft Power Spurred North Korean Proliferation..................908 Soft Power Good: North Korea: AT: Bush Wont Employ Soft Power Approach Toward North Korea Even if we have Credible Soft Power......................................................................................................................909 Soft Power Good: North Korea: AT: Turn: US Soft Power Pressure on China Risks War with North Korea........910 Soft Power Good: North Korea: AT: Turn: US Soft Power Pressure on China Risks War with North Korea........911 Soft Power Good: North Korea: AT: Turn: US Soft Power Pressure on China Risks War with North Korea........913 Soft Power Good: North Korea: AT: Turn: US Soft Power Pressure on China Risks War with North Korea........914 Soft Power Good: North Korea: AT: Turn: US Soft Power Pressure on China Risks War with North Korea........915 Soft Power Good: North Korea: AT: Turn: US Soft Power Pressure on China Risks War with North Korea........916 Soft Power Good: North Korea: AT: Chinese Soft Power Lead Good Better at Resolving North Korean Prolif....917 Soft Power Good: Chinese Soft Power Leadership on North Korea Undermines US/South Korean Ties918 Soft Power Good: Iranian Proliferation: US Soft Power/Engagement Only way to Stop Iranian Prolif919 Soft Power Good: Iranian Proliferation: Hard-Line Position Fails to Stem Iranian Prolif...................920 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Soft Power Good: China Scenario China Challenging US For Soft Power Lead..............................921 Soft Power Good: China Scenario Chinese Soft Power Increasing Now..........................................922 Soft Power Good: China Scenario Chinese Soft Power Increasing Now..........................................923 Soft Power Good: China Scenario Chinese Soft Power Increasing Everywhere...............................924 Soft Power Good: China Scenario China Challenging US For Soft Power Lead in Asia..................925 Soft Power Good: China Scenario China Challenging US For Soft Power Lead in Asia..................926 Soft Power Good: China Scenario China Challenging US For Soft Power Lead in Asia..................927 Soft Power Good: China Scenario China Challenging US Soft Power Leadership in Africa............928 Soft Power Good: China: China Challenging US Soft Power Leadership in Latin America..............929 Soft Power Good: China: China Challenging US Soft Power Leadership in Latin America...............930 Soft Power Good: China: China Has Not Taken the Lead the Yet........................................................931 Soft Power Good: China: Zero Sum Trade Off China Fills in as US Soft Power Declines..............932 Soft Power Good: China: US Shunning Developing Countries Allows China Opportunity to Increase its Soft Power ...............................................................................................................................................................933 Soft Power Good: China: Soft Power Good: China: Institutions........................................................934 Soft Power Good: China: China Increasing Soft Power Through Commitment to International Norms and Institutions.............................................................................................................................................935 Soft Power Good: China: Iraq has Allowed China to Increase Its Soft Power....................................936 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadSeeks to Replace US Leadership Role in Asia.............937 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadSeeks to Replace US Leadership Role in Asia.............938 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadGenerally Challenges US Security ........939 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadGenerally Challenges US Security.........940 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadThreatens US Global Hegemony............941 Soft Power Good: China: Loss of U.S. Asian Leadership Causes War................................................942 Soft Power Good: China: China Uses Soft Power to Present Alternate Development Model.............943 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadLaundry List Reasons why Development Model is Bad ...............................................................................................................................................................944 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadUndermines Democratization and Good Governance Efforts....................................................................................................................................................945 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadUndermines Democratization and Good Governance Efforts....................................................................................................................................................946 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadWorsens Ethnic conflicts, genocide and refugee crises 947 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadChinese Development Model Flawed.....948 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadChinese Development Model Bad for the Environment ...............................................................................................................................................................949 Soft Power Good: China: Chinese Soft Power Lead BadThreatens US Access to Critical Resources950 Soft Power Good: China: Increasing US Soft Power Best Way to Respond to Growing Chinese Soft Power.........951 Soft Power Good: China: Increasing US Soft Power Best Way to Respond to Growing Chinese Soft Power.........952 Soft Power Good: China: Increasing US Soft Power Best Way to Respond to Growing Chinese Soft Power.........953 Soft Power Good: China: Increasing US Soft Power Best Way to Respond to Growing Chinese Soft Power.........954 Soft Power Good: China: Careful US Response Key to Ensure that Chinese Soft Power Is Used in a Positive Manner...................................................................................................................................................955 Soft Power Good: EU Tradeoff Scenario: EU Competes with the US for Soft Power Lead................956 Soft Power Good: EU Tradeoff Scenario: High US Soft Power Key to Ensuring that EU Soft Power Will Complement US Goals .........................................................................................................................957 Soft Power Good: US Can Rebuild Its Soft Power...............................................................................958 Soft Power Generally Important to National Security..........................................................................959 Soft Power Generally Important to National Security..........................................................................960 Soft Power Generally Important to National Security..........................................................................961 Soft Power Stops Militarism.................................................................................................................962 Soft Power Most Effective Way to Achieve Foreign Policy Goals.......................................................963 Soft Power Good Most Effective Way to Achieve Foreign Policy Goals.............................................964 Soft Power Most Effective Way to Achieve Foreign Policy Goals.......................................................965 Answers to: Soft Power Cant Be Wielded as an Effective Policy Tool............................................966 Answers to: Doesnt Work With Populations That Dont Share Our Values.....................................967 Soft Power Good Says Colin Gray (The Nutty Hard Power Professor)...............................................968 *** Answers to Soft Power Bad Turns ***.......................................................................................969 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File Answers to: Soft Power Causes Free Trade, Free Trade Bad................................................................970 Answers to: Soft Power Causes Free Trade, Free Trade Bad................................................................971 Answers to: Soft Power Causes Free Trade, Free Trade Bad................................................................972 Answers to: Soft Power Causes North Korea Sanctions, North Korea Sanctions Bad.........................973 Answers to: Soft power undermines hard power..................................................................................974 Answers to: Soft power undermines hard power..................................................................................975 Answers to: Soft Power Doesnt Solve a Backlash...............................................................................976 Answers to: Soft Power Leads to Iran sanctions...................................................................................977 Answers to: Soft power leads to Iran sanctions....................................................................................978 1AR Russia and China will never agree to Iran sanctions.................................................................979 Answers to: Soft Power Increases Arms Sales.....................................................................................980 Answers to: Democracy Promotion Bad...............................................................................................981 Answers to: Soft Power Leads to British Support for Missile Defense.............................................982 Answers to: Soft Power Leads to British Support for Missile Defense.............................................983 Answers to: War on Drugs Bad Turn....................................................................................................984 Soft Power Does Not Promote Empire/Imperialism.............................................................................985 *** Soft Power & Hard Power ***.......................................................................................................986 Soft Power More Important to Leadership Than Hard Power..............................................................987 Soft Power Key to Hard Power.............................................................................................................988 Soft Power Key to Hard Power.............................................................................................................989 Military Power Alone Inadequate..........................................................................................................990 Iraq Proves Limits of Hard Power.........................................................................................................991 Soft Power Necessary for Effective Hard PowerStops Counterbalancing........................................992 Answers to: Turn -- Hard Power Increases Soft Power.....................................................................993 Soft Power Not Distinct from Hard Power...........................................................................................994 Need to Combine Hard & Soft Power...................................................................................................995 ..............................................................................................................................................................996 *** Solvency Extensions ***................................................................................................................996 US Can Rebuild Its Soft Power.............................................................................................................997 Soft Power Good: Now Key Time To Rebuild US Soft Power.............................................................998 *** Advantage Answers ***.................................................................................................................999 Soft Power Advantage Answers -- Frontline.......................................................................................1000 Soft Power Advantage Answers Frontline........................................................................................1001 Soft Power Advantage Answers -- Frontline.......................................................................................1002 Soft Power Advantage Answers -- Frontline.......................................................................................1003 Uniqueness: U.S. Unilateralist............................................................................................................1004 *** Solvency Answers/Soft Power Not Good ***.............................................................................1005 Cant Boost Soft Power.......................................................................................................................1006 Cant Boost Soft Power.......................................................................................................................1007 Cant Boost Soft Power.......................................................................................................................1008 Soft Power Not Beneficial...................................................................................................................1009 Soft Power Not Beneficial...................................................................................................................1010 Soft Power Not Beneficial...................................................................................................................1011 Soft Power Doesnt Boost Democracy................................................................................................1012 Soft Power Alone Wont Solve Hedge................................................................................................1013 Soft Power Wont Solve Counterbalancing.........................................................................................1014 Soft Power Wont Boost Middle East Influence.................................................................................1015 Changing Policies Wont Improve Relations With Europe.................................................................1016 Soft Power Wont Solve Iranian Proliferation.....................................................................................1017 Soft Power Wont Solve Iranian Proliferation.....................................................................................1018 Soft Power Not Critical to Fighting Terrorism....................................................................................1018 Soft Power Doesnt Solve Terrorism...................................................................................................1020 Soft Power Doesnt Solve Terrorism...................................................................................................1021 Soft Power Doesnt Solve Terrorism...................................................................................................1022 Soft Power Wont Solve Counterbalancing.........................................................................................1023 Soft Power Wont Boost Middle East Influence.................................................................................1024 Soft Power Not Critical to Basing.......................................................................................................1025 I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

65

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File Soft Power Not Critical to Basing.......................................................................................................1026 Soft Power Not Critical to Basing.......................................................................................................1027 Soft Power Not Critical to Basing.......................................................................................................1028 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Chinese Global Leadership.................................................1029 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Chinese Global Leadership.................................................1030 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Chinese Global Leadership.................................................1031 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Chinese Global Leadership.................................................1032 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Russian-China Alliance.......................................................1033 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Russian-China Alliance.......................................................1034 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Russian-China Alliance.......................................................1035 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Russian-China Alliance.......................................................1036 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Stop Russian-China Alliance.......................................................1037 Answers to: Soft Power Key to Stop European Counterbalancing.................................................1038 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Limit EU Soft Power...................................................................1039 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Limit EU Soft Power...................................................................1040 Answers to: Need Soft Power to Limit Japan Soft Power...............................................................1040 *** Soft Power Links ****.................................................................................................................1042 Unpopular US Policies Undermines Soft Power................................................................................1043 American Exceptionalism Undermines Soft Power...........................................................................1044 Perceived Hypocrisy in Policies Undermines Soft Power.................................................................1045 War on Terror Excesses Undermines Soft Power...............................................................................1046 Bush Doctrine/Unilateralism Undermines Soft Power......................................................................1047 Bush Doctrine/Unilateralism Undermines Soft Power......................................................................1048 Bush Doctrine/Unilateralism Undermines Soft Power......................................................................1049 Bush Doctrine/Unilateralism Undermines Soft Power......................................................................1050 Bush Doctrine/Unilateralism Undermines Soft Power......................................................................1051 Transnational Jurisprudence Undermines US Soft Power.................................................................1052 Working Through Multilateral Institutions Increases US Soft Power................................................1053 Development Assistance Increases US Soft Power............................................................................1054 Human Rights/Democracy Promotion Increases US Soft Power......................................................1055 Multilateralism Increases US Soft Power..........................................................................................1056 Domestic and Foreign Policy Influences US Soft Power...................................................................1057 Policies More Important than Culture.................................................................................................1058 *** Soft Power Bad ***......................................................................................................................1059 ............................................................................................................................................................1059 ............................................................................................................................................................1059 Soft Power Against North Korea Bad Risks War.............................................................................1060 Soft Power Against North Korea Bad Risks War.............................................................................1061 ............................................................................................................................................................1062 *** Politics ***...................................................................................................................................1063 ............................................................................................................................................................1063 Soft Power Popular.............................................................................................................................1064 Public Supports Soft Power Approach Toward North Korea..............................................................1065 Public Supports Soft Power Approach to Counter Terrorism.............................................................1066

65

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Poverty Destroys Hegemony

Systemic poverty has collapsed U.S. global leadership necessary to avert global conflict
Senator John Edwards, Spring 2007, Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, Restoring the American Dream: Fighting Poverty and Strengthening the Middle Class p. 390-1 But there is another reason why it is important that we do something about poverty in America . That picture that you saw on your television screens, the picture coming out of New Orleans? You are not the only ones who saw it - the entire world saw it. I do a lot of traveling these days, and everybody knows what happened on the Gulf Coast all around the world. Here is their reaction: "How can it be, in the richest nation on the planet, the most powerful nation on the planet, that those conditions existed in New Orleans? What are you going to do about it?" If we actually want to be the model for the rest of the world, then we have to do something about poverty in America, because the world knows about it now. It is no secret. They know about it, and they want to know: "What are you going to do about it? Are you actually going to do something about it?" I saw a publication overseas right after the hurricane hit, and it had pictures of victims of the hurricane from the Lower Ninth Ward. The headline read "The Shaming of America." If we want to be the country that represents the model for the rest of the world - and we used to be - if we want to be the light - and we used to be the light - then we have to demonstrate what we care about, what our priorities are, and that we patriotically about something other than war. We need to be willing to act patriotically about what is good for our country and not just out of self-interest. America is better than this - and you know it. We did not use to be the country of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. We were the country that everybody looked up to and respected. They wanted to be like the United States of America. They wanted to be like the American people. That is who we are at our best. What do we do about the millions of Americans who are living in poverty? What do we do about the forty-six, nearly forty-seven million people who do not have health care coverage? Our actions demonstrate to the world what we care about. And I want to add - it is not specifically on topic, but it fits
into the bigger context of how all these things are connected - look at what is happening on your television screens today. The Hezbollah fighting the Israelis and Hamas launching missiles out of Gaza into Israel. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, going before the United Nations to denounce the United States. The same man is doing everything in his power to get a nuclear weapon. The North Koreans are testing nuclear weapons and testing missiles. Over the last five or six years, we

. We are the preeminent power in the world today. We are the only superpower. But you cannot lead simply by being powerful. It is not enough. You have to be powerful, but you have to be something else. You have to be moral and just. You have to be the nation that the rest of the world looks up to. You have to have the moral authority to lead. And you do not have to take my word for this - it is clear. If anything demonstrates this, it is the last six years. You look at what is happening in the world today. You look at every single crisis, like the Hezbollah fighting the Israelis that I mentioned a few minutes ago or Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon. We go to the United Nations Security Council, to try to get consensus, but people do not rally around the United States of America. And when they do not, there is no leadership. There is no natural leader in the world, except us. And when we do not show that we care not only about ourselves but that we actually, as the most powerful nation on the planet, care about humanity, then people in other countries will not rally around us. They will not. This is not a feel-good thing. If you want your children to grow up in a safe America, in a safe world, then you want to live in a world where America is the great, shining example. A world where we are the place everyone looks to. A world where everyone says, "The United States of America - they are the ones that come to the rescue of the downtrodden." When an earthquake hits, here comes the United States. Uganda, which I just came back from, has an extraordinary humanitarian crisis. There has been a civil war for twenty years. Between one and two million people are housed in less-than-humane camps in northern Uganda. Kids are being
see Russia going from a democracy to an autocracy. All of this is happening right in front of us. It is right in front of us. And we react. What is so important for us to understand as a nation is that we are the most powerful nation on this planet abducted and forced into the military, the resistance army, the Lord's Resistance Army - a great name - and forced to kill their parents and their brothers and sisters. This genocide continues to go on in Darfur and western Sudan. The United States declares

. We have so many opportunities to show who we really are. We can demonstrate who we are at home by not turning our backs on millions of our own people who live in poverty. But we have lots of chances
it a genocide and does nothing around the world to show what the character of the United States is. There will be lots of children born in Africa with AIDS because their mothers cannot afford a four dollar dose of medicine. How can we let that happen? How can we call ourselves moral and just and allow that to happen? Right in front of us, we know what is going on, and we turn our backs. It is not right. We are better than this. And you know it. You do not need me to say it. You know it. The world needs to see our better side, and it

Will there always be people who denounce us? Of course. There are dangerous human beings. There are extremists in the world, and there are dangerous nation-states. That is not the question. The question is: "When bad things happen, when crises occur, will the rest of the world rally around the United States of America?" Because they believe in us; because they believe in what we represent - both what we do at home and what we do in the rest of the world? There is an awful lot at stake. It is not hyperbole to say that the future of the world is at stake, because it is.
matters to us. In a very selfish way, it matters to us.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Inequality Undermines Hegemony

Reducing inequality strengthens U.S. global networking capabilities
Anne-Marie Slaughter, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century, p. 94 HOW TO GET THERE FROM HERE At the moment, the United States' edge in this new world is more potential than actual. The country will face a vast amount of work in digging itself out of the many holes it has gotten itself into, both at home and abroad. In the process, the United States must adopt five policies and postures that will seize on its edge and sharpen it. First, the United States must adopt comprehensive immigration reform that will make it easier for immigrants and guest workers to move across borders, regularize the status of the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States, and increase the number of visas for the world's most talented individuals. Part of changing U.S. attitudes toward immigration must include a recognition that because of their ties to their home countries,
immigrants are potential engines of economic growth. New economic policies could offer subsidies or tax incentives to immigrants who create businesses based on connections they have cultivated to markets and talent in their home countries. Instead of a one-way, outgoing flow of remittances, the United States needs a two-way flow of goods, services, and people. Second, as part of overhauling its educational system, the United States must come to see overseas study as an essential asset for all Americans. Indeed, organizations such as the BrownBell Foundation promote opportunities to study abroad for students at historically black colleges and universities, where such programs have traditionally been lacking. Just as important, the United States must see the children of immigrants who grow up learning Arabic, Hindi, Mandarin, Spanish, and other foreign languages as huge assets. Government programs and private initiatives should encourage them to study abroad in the countries of their parents or grandparents and, assuming they keep

A networked world requires a genuinely networked society, which means fostering economic and social equality. The United States has never been as egalitarian as it imagines itself to be, but this divide has worsened in the past decade, as the rich have become the superrich.
their U.S. passports, to gain dual citizenship.
generally allowed inequality to expand, whereas Democratic presidents have not

Between the late 1950s and 2005, the income share of the wealthiest one percent of the U.S. population more than doubled. Even the Democratic Party is not immune: on the night that Obama accepted the nomination to be the Democratic presidential candidate, at Invesco Field in

Denver, Colorado, his campaign blocked off an entire section of the stadium for big donors, stopping everyone else at the door. For a time, a culture in which money could buy status was a radically democratic and egalitarian idea. Instead of the European class system, in which breeding always trumped money, Americans could rely on education and employment for self-advancement. But this same culture becomes radically inegalitarian if only a relatively few have the chance to prosper financially. As the political scientist Larry Bartels argues, rising economic inequality is a political choice: Republican presidents have

. If so, then the United States can choose to decrease inequality by making its society more horizontal, more democratic, and more integrated by class and race -- and this is the third reform it should adopt. Doing so would add more potential circuits to the network. In this century, global power will increasingly be defined by connections -on the whole, the positive effects of networks will greatly outweigh the negative. Imagine, for example, a U.S. economy powered by green technology and green infrastructure. Communities of American immigrants from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East will share this new generation of products and services with villages and cities in their home countries. Innovation will flow in both directions. In the United States, universities will be able to offer courses in truly global classrooms, relying on their international students and faculty to connect with educational institutions abroad through travel, the Internet, and videoconferencing.
who is connected to whom and for what purposes. Of course, the world will still contain conflict. Networks can be as malign and deadly as they can be productive and beneficial. In addition, the gap between those who are connected to global networks and those who are excluded from them will sharply multiply existing inequities. But Artists of all kinds will sit at the intersection of culture, learning, and creative energy. U.S. diplomats and other U.S. government officials will receive instant updates on events occurring around the world. They will be connected to their counterparts abroad, able to quickly coordinate preventive and problem-solving actions with a range of private and civic actors. The global landscape will resemble that of the Obama campaign, in which a vast network brought in millions of dollars in donations, motivated millions of volunteers,

In a networked world, the United States has the potential to be the most connected country; it will also be connected to other power centers that are themselves widely connected. If it pursues the right policies, the United States has the capacity and the cultural capital to reinvent itself. In the twenty-first century, the United States' exceptional capacity for connection, rather than splendid isolation or hegemonic domination, will renew its power and restore its global purpose.
and mobilized millions of voters. It need not see itself as locked in a global struggle with other great powers; rather, it should view itself as a central player in an integrated world.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Environmental Leadership Critical to Global Leadership

United States leadership credibility on environmental issues is critical to sustain global leadership New York Times 8-29-2002
FRANKFURT At present, there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international goodwill by dragging its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the Bush administration's apparent unwillingness to take a leadership role - or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake - in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever. American authority is already in some danger as a result of America's relative absence from the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg - "relative," that is, to its share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President George W. Bush from Johannesburg
symbolizes this decline in authority. In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines. In Central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions of dollars in damage. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The pollution, 80 percent man-made, also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a chief concern for people everywhere. Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an uninterested,

The Bush administration seems to believe it is merely an observer - that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything amounts to ignoring a key source of current world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing such a pivotal dimension of political and economic conflict. In my view, there is a clear-cut price to be paid for ignoring the views of just about every other country in the world today. The United States is jettisoning its hard-won moral and intellectual authority and perhaps the strategic advantages that come with being a good steward of the international political order. The United States may no longer be viewed as a leader or reliable partner in policy-making: necessary, perhaps inevitable, but not desirable, as it has been for decades. All of this because America's current leaders are not willing to acknowledge the very real concerns of many people about global environmental issues. No one could expect the United States to provide any quick fixes, but one would like to see America make a credible and sustained effort, along with other countries, to address global environmental problems. This should happen on two fronts. The first is at home in the United States, through more environmentally friendly policies - for example, greater fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks and better insulation for buildings. The second is international, through a more cooperative approach to multilateral attempts at safeguarding the environment.
sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate, it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Economic Competitiveness Key to Leadership

Competitiveness key to leadership Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 106-8 The regime is working to make sure the Chinese people understand its strategy as well. In 2006 and 2007, Chinese television aired a twelve-part series , The Rise of the Great Nations, clearly designed as an act of public education. Given the intensely political nature of the subject matter, one can be certain that it was carefully vetted to present views that the government wished to be broadcast. The series was thoughtful and intelligent, produced in BBC or PBS style, and it covered the rise of nine great powers, from Portugal and Spain to the Soviet Union and the United States, complete with interviews with scholars from around the world. The sections on the individual countries are mostly accurate and balanced. The rise of Japan, an emotional topic in China, is handled fairly, with little effort to whip up nationalist hysteria about Japanese attacks on China; Japan's postwar economic rise is praised repeatedly. Some points of emphasis are telling. The episodes on the United States, for example, deal extensively with Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt's programs to regulate and tame capitalism, highlighting the state's role in capitalism. And there are a few predictable, but shameful, silences, such as the complete omission of the terror, the purges, or the Gulag from an hour-long program on the Soviet Union. But there are also startling admissions, including considerable praise of the U.S. and British systems of representative government for their ability to bring freedom, legitimacy, and political stability to their countries. The basic message of the series is that a nation's path to greatness lies in its economic prowess and that militarism, empire, and aggression lead to a dead end. That point is made repeatedly. The final episodeexplicitly on the "lessons" of the serieslays out the keys to great power: national cohesiveness, economic and technological success, political stability, military strength, cultural creativity, and magnetism. The last is explained as the attractiveness of a nation's ideas, corresponding with concept of "soft power" developed by Joseph Nye, one of the scholars interviewed for the series. The episode ends with a declaration that, in the new world, a nation can sustain its competitive edge only if it has the knowledge and technological capacity to keep innovating. In short, the path to power is through markets, not empires.
8

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Economic Competitiveness Key to Leadership

A LOSS OF ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS THREATENS U.S. GLOBAL LEADERSHIP Rocco Leonard Martino, internet & software entrepreneur, ORBIS, Winter 2007, p. 267-70
Much of the foreign policy discussion in the United States today is focused upon the dilemma posed by the Iraq War and the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. These problems are, of course, both immediate and important. However, America also faces other challenges to its physical security and economic prosperity, and these are more long-term and probably more profound. There is, first, the threat posed by our declining competitiveness in the global economy, a threat most obviously represented by such rising economic powers as China and India. There is, second, the threat posed by our increasing dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. Moreover, these two threats are increasingly connected, as China and India themselves are greatly increasing their demand for Middle East oil. 2The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to America's ability to prevail over these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on creating and recreating new technologies and new industries, generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological leadership might even be said to be the American way of maintaining primacy in world affairs. They are almost certainly what America will have to pursue in order to prevail over the contemporary challenges involving economic competitiveness and energy dependence. The computer is the first machine in history that was invented as an adjunct of the mind. All prior machines were adjuncts of physical strength and capabilities, such as movement. Hence it is no surprise that, since the invention of the computer, the generation of wealth has shifted from physical labor and associated industries to mental pursuits and related inventions and industries. Where in the 1960s the United States was concerned that the Soviet Union might overtake it in essential industries such as steel and chemicals, today it is Ireland, India, and China that are building economies based on mental pursuits reflected and augmented by electronic devices and applications, including instant information and instant communication. The Soviet Union's passage into history left the United States the world's only superpower. Will the United States, too, be eclipsed in a new world order, where ideas and innovations are of paramount importance in economic growth and national economic security? U.S. prosperity and security depends on new inventions that will create the new industries and new jobs the new world order needs. The United States is eminently positioned for this role.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Economic Decline Collapses Leadership

Economic decline is a fundamental threat to global hegemony Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 180 The fundamental point is that Britain was undone as a great global power not because of bad politics but because of bad economics. It had great global influence, but its economy was structurally weak. And it made matters worse by attempting ill- advised fixesgoing off and on the gold standard, imposing imperial tariffs, running up huge war debts. After World War II, it adopted a socialist economic program, the Beveridge Plan, which nationalized and tightly regulated large parts of the economy. This may have been understandable as a reaction to the country's battered condition, but by the 1960s and 1970s it had condemned Britain to stagnationuntil Margaret Thatcher helped turn the British economy around in the 1980s.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Anti-Americanism Undermines U.S. Power

ANTI-AMERICANISM HAS DIMINISHED U.S. POWER
Julia Sweigh, Council on Foreign Relations, FRIENDLY FIRE, 2006, p. 173 The consequences for the United States are far more momentous than losing likeability. The new anti-American default has accelerated the process of the diminution of U.S. power. It has exposed a fundamental rift in American society over how to use our power. It has left the United States isolated in Iraq, hobbling America's ability to focus attention on other international issues. It has further weakened the United Nations and efforts to reform it, and it has slowed the process of trade integration, among other items on the U.S. foreign policy agenda. It has severely damaged credibility of the United States as an advocate of democratic values. Anti-America, though, is not just the result of immutable organic conditions that necessarily inspire resentment of U.S. power by those with less of it.

ANTI-AMERICANISM GENERATES GLOBAL HOSTILITY TO U.S. FORERIENG POLICY

Julia Sweigh, Council on Foreign Relations, FRIENDLY FIRE, 2006, pp. xiv The United States is now attuned to expect opposition or hostility from their ranks. Now, at least, it comes as no surprise. But the overt enmity of governments and overwhelmingly negative public opinion in countries as culturally diverse and geographically distant as Great Britain, Germany, Turkey, and South Korea, where the United States historically assumed that an attitude of deference would ultimately overcome the usual resentment of power, has taken America aback. It is Anti-America among traditional U.S. allies where we must come to grips with the sources, internal and external, of the extraordinary wave of bitterness and distrust now entrenched among governments, elites, and broad sectors of public opinion. Without the consent and support of U.S. allies on a complex constellation of international issues that by their nature require global cooperation, Anti-America may turn out to be more than an ephemeral anomaly with negligible consequences. Instead, if allowed to settle into a global reflex, the new anti-Americanism will undermine the international community's political will to give the United States the benefit of the doubt on a range of foreign policy goals and thus hamper the prospect for cooperative initiatives to confront global challenges. By sowing the seeds of suspicion and anger among young generations who have no memory of America as a credible, trustworthy partner, AntiAmerica will sabotage even the best-intentioned U.S. leadership or well-designed policy and will weaken national and international security for decades to come.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

*** Uniqueness Issues Hegemony/Leadership Low Now ***

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Collapsing General

America is overstretched; collapse of hegemony inevitable
Guardian January 19, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/19/barack-obama-romeempire But from China's rapidly rising status as a global player, to Russia's show of force in Georgia, to rising tensions in South Asia and the Middle East, America is facing a wide array of increasingly troubling threats, while struggling internally to recover from an economic collapse not seen since the Great Depression. American supremacy in a post-cold war environment seems outmatched by a progressively more unstable world. Like Rome, America has spread itself too thin and is unable to respond to new threats as they emerge with either a convincing show of military force or a skilled use of soft power to leverage its credibility in the world. While the dangers we face were once diverse and scattered, the Iraq war pushed many of our enemies to see us as a common threat where religious differences would have otherwise made cooperation impossible. Moreover, in collapsing the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein, America has paved the way for an even less palatable Iranian dominance in the region. While the comparison to ancient Rome is imperfect,
By virtue of its economic and military power, as well as a political system extolled for its superiority to all other systems, America has been the leader of the free world for the last 60 years.

there are nonetheless parallels worth considering. America today faces the same dilemma of the eastern Roman empire: should it attempt to regain its lost global supremacy or fortify and adapt to the new world? Will we follow Virgil's famous line from the Aeneid, "Rome, 't is thine alone, with awful sway, To rule mankind, and make the world obey," or preserve our strength and create a framework for global cooperation in which America acts as a mediator and responsible actor rather than instigator.

U.S. naval power declining

Robert D. Kaplan, National Correspondent for The Atlantic and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009, Center Stage for the Twenty-First Century, pp. 16-31 is unclear how much longer U.S. naval dominance will last. At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy boasted about 600 warships; it is now down to 279. That number might rise to 313 in the coming years with the addition of the new "littoral combat ships," but it could also drop to the low 200s given cost overruns of 34 percent and the slow pace of shipbuilding. Although the revolution in precision-guided weapons means that existing ships pack better firepower than those of the Cold War fleet did, since a ship cannot be in two places at once, the fewer the vessels, the riskier every decision to deploy them.
Yet as the challenges for the United States on the high seas multiply, it

Downturn of 2008 collapses U.S. geopolitical influence

Roger Altman, Chair and CEO of Evercore Partners, He was U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary in 1993-94.Foreign Affairs, February 2009, The Great Crash, 2008 Subtitle: A Geopolitical Setback for the West, p. 2 The financial and economic crash of 2008, the worst in over 75 years, is a major geopolitical setback for the United States and Europe. Over the medium term, Washington and European governments will have neither the resources nor the economic credibility to play the role in global affairs that they otherwise would have played. These weaknesses will eventually be repaired, but in the interim, they will accelerate trends that are shifting the world's center of gravity away from the United States. A brutal recession is unfolding in the United States, Europe, and probably Japan -- a recession likely to be more harmful than the slump of 1981-82. The current financial crisis has deeply frightened consumers and businesses, and in response they have sharply retrenched.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Collapsing General

U.S. global power eroding
Roger Altman, Chair and CEO of Evercore Partners, He was U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary in 1993-94.Foreign Affairs, February 2009, The Great Crash, 2008 Subtitle: A Geopolitical Setback for the West, p. 2 Much of the world is turning a historic corner and heading into a period in which the role of the state will be larger and that of the private sector will be smaller. As it does, the United States' global power, as well as the appeal of U.S.-style democracy, is eroding. Although the United States is fortunate that this crisis coincides with the promise inherent in the election of Barack Obama as president, historical forces -- and the crash of 2008 -- will carry the world away from a unipolar system regardless. Indeed, rising economic powers are gaining new influence. No country will benefit economically from the financial crisis over the coming year, but a few states -- most notably China -- will achieve a stronger relative global position. China is experiencing its own real estate slowdown, its export markets are weak, and its overall growth rate is set to slow. But the country is still relatively insulated from the global crisis. Its foreign exchange reserves are approaching $2 trillion, making it the world's strongest country in terms of liquidity. China's financial system is not exposed, and the country's growth, which is now driven by domestic activity, will continue at solid, if diminished, rates. This relatively unscathed position gives China the opportunity to solidify its strategic advantages as the United States and Europe struggle to recover. Beijing will be in a position to assist other nations financially and make key investments in, for example, natural resources at a time when the West cannot. At the same time, this crisis may lead to a closer relationship between the United States and China. Traderelated flashpoints are diminishing, which may soften protectionist stances in the U.S. Congress. And it is likely that, with Washington less distracted by the war in Iraq, the new administration of President Obama will see more clearly than its predecessor that the U.S.-Chinese relationship is becoming the United States' most important bilateral relationship.

U.S. geopolitical dominance collapsing

Joseph Nye, Harvard, Chinadaily.com.cn, March 26, 2009, p. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/200903/26/content_7617363.htm At best, Americas unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war peace dividend was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing " and losing " in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the worlds other superpowers: the European Union and China .

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Collapsing General

The foundation of hegemony the economy has been declining
Robert A. Pape is professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Chicago Tribune, March 8, 2009, p. 29 The Bush administration pursued ambitious objectives in three major regions at the same time -- waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, seeking to denuclearize North Korea and expanding America's military allies in Europe right up to the borders of Russia. For the past eight years, our foreign policies have not been based just on questionable arguments in individual cases. More troubling, the perimeters of American global influence have been extended at precisely a period when the ultimate foundation of U.S. power -- the superiority of America's economy in the world -has been in steep decline relative to our rivals. Let's look at the facts. Major assessments of international power have long turned heavily on a single statistic: a country's share of world economic product. According to International Monetary Fund figures, the U.S. enjoyed 31 percent of gross world product in 2000, far eclipsing our closest geopolitical rival, China, at 4 percent and Russia at 1 percent. Since then, America's share of GWP has been collapsing -- declining to 23 percent in 2008 and is projected by the IMF to fall to 21 percent in 2013. At the same time, the share of China -- our most likely future rival -- has been skyrocketing, to 7 percent in 2008 and a projected 9 percent in 2013 (when it is likely to overtake Japan as the world's second-leading economy) and Russia's share has grown to 3 percent in 2008 and is projected at 5 percent in 2013. Put differently, since 2000 the U.S. has lost nearly a third of its relative power in international politics, while China's has doubled and Russia's has tripled. This is the fastest decline relative to other major countries in U.S. history. True, China and Russia are starting from a much lower base and are also having internal economic problems. But America's internal problems are doing far more to reduce our economic growth than China's or Russia's, and so the power gaps are likely to either remain as close as today or narrow further in the coming years. Simply put, America is a declining power . Worse, our international decline was well under way before the economic downturn of 2008, which is likely to further weaken our power. These new realities have tremendous implications for America's grand strategy. First, America's relative decline is sounding a death knell for the age of U.S. global dominance. For decades, those convinced of America's "unipolar moment" have encouraged U.S. policymakers to act unilaterally and seize almost any opportunity to advance American influence, virtually discounting the possibility that Russia, China, Iran and others could seriously oppose American power. With 30 percent of GWP, U.S. leaders could imagine confronting opponents in multiple regions at the same time. Nearing 20 percent, this is simply not realistic. Second, America's relative decline has created a significant overcommitment problem, especially in light of the Bush administration's aggressive policies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. The era when the United States can credibly commit to the military defense of allies in all three regions simultaneously is quickly coming to an end, and our rivals sense America's increasingly hollow.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Collapsing General

The U.S. doesnt have the financial capability to sustain global leadership
Joseph Nye, Harvard, Chinadaily.com.cn, March 26, 2009, p. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/200903/26/content_7617363.htm At some point, tighter global credit conditions are sure to significantly constrain Americas freedom of action internationally. After all, Chinese and East Asian investors, to offer but one example, are now quite capable of reining in, and even undermining, the federal government (if they choose to), rather than vice versa. Though it may not yet have penetrated American consciousness, a national fiscal crisis is also bound to be a crisis of national security . In the coming years, a new president will have to deal with a growing disparity between the historically hegemonic role of this country on the world stage and its diminishing capacity. Simply put, the U.S. will have to do more with less, even to maintain a semblance of its current strategic profile. What effect this has on geopolitical stability, on the number of small and big wars that occur globally, and on collective problems ranging from climate change to human rights remains to be seen .

U.S. soft power collapsing

Joseph Nye, Harvard, Chinadaily.com.cn, March 26, 2009, p. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/200903/26/content_7617363.htm Diminishing U.S. economic and military influence only underscores a third trend: the wilting of Americas soft power. At the U.N. in September, for instance, President Bush faced a tsunami of whispered complaints about Americas flawed stewardship of the global economy. Manifest failure in an area in which Americans took such pride saps Washingtons ability to persuade and build alliances in areas like resisting slaughter in Darfur, fighting piracy in the Gulf of Aden, or stemming Russian designs on what it calls its near-abroad.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Collapsing General Leadership

U.S. global leadership has collapsed
Korea Herald, January 29, 2009, http://media.daum.net/foreign/englishnews/view.html? cateid=1047&newsid=20090129092014169&p=koreaherald In his inauguration speech, new U.S. President Barrack Obama said, "We are in the midst of a crisis." He also said, "Challenges are real, but they will be met." As his speech shows, the Obama administration has begun with daunting, international challenges. The global financial crisis, originating in the United States, should be managed as a top priority. Concern is not simply about the American decline but about the contagious global downturn. Handling the Iraqi and Middle East issue is an immediate foreign policy challenge. Honorable retreat from Iraq while maintaining regional stability in the Middle East is not simple. Regaining trust in U.S. leadership for global governance is a must. Because of its appearance as a revisionist hegemony during the previous administration, America's fame in the world significantly diminished. The Washington consensus based on the neoliberal market economy principle is doubted in and outside the United States. Without reinvigorating American leadership, the status of the United States as a global hegemony may be challenged in the future.

U.S. global influence is weakening

University Wire, March 6, 2009, Yale professor Kennedy surveys U.S. power politics, p. online Paul Kennedy, the J. Richardson Dilworth professor of history and director of International Security Studies at Yale University, addressed a large audience Thursday on the current state of American power. The event was part of the 2008-2009 Duke Provost's Lecture Series, "Policy Visions for a New Presidency." Kennedy, who is considered one of the leading scholars on the rise and fall of great societies throughout history, told attendees that studying the three main indicators of any given nation's strength-military, economic and "soft" power-may suggest that America is in a decline. One of Kennedy's central points was that America's ability to exert influence over other nations has weakened in recent years. This influence, he argued, was one of America's most important assets. "It was also culture, the power of ideas, the capacity to co-opt other nations through international institutions, the influence of new technology... all of that gave the United States a sort of attractiveness and capacity to get things done," Kennedy said.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony is Collapsing
Slow hegemonic decline now Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 41 The United States' share of the global economy has been remarkably steady through wars, depressions, and a slew of other powers rising. With 5 percent of the world's population, the United States has generated between 20 and 30 percent of world output for 125 years. There will surely be some slippage of America's position over the next few decades. This is not a political statement but a mathematical one. As other countries grow faster, America's relative economic weight will fall. But the decline need not be large-scale, rapid, or consequential, as long as the United States can adapt to new challenges as well as it adapted to those it confronted over the last century. Relative decline in U.S. power
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs , May/June 2008 ,

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html?mode=print

But the reality of American strength should not mask the relative decline of the United States' position in the world -- and with this relative decline in power an absolute decline in influence and independence. The U.S. share of global imports is already down to 15 percent. Although U.S. GDP accounts for over 25 percent of the world's total, this percentage is sure to decline over time given the actual and projected differential between the United States' growth rate and those of the Asian giants and many other countries, a large number of which are growing at more than two or three times the rate of the United States. GDP growth is hardly the only indication of a move away from U.S. economic dominance. The rise of sovereign wealth funds -- in countries such as China, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates -- is another. These government-controlled pools of wealth, mostly the result of oil and gas exports, now total some $3 trillion. They are growing at a projected rate of $1
trillion a year and are an increasingly important source of liquidity for U.S. firms. High energy prices, fueled mostly by the surge in Chinese and Indian demand, are here to stay for some time, meaning that the size and significance of these funds will continue to grow. Alternative stock exchanges are springing up and drawing away companies from the U.S. exchanges and even launching initial public offerings (IPOs). London, in particular, is competing with New York as the world's financial center and has already surpassed it in terms of the number of IPOs it hosts. The dollar has weakened against the euro and the British

A majority of the world's foreign exchange holdings are now in currencies other than the dollar, and a move to denominate oil in euros or a basket of currencies is possible, a step that would only leave the U.S. economy more vulnerable to inflation as well as currency crises. U.S. primacy is also being challenged in other realms, such as military effectiveness and diplomacy. Measures of military spending are not the same as measures of military capacity. September 11 showed how a small investment by terrorists could cause extraordinary levels of human and physical damage.
pound, and it is likely to decline in value relative to Asian currencies as well.

Relative U.S. decline now Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 45
I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

I began this chapter by arguing that the new order did not herald American decline, because I believe that America has enormous strengths and that the new world will not throw up a new superpower but rather a diversity of forces that Washington can navigate and even help direct. But still, as the rest of the world rises, in purely economic terms, America will experience relative decline. As others grow faster, its share of the pie will be smaller (though the shift will likely be small for many years). In addition, the new nongovernmental forces that are increasingly active will constrain Washington substantially.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony is Collapsing
U.S. hegemony collapsing Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, 2008, A Memo to the President Elect, p. 21-2
Even the most basic building blocks of U.S. power appear to be chipped and worn. Our military has been deployed to the point of exhaustion, including our National Guard and Reserves. Our international economic leadership has been hurt by an incon sistent approach to trade and by budget policies that have spun the gold of surpluses into the straw of record deficits. Our alli ances in Europe and the Asian Pacific have been strained. And on nuclear weapons, human rights, and the rule of law, we are thought to be hypocrites. Your job as president will be to recapture what has been lost and to proceed from there. You must begin with the understanding that our right to lead is no longer widely accepted. We have lost moral legitimacy. If we fail to comprehend this, we will not know how to formulate a successful strategy. We will be like a lawyer who assumes that, because of past triumphs, she has the jury in her pocket when she hasn't, precisely because the jury resents being taken for granted. In Kennedy's time, the memory of World War II was part of every adult's consciousness; so, too, was America's role in rebuilding Western Europe and helping Japan to become a democracy. The rehabilitation of former Axis powers was seen as a luminous accomplishment. America's leadership was still disputed, but its credentials were acknowledged. The country that had stood up to Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo had earned, at a minimum, a respectful hearing from people everywhere. We can no longer assume that our understanding of our own history is widely shared. Relatively few hear the word "America" and think first of the Battle of Lexington or the landings at Omaha Beach. To those under the age of twentythe majority in many countriesthe cold war confrontation between freedom and communism means little. To many, the Statue of Liberty has been replaced in the mind's eye by a hooded figure with electrodes. In marketing terms, the American brand needs a makeover. Amid the swirl of events these past fifteen years, four trends pose a clear and present danger to American interestsfirst, terror and the rise of anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim worlds; second, the erosion of international consensus on nuclear proliferation; third, growing doubts about the value of democracy; and fourth, the gathering backlash against globalization due primarily to the widening split between rich and poor.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No U.S. Global Leadership/Credibility

IRAQ HAS DESTROYED U.S. GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
Zbigniew Brzezinski, professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , SECOND CHANCE: THREE PRESIDENTS AND THE CRISIS OF AMERICAN SUPERPOWER, 2007, p. 146-7 First, the war has caused calamitous damage to America's global standing. America's global credibility has been shattered. Until 2003 the world was accustomed to believing the word of the president of the United States. When he made an assertion of fact, he was presumed to know the facts and tell the truth about them. Yet two months after the fall of Baghdad, Bush was flatly still asserting (in an interview destined for a European audience) that "we found the weapons of mass destruction." As a result, America's capacity to make a credible case on such internationally contentious issues as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs suffered grievously. Distrust has also undermined Americas international legitimacy, an important source of the nations soft power. Previously America's might was viewed as legitimate because America was seen as somehow identified with the basic interests of mankind. Power viewed as illegitimate is inherently weaker because its application requires a higher input of force to achieve the desired result. Loss of soft power thus reduces "hard power."

ABU GRAIB HAS DESTROYED AMERICAS STANDING

Zbigniew Brzezinski, professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , SECOND CHANCE: THREE PRESIDENTS AND THE CRISIS OF AMERICAN SUPERPOWER, 2007, p. 147 America's moral standing in the world, an important aspect of legitimacy, was also compromised by the prisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, as well as by the increasing number of cases suggesting that demoralizationinherent in the psychological brutality of waging a counterinsurgency in the midst of hostile civiliansis beginning to infect the occupation troops. The brutalities documented at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo should have implicated the secretary of defense and his deputy for permittingand perhaps even generatingan atmosphere congenial to such abuse. The lick of subsequent high-level accountability transformed the transgressions by individual soldiers into acts of U.S. statesmanship, staining America's moral escutcheon.

THE IRAQ WAR HAS DISCREDITED AMERICAN LEADERSHIP

Zbigniew Brzezinski, professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies , SECOND CHANCE: THREE PRESIDENTS AND THE CRISIS OF AMERICAN SUPERPOWER, 2007, p. 147-8 Most important of all, the war has discredited America's global leadership. America was able neither to rally the world to its cause nor to decisively prevail by the use of arms. Its actions have divided its allies, united its enemies, and created opportunities for its rivals and ill wishers. The world of Islam has been stirred to bitter hatred. Respect for American statesmanship has plunged precipitously, while Americas capacity to lead has been severely damaged.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Collapse Now, No Multipolarity

U.S. unipoliarity has collapsed, no multipolar world has emerged and none will
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs , May/June 2008 ,

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html?mode=print

Charles Krauthammer was more correct than he realized when he wrote in these pages nearly two decades ago about what he termed "the unipolar moment." At the time, U.S. dominance was real. But it lasted for only 15 or 20 years. In historical terms, it was a moment. Traditional realist theory would have predicted the end of unipolarity and the dawn of a multipolar world. According to this line of reasoning, great powers, when they act as great powers are wont to do, stimulate competition from others that fear or resent them. Krauthammer, subscribing to just this theory, wrote, "No doubt, multipolarity will come in time. In perhaps another generation or so there will be great powers coequal with the United States, and the world will, in structure, resemble the pre-World War I era." But this has not happened. Although anti-Americanism is widespread, no great-power rival or set of rivals has emerged to challenge the United States. In part, this is because the disparity between the power of the United States and that of any potential rivals is too great. Over time, countries such as China may come to possess GDPs comparable to that of the United States. But in the case of China, much of that wealth will necessarily be absorbed by providing for the country's enormous population (much of which remains poor) and will not be available to fund military development or external undertakings. Maintaining political stability during a period of such dynamic but uneven growth will be no easy feat. India faces many of the same demographic challenges and is further hampered by too much bureaucracy and too little infrastructure. The EU's GDP is now greater than that of the United States, but the EU does not act in the unified fashion of a nation-state, nor is it able or inclined to act in the assertive fashion of historic great powers. Japan, for its part, has a shrinking and aging population and lacks the political culture to play the role of a great power. Russia may be more inclined, but it still has a largely cash-crop economy and is saddled by a declining population and internal challenges to its cohesion. No multipolarity now Richard Haas, Council on Foreign Relations, April 16, 2006, Financial Times, p. 11
Still others predict the emergence of a modern multipolar world, one in which China, Europe, India, Japan and Russia join the US as dominant influences. This view ignores how the world has changed. There are literally dozens of meaningful power centres, including regional powers, international organisations, companies, media outlets, religious movements, terrorist organisations, drug cartels and non-governmental organisations. Today's world is increasingly one of distributed, rather than concentrated, power. The successor to unipolarity is neither bipolarity or multipolarity. It is non-polarity.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Collapsing Soft Power

U.S. soft power declining globally
Joseph S. Nye Jr teaches at Harvard and is author of 'The Powers to Lead', Gulf News (United Arab Emirates), February 11, 2009, p. online In her confirmation hearings to become secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said: "America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America... We must use what has been called 'smart power,' the full range of tools at our disposal." Smart power is the combination of hard and soft power. Soft power is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through attraction rather than coercion or payments. Public opinion polls show a serious decline in American attractiveness in Europe, Latin America and, most dramatically, across the entire Muslim world.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Collapsing Obama Policies

Obamas policies have collapsed U.S. military credibility
Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy, March 2009 p. 2 The United States Administration of Pres. Barack Obama, however, appears to have taken a doctrinaire approach to the US' strategic position which -- even apart from the questionable approach to economic recovery -- invites disaster to itself and to the traditional allies of the US and to the West in general. It is an approach which fails to learn anything from history. To begin, the Obama White House appears to believe that its mere appearance as the antithesis of the former Government of Pres. George W. Bush is sufficient to transform the fortunes of, and attitude to, the United States. It is true that many former friends and adversaries of the United States have welcomed the appearance of the Obama Administration, but for many -- such as the governments of Iran, Russia, and the like, and groups such as HAMAS and HizbAllah -- what has been welcomed has been the perception that the US can no longer be a cause of concern for their own security. It is true that the Obama election platform was, in part, to remove the perception globally that the US represented a threat to other states. However, the result in Moscow and Tehran has not been to see the new face of the United States in a more positive light, but to see the US now as a toothless tiger, a power which is now, by its own hand, contemptible.

Obama has collapsed U.S. Central Asia deployments

Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy, March 2009 p. 2 Not only has the Obama White House committed to the early withdrawal of its forces (and therefore the forces of its allies) from Afghanistan, it has seen its entire strategy in the Caucasus and Central Asia collapse, totally transforming the global strategic map. Russia, defeated in its Soviet form at the end of the Cold War in 1990, is now on the ascendant in many respects. Almost no-one in Washington yet comprehends this reality. The arrogance of long-held power cannot begin to comprehend the scale of the rapid degradation of US wealth, influence, and the thing which causes wealth and influence: prestige. It is clear that unless the problem is recognized, the healing cannot begin. Indeed, the Obama Administration does not recognize that it has a problem of strategic reach or influence, and has welcomed the retirement of the US from its position of global leadership. Except, of course, that Pres. Obama and his key leadership team -particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- still expect to be treated above the station of "first among equals". The last time we saw hubris and ignorance in such profusion was during the Administration of US Pres. "Jimmy" Carter (January 20, 1977-January 20, 1981). Carter's actions saw the US in retreat from influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and elsewhere. Among other things, Carter gave away control of the Panama Canal; and deliberately overthrew the Shah of Iran, giving us today's world of jihadist terrorism, a collapsed Afghanistan and a threatened Pakistan, while at the same time extending the duration of the Cold War.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Collapsing Obama Policies

The military does not support Obama
Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy, March 2009 p. 2 It is not about budgets. The Obama Administration has spent wildly, without regard for "balancing the budget" or "reducing the deficit". It does not even mind allowing the US military leadership to commit a division or two of extra troops to fight in Afghanistan, even though the White House privately already knew (by January 2009) that it would withdraw from Afghanistan unilaterally as soon as possible, regardless of the consequences for Afghanistan, the region, or the US allies who entered the fray at Washington's behest. The Obama attack on the US military has been more insidious than mere disregard for its opinion. Pres. Obama himself committed his Government to the policy that US troops would be liable to pay their own long-term medical bills for injuries sustained in fighting for their country. He made it clear that this was not a mistake. When queried on the approach, he repeated it. The move was part of budget-savings, he said. It was not until massive political and media opposition that he finally withdrew the proposal on March 23, 2009. The incident could have been put down to political navet, but more likely it was navet accompanied by anti-military sentiment. The damage has, to a large part been done. The US military will not trust Obama, and the US runs an all-volunteer Armed Force. Military recruiting will suffer at a time when the US could be expected to undertake some semblance of global credibility despite shrinking missions. It is significant that, concurrently, Russia is increasing its commitment to defense spending and deployment.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Apolarity Collapsing
U.S. unipolarity weakening Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 217-8 That was then. America remains the global superpower today, but it is an enfeebled one. Its economy has troubles, its currency is sliding, and it faces long-term problems with its soaring entitlements and low savings. Anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high everywhere from Great Britain to Malaysia. But the most striking shift between the 1990s and now has to do not with America but rather with the world at large. In the 1990s, Russia was completely dependent on American aid and loans. Now, it posts annual budget surpluses in the tens of billions of dollars. Then, East Asian nations desperately needed the IMF to bail them out of their crises. Now, they have massive foreign-exchange reserves, which they are using to finance America's debt. Then, China's economic growth was driven almost entirely by American demand. In 2007, China contributed more to global growth than the United States didthe first time any nation has done so since at least the 1930sand surpassed it as the world's largest consumer market in several key categories. In the long run this secular trendthe rise of the restwill only gather strength, whatever the temporary ups and downs. At a military-political level, America still dominates the world, but the larger structure of unipolarity economic, financial, culturalis weakening. Washington still has no true rival, and will not for a very long while, but it faces a growing number of constraints Apolarity is not a binary condition. The world will not stay unipolar for decades and then, one day, suddenly switch and become bipolar or multipolar. There will be a slow shift in the nature of international affairs. While unipolarity continues to be a defining reality of the international system for now, every year it becomes weaker and other nations and actors grow in strength. Globalization has produced a non-polar world
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs , May/June 2008 ,

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html?mode=print

Finally, today's nonpolar world is not simply a result of the rise of other states and organizations or of the failures and follies of U.S. policy. It is also an inevitable consequence of globalization. Globalization has increased the volume, velocity, and importance of cross-border flows of just about everything, from drugs, e-mails, greenhouse gases, manufactured goods, and people to television and radio signals, viruses (virtual and real), and weapons.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Apolarity Now
Non-polar world emerging
Roger Altman, Chair and CEO of Evercore Partners, He was U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary in 1993-94.Foreign Affairs, February 2009, The Great Crash, 2008 Subtitle: A Geopolitical Setback for the West, p. 2 The rising nations' growing economic strength brings increased global influence and competition with it. The result, in the words of Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, is the emergence of a "nonpolar world." China, for example, will suffer a lesser blow from the global crisis. It is experiencing some economic pain. Its export markets, led by the United States and Europe, are slowing dramatically. China is also suffering from price declines in certain urban real estate markets. Its growth slowed to nine percent during the third quarter of 2008 -- a rate that other nations would envy but was China's slowest in five years. These factors explain why the Chinese leadership is implementing a multiyear economic stimulus plan worth over $500 billion, or approximately 15 percent of GDP. Still, the IMF is projecting that the country's economy will grow by 8.5 percent in 2009. In financial terms, China is little affected by the crisis in the West. I ts entire financial system plays a relatively small role in its economy, and it apparently has no exposure to the toxic assets that have brought the U.S. and European banking systems to their knees. China also runs a budget surplus and a very large current account surplus, and it carries little government debt. Chinese households save an astonishing 40 percent of their incomes. And China's $2 trillion portfolio of foreign exchange reserves grew by $700 billion last year, thanks to the country's current account surplus and foreign direct investment. This means that although China, too, has been hurt by the crisis, its economic and financial power have been strengthened relative to those of the West. China's global influence will thus increase, and Beijing will be able to undertake political and economic initiatives to increase it further. China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are just concluding an agreement that would create the world's largest free-trade area, and Beijing could take additional steps toward Asian interdependence and play a stronger leadership role within the region. China could also expand its diplomatic presence in the developing world, in order to further its model of capitalism and, in places such as Angola, Kazakhstan, and Sudan, satisfy its thirst for natural resources. In the midst of this crisis, it might also help finance emergency loans, either directly, through bilateral financing arrangements, or indirectly, by creating an additional facility at the IMF that could expand the organization's available credit beyond what current quotas allow. China should also be expected to make strategic investments through its sovereign wealth funds. Given China's appetite for natural resources, this is one likely area of interest; its relatively underdeveloped financial-services infrastructure is another.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Apolarity Now
U.S. unipolarity waning Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 42 For the roughly two decades since 1989, the power of the United States has defined the international order. All roads have led to Washington, and American ideas about politics, economics, and foreign policy have been the starting points for global action. Washington has been the most powerful outside actor on every continent in the world, dominating the Western Hemisphere, remaining the crucial outside balancer in Europe and East Asia, expanding its role in the Middle East and Central and South Asia, and everywhere remaining the only country that can provide the muscle for any serious global military operation. For every countryfrom Russia and China to South Africa and Indiaits most important relationship in the world has been the relationship with the United States. That influence reached its apogee with Iraq. Despite the reluctance, opposition, or active hostility of much of the world, the United States was able to launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country and to enlist dozens of countries and international agencies to assist it during and after the invasion, It is not just the complications of Iraq that have unwound this order. Even had Iraq been a glorious success, the method of its execution would have made utterly clear the unchallenged power of the United Statesand it is this exercise of unipolarity that has provoked a reaction around the world. The unipolar order of the last two decades is waning not because of Iraq but because of the broader diffusion of power across the world. Unipolarity has already ended in some areas Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 43 On some matters, unipolarity seems already to have ended. The European Union now represents the largest trade bloc on the globe, creating bipolarity, and as China and then other emerging giants gain size, the bipolar realm of trade might become tripolar and then multipolar. In every realm except military, similar shifts are underway. In general, however, the notion of a multipolar world, with four or five players of roughly equal weight, does not describe reality today or in the near future. Europe cannot act militarily or even politically as one. Japan and Germany are hamstrung by their past. China and India are still developing. Instead, the international system is more accurately described by Samuel Huntington's term "uni-multipolarity," or what Chinese geopoliticians call "many powers and one superpower." The messy language reflects the messy reality. The United States remains by far the most powerful country but in a world with several other important great powers and with greater assertiveness and activity from all actors. This hybrid international systemmore democratic, more dynamic, more open, more connectedis one we are likely to live with for several decades. It is easier to define what it is not than what it is, easier to describe the era it is moving away from than the era it is moving towardhence the post American world.
I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Apolarity Now
Non-polarity now, unipolarity collapsing China Daily, March 11, 2008 (The author is a researcher with the Research Center of Contemporary World)
These words should not be taken lightly, as they are related to views on the status of the United States and its influence in today's world, assessment of damage the US has suffered in the war in Iraq and evaluation of the role of the so-called "BRIC" nations -Brazil, Russia, India and China - and "VISTA" countries -Vietnam, Indonesia, South Africa, Turkey and Argentina. Also on Jan 18, a respected Japanese current affairs magazine carried an article titled "the non-polar world is becoming more complicated everyday", which quoted John Chipman, director-general and chief executive of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, as saying the "lack of an outstanding leader country" makes the world today a "polar-free" one: the world today is not moving toward orderly "multipolarization", but unstable "non-polarization". A "unipolar world" existed for a while after the Cold War; the US is a superpower no more, and the world is headed for "non-polarization". These concepts are inter-connected yet different and worth careful study. By "world structure" I mean the strategic structure constituted by individual powers (countries) or power groups (alliances of nations) capable of influencing the whole world significantly and the structural status quo they maintain in their interaction. The status of the US as a superpower reached its zenith after the Cold War as it single-mindedly pursued a unilateralist global strategy and there seemed to be only one pole left in the world; while in fact the world was in a relatively long transitional phase from a "bipolar" to "multipolar" structure. The transition to a multi-polar is continuing. Multi-polarization is a development trend, which does not mean we are already there. There is a relatively lengthy period of transition when a new one is finally established. The basic situation during this transitional period is that the US will enjoy the "sole superpower" edge unchallenged for a rather long time within "a setup featuring one superpower and multiple major powers", but none of the major powers are strong enough to rival the US and therefore have to find solace in statements such as "superpowers" no longer exist. If we see "the sole superpower" the US as one pole, then we probably should view the "multiple major powers" as a collective "para-pole". It is these "pole" and "para-pole" that form the multi-polar world structure, while the ideas of "unipolar world" and "non-polar world" do not reflect the reality of today's world. The number of "multiple major powers" is growing and the new comers are developing nations or their alliances only, such as certain members of the BRIC nations and VISTA countries and perhaps the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The ongoing accumulation and advancement of regional multi-polarization will complement and enrich the multi-polarization of the world.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Economic Decline Now

Economic power shifting away from the U.S.
Conn Hallinan, Foreign Policy in Focus, January 30, 2008, http://www.alternet.org/audits/75223/

Rather than the "American Century" the Bush administration neo-conservatives predicted, it is increasingly a world where regional alliances and trade associations in Europe and South America have risen to challenge Washington's once undisputed domination. When Argentina thumbed its nose at the U.S.-dominated World Bank and International Monetary Fund, it had the powerful Mercosur trade association to back it up. When the United States tried to muscle Europe into ending agricultural subsidies (while keeping its own) the European Union refused to back down. And now India, China, and Russia are drifting toward a partnership -- alliance is too strong a word -- that could transform global relations and shift the power axis from Washington to New Delhi, Beijing, and Moscow. It is a consortium of convenience, as the interests of the three countries hardly coincide on all things. U.S. share of the global GDP is declining
Roger Altman, Chair and CEO of Evercore Partners, He was U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary in 1993-94.Foreign Affairs, February 2009, The Great Crash, 2008 Subtitle: A Geopolitical Setback for the West, p. 2 Or, as Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan said more diplomatically, "The teachers now have some problems." This coincides with the natural and very long-term movement away from the U.S.-centric world that started after the fall of the Berlin Wall two decades ago . CHINA'S GAIN This movement also reflects the rapid rise of other economies, especially China and India. The U.S. share of world GDP had been declining for seven years before the financial crisis hit. And it looks increasingly likely that China's GDP will surpass the United States' at some point during the next 25-30 years.

U.S. global economic power has collapsed

Salon.com, April 1, 2009 , p. online In a preview of the G-20 summit meeting Edward Luce and Krishna Guha write in the Financial Times that the United States' reputation as economic role model is kaput. The "soft power" of the U.S. private financial sector has also been devastated by the economic turmoil. Under George W. Bush, U.S. officials used to urge countries such as China to embrace the likes of Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch and use them as engines of domestic transformation -- an idea no one is advancing today.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Economic Decline Now

Budget collapses destroys readiness
Congressional Quarterly Weekly, March 15, 2009, p. online Probably not this year, but at least by the next one, the Defense Department will have to start making do with less. Eight years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and six years of ever-larger emergency war budgets, will begin to give way to more modest defense budgets as the nation climbs out of a credit crisis and a deep and worldwide recession, only to face the prospect of inflation . "One thing we have known for many months," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 27, "is that the spigot of defense funding that opened on 9/11 is closing." "With two major campaigns ongoing," Gates said, "the economic crisis and resulting budget pressures will force hard choices on this department." A month later, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the committee's ranking Republican, told his colleagues bluntly, "A train wreck is coming. " Look at the president's 10-year budget," McCain said on March 3, "and you'll see a decrease, overall decrease, in defense spending." At the same time, the armed forces are under pressure to repair the damage, in materiel and manpower, wrought by the fighting in Iraq and what will probably be more combat in Afghanistan, while continuing to modernize and reorganize to meet other possible threats elsewhere in the world.

U.S. global hegemony has collapsed

Robert A. Pape is professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Chicago Tribune, March 8, 2009, p. 29 For nearly two decades, the U.S. has been viewed as a global hegemon -- vastly more powerful than any major country in the world. Since 2000, however, our global dominance has fallen dramatically. During the Bush administration, the self-inflicted wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current account balances and other internal economic weaknesses cost the U.S. real power in a world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. Simply put, the main legacy of the Bush years has been to leave the U.S. as a declining power.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Decline Now Multipolarity Now

Multipolarity now
Fred Kaplan is the national security columnist for Slate and the author of "Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power," due out this week, Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-kaplan3feb03,1,459094.story The United States has emerged from the tectonic shift as something more like an ordinary country -- a world power but not a superpower. This is unfamiliar territory for Americans. For half a century, we had been a superpower in a world that was tightly structured. Now we're upper-middle management in a world without big bosses -- a world that's either becoming multipolar or teetering toward anarchy.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Decline Now Perception

Perception of U.S. decline now Charleston Gazette, 1-27, 8
But here's what is different this year: The rich and the powerful at Davos are already looking beyond the United States as present and future global leader. The talk is about whether emerging economies, primarily China, India and resource-rich Russia, can pick up the economic slack if America falters and maintain global growth. No one underestimates the continued importance of America. But a series of policy setbacks - the failure to foresee or head off this mortgage debacle, the decline of the dollar, the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - has created the sense that the era of the American hyperpower is history. George W. Bush is already regarded as a lame duck; the meager results of his recent trip to the Middle East showed how little he is able to achieve. "Our failed economic and political policies have caused us to become increasingly irrelevant," says Philadelphia executive John Strackhouse, senior partner in Heidrick & Struggles. His words echoed other comments I heard my first day here. He worries about an outflow of capital and talent to Asia, leading to permanent job losses. "China has a 3-1 ratio of engineers to the United States," he notes. The unease about America's ability to right its own ship is reflected in the subject matter of many Davos panels. The themes at Davos, as I've observed year after year, have an uncanny knack for reflecting global trends. One panel is titled "Rebuilding Brand America: Five Suggestions for the Future President." The blurb for the panel reads: "Global opinion surveys consistently show that the level of confidence in the U.S. is declining in a number of areas. How should the next U.S. president reverse the trend and rebuild the brand equity of the country?"

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Decline Now EU/China Will Supplant U.S. Leadership

EU and China undermine U.S. global leadership
Parag Khanna, Senior Research Fellow and Director, Global Governance Initiative, New America Initiative, January 28, 2008, New York Times Magazine, Waving Goodbye to Hegemony, http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604 At best, America's unipolar moment lasted through the 1990s, but that was also a decade adrift. The post-cold-war "peace dividend" was never converted into a global liberal order under American leadership. So now, rather than bestriding the globe, we are competing -- and losing -- in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world's other superpowers: the European Union and China. This is geopolitics in the 21st century: the new Big Three. Not Russia, an increasingly depopulated expanse run by Gazprom.gov; not an incoherent Islam embroiled in internal wars; and not India, lagging decades behind China in both development and strategic appetite. The Big Three make the rules -- their own rules -- without any one of them dominating. And the others are left to choose their suitors in this postAmerican world.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Decline Now Europe Will Supplant U.S. Leadership

Europe growing at the expense of the U.S.
Parag Khanna, Senior Research Fellow and Director, Global Governance Initiative, New America Initiative, January 28, 2008, New York Times Magazine, Waving Goodbye to Hegemony, http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604 Robert Kagan famously said that America hails from Mars and Europe from Venus, but in reality, Europe is more like Mercury -- carrying a big wallet. The E.U.'s market is the world's largest, European technologies more and more set the global standard and European countries give the most development assistance. And if America and China fight, the world's money will be safely invested in European banks. Many Americans scoffed at the introduction of the euro, claiming it was an overreach that would bring the collapse of the European project. Yet today, Persian Gulf oil exporters are diversifying their currency holdings into euros, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has proposed that OPEC no longer price its oil in "worthless" dollars. President Hugo Chvez of Venezuela went on to suggest euros. It doesn't help that Congress revealed its true protectionist colors by essentially blocking the Dubai ports deal in 2006. With London taking over (again) as the world's financial capital for stock listing, it's no surprise that China's new state investment fund intends to locate its main Western offices there instead of New York. Meanwhile, America's share of global exchange reserves has dropped to 65 percent. Gisele Bndchen demands to be paid in euros, while Jay-Z drowns in 500 euro notes in a recent video. American soft power seems on the wane even at home. And Europe's influence grows at America's expense. While America fumbles at nation-building, Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. Many poor regions of the world have realized that they want the European dream, not the American dream. Africa wants a real African Union like the E.U.; we offer no equivalent. Activists in the Middle East want parliamentary democracy like Europe's, not American-style presidential strongman rule. Many of the foreign students we shunned after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the U.S. We didn't educate them, so we have no claims on their brains or loyalties as we have in decades past. More broadly, America controls legacy institutions few seem to want -- like the International Monetary Fund -- while Europe excels at building new and sophisticated ones modeled on itself. The U.S. has a hard time getting its way even when it dominates summit meetings -- consider the ill-fated Free Trade Area of the Americas -- let alone when it's not even invited, as with the new East Asian Community, the region's answer to America's Apec.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Decline Now European Soft Power Outpacing U.S. Soft Power
European soft power exceeds U.S. soft power now
The Guardian, February 2, 2008, p. 27 Europe has its own vision of what world order should look like, which it increasingly pursues whether America likes it or not. The EU is now the most confident economic power in the world, regularly punishing the United States in trade disputes, while its superior commercial and environmental standards have assumed global leadership. Many Europeans view America's way of life as deeply corrupt, built on borrowed money, risky and heartless in its lack of social protections, and ecologically catastrophic. The EU is a far larger humanitarian aid donor than the US, while South America, east Asia and other regions prefer to emulate the "European Dream" than the American variant.

Europe gaining at the expense of the U.S. The Guardian, February 2, 2008, p. 27
And Europe's influence grows at America's expense. While America fumbles at nation-building, Europe spends its money and political capital on locking peripheral countries into its orbit. Many of the foreign students shunned by the US after 9/11 are now in London and Berlin: twice as many Chinese study in Europe as in the US.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Decline NowChina Will Supplant U.S. Leadership

China is growing at the expense of the U.S.
Parag Khanna, Senior Research Fellow and Director, Global Governance Initiative, New America Initiative, January 28, 2008, New York Times Magazine, Waving Goodbye to Hegemony, http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/waving_goodbye_hegemony_6604 The East Asian Community is but one example of how China is also too busy restoring its place as the world's "Middle Kingdom" to be distracted by the Middle Eastern disturbances that so preoccupy the United States. In America's own hemisphere, from Canada to Cuba to Chvez's Venezuela, China is cutting massive resource and investment deals. Across the globe, it is deploying tens of thousands of its own engineers, aid workers, dambuilders and covert military personnel. In Africa, China is not only securing energy supplies; it is also making major strategic investments in the financial sector. The whole world is abetting China's spectacular rise as evidenced by the ballooning share of trade in its gross domestic product -- and China is exporting weapons at a rate reminiscent of the Soviet Union during the cold war, pinning America down while filling whatever power vacuums it can find. Every country in the world currently considered a rogue state by the U.S. now enjoys a diplomatic, economic or strategic lifeline from China, Iran being the most prominent example. Without firing a shot, China is doing on its southern and western peripheries what Europe is achieving to its east and south. Aided by a 35 million-strong ethnic Chinese diaspora well placed around East Asia's rising economies, a Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere has emerged. Like Europeans, Asians are insulating themselves from America's economic uncertainties. Under Japanese sponsorship, they plan to launch their own regional monetary fund, while China has slashed tariffs and increased loans to its Southeast Asian neighbors. T rade within the India-Japan-Australia triangle -- of which China sits at the center -- has surpassed trade across the Pacific. At the same time, a set of Asian security and diplomatic institutions is being built from the inside out, resulting in America's grip on the Pacific Rim being loosened one finger at a time. From Thailand to Indonesia to Korea, no country -- friend of America's or not -- wants political tension to upset economic growth. To the Western eye, it is a bizarre phenomenon: small Asian nation-states should be balancing against the rising China, but increasingly they rally toward it out of Asian cultural pride and an understanding of the historical-cultural reality of Chinese dominance. And in the former Soviet Central Asian countries -- the so-called Stans -- China is the new heavyweight player, its manifest destiny pushing its Han pioneers westward while pulling defunct microstates like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, as well as oil-rich Kazakhstan, into its orbit. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization gathers these Central Asian strongmen together with China and Russia and may eventually become the "NATO of the East."

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Decline Now China Will Overtake the U.S. Economically

China will overtake the U.S. economically
New Yorker, April 21, 2008 Still, the current economic growth of China--and also of India and Russia--is impressive. In "Rivals: How the Power Struggle Between China, India and Japan Will Shape Our Next Decade" (Harcourt; $26), the former Economist editor Bill Emmott refers to a World Bank analysis predicting that both China and India "could almost triple their economic output" in the next ten years or so. By the late twenty-twenties, China could overtake the United States as the world's biggest economy. The spectacle of Chinese turbo-capitalism is inspiring Marco Polo-like awe in some Western commentators. Mark Leonard, the author of "What Does China Think?" (PublicAffairs; $22.95), reports, with more enthusiasm than plausibility, that "a town the size of London shoots up in the Pearl River Delta every year." Parag Khanna, in "The Second World" (Random House; $29), informs us, rather gleefully, that "Asia is shaping the world's destiny--and exposing the flaws of the grand narrative of Western civilization in the process. Because of the East, the West is no longer master of its own fate."

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Collapse Inevitable - Counterbalancing

COUNTERBALANCING CAUSES AN INEVITABLE COLLAPSE OF HEGEMONY Roger Burbach, director of the Center for the Study of the Americas based in Berkeley, 2003
[Imperial Overstretch in Iraq, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUR305A.html ] This is a flawed interpretation of the historic impact of the Iraqi intervention. Rather than the triumph of a new imperial order, the war may actually accelerate the decline of U.S. hegemony. In late 2002, Charles Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown University and a member of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, released a book titled "The End of the American Era." Cast in mainstream political language, Kupchan argues "Pax Americana" will end due to "the rise of alternative centers of power and a declining and unilateralist U.S. internationalism." Even before France and Germany headed up the Western opposition to the U.S .war in Iraqi, Kupchan asserted that the European Union would be in the forefront of an emergent "multipolar world" that will eclipse U.S. ascendancy in the early part of the twenty-first century.

ECONOMIC COUNTERBALANCING AGAINST THE U.S. IS INEVITABLE

Chalmers Johnson, professor emeritus of political science @ the University of California, San Diego, President and cofounder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, 2000 [The Consequences of Empire excerpted from the book Blowback The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blowback_CJohnson/CostsConsequences_BCJ.html ] Meanwhile, resentment is growing over American exploitation of the global economic crisis. Big American companies are buying up factories and businesses in East Asia and elsewhere at ludicrously low prices. Procter & Gamble, for instance, has picked up several state-of-the-art Korean factories for next to nothing. Morgan Stanley, Bankers Trust, Salomon Brothers, and CS First Boston expect returns of around 20 percent on their purchases of real estate loans in Tokyo. In Thailand, any number of American investment companies have been buying up service, steel, and energy companies at concessionary prices. In June 1998, a Washington-based merchant bank, the Carlyle Group, sent a group of its executives, led by its adviser, former president George Bush, to Bangkok to "evaluate opportunities." It plans to invest $500 million in Thailand. Asia Properties, a San Diego firm founded in April 1998, was created specifically "to take advantage of the fire-sale real estate prices along Bangkok's main thoroughfares." According to its vice president, "Asia is going through the largest transference of assets in the history of the world.'' Many East Asians call this "vulture capitalism" and suspect that it was the true purpose of the economic advice given to them in the first place. The Americans buying these foreclosed properties in East Asia may believe they are merely responding to the signals of normal market forces, but they would be fools to believe that the sellers agree with them. Countries like Thailand and Indonesia have long been on the receiving end of U.S. pressures to deregulate and open their countries to international investors. As a result of doing so they now find themselves destitute, selling off what they built with their own labor in the years since the Vietnam War ended. It is only a matter of time until the small nations of East Asia get tired of this American bullying and find a suitable leader to create an anti-American coalition

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Collapse Inevitable -- Public Support

COLLAPSE IS INEVITABLE LACK OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FORCES WITHDRAWAL
Asia Times, 2006

[The US: Too late for empire 7-28, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HG28Aa01.html] But if there is one clear lesson that the history of recent empires has taught, it is that modern peoples have both the will and the capacity to reject imperial rule and assert control over their own destinies. Less interested in the contest between East and West than in running their own countries, they yearned for self-determination, and they achieved it. The British and French imperialists were forced to learn this lesson over the course of a century. The Soviet Union took a little longer, and itself collapsed in the process. The United States, determined in the period in question to act in an imperial fashion, has been the dunce in the class, and indeed under the current administration has put forward imperial claims that dwarf those of imperial Britain at its height. It is only because the United States has attempted the impossible abroad that it has had to blame people at home for the failure.

PUBLIC REJECTS U.S. ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM

Chalmers Johnson, professor emeritus of political science @ the University of California, San Diego, President and cofounder of the Japan Policy Research Institute, 2006 [CHINA REPLACED THE UNITED STATES AS THE TOP EXPORTER TO JAPAN, http://agonist.org/20060515/the_china_factor_and_the_overstretch_of_the_us_hegemony] As I argue in Chapter Nine of The Sorrows of Empire, globalization has now been revealed as a hoax sponsored by the United States. Globalization is an attempt to camouflage American economic imperialism by claiming that American behavior abroad is dictated by ineluctable forces and technological developments, not by conscious policy. It was the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, that more or less spelled the end of globalization. Whereas the Clinton Administration strongly espoused economic imperialism, the Bush government was unequivocally committed to military imperialism. However, whenever globalization might damage American economic interests, it is invariably ignored (as in George W. Bush's protection of the domestic steel industry and America's agro businesses). Increasingly even people who believed in pro-globalization solutions to international economic and environmental problems threw up their hands in despair. The only people left who believe in globalization are university professors of economics, who continue year-in and year-out to recycle their old lectures.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Soft Balancing Now

SOFT BALANCING HAS BEGUN
Francis Fukuyama, International Relations Professor @ Johns Hopkins, AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS: DEMOCRACY, POWER, AND THE NEOCONSERVATIVE LEGACY, 2006, pp. 189-90 The United States is not going to provoke France and Germany into forming a hostile military coalition, but it has provoked a great deal of unity among normally fractious Europeans around the view that the irresponsible exercise of American power is one of the chief problems in contemporary politics. This has already resulted in "soft balancing," where countries like Germany and France have tried to block American initiatives or refused cooperation when asked for it.' Similarly, Asian countries have been busy building regional multilateral organizations because Washington has been perceived as not particularly interested in their needs. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has been using oil revenues to detach countries in the Andes and Caribbean from the American orbit, while Russia and China are collaborating to slowly push the United States out of Central Asia.

THE EU IS SOFT BALANCING WITH CHINA, THREATEN THE U.S. IN EAST ASIA
Stephen Walt, Harvard, TAMING AMERICAN POWER, 2005, p. 128-9 A potentially more significant illustration of this sort of soft balancing is the expanding strategic partnership between the EU and China. Not only is each now the other's largest trading partner, but Chinese leaders now hold regular meetings with European officials and each now speaks openly of their strategic "partnership." Plans are underway for military exchanges, several European countries have already conducted search-and-rescue exercises with Chinese naval forces, and other forms of strategic dialogue are increasingly frequent. Perhaps most important of all, the EU is about to lift the arms embargo it imposed after Tiananmen Square-despite strong U.S. pressure to keep it in force-a step that will facilitate China's efforts to increase its military power. These developments are still relatively modest and are probably not inspired by a desire to balance U.S. power directly; but the trend highlights Europe's increasing independence from the United States and its willingness to take steps that could complicate U.S. strategic planning in East Asia. Given their shared preference for a more multipolar world in which U.S. power is at least somewhat constrained, it is hardly surprising that Europe and China are beginning to move closer together."

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Military Power Wont Secure Our Leadership

OUR MILITARY POWER MAY BE GREATER, BUT OUR GLOBAL LEADERSHIP HAS COLLAPSED
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, CSIS, SECOND CHANCE: THREE PRESIDENTS AND THE CRISIS OF AMERICAN SUPERPOWER, 2007, p. 181 In a word, badly. Though in some dimensions, such as the military, American power may be greater in 2006 than in 1991, the country's capacity to mobilize, inspire, point in a shared direction and thus shape global realities has significantly declined. Fifteen years after its coronation as global leader, America is becoming a fearful and lonely democracy in a politically antagonistic world.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Status Quo Hard Power Causes Counterbalancing

The status quo U.S. focus on promoting hard-power is alienating the rest of the world. A dramatic increase in foreign aid is needed to boost U.S. soft power
The Boston Globe, November 7, 2007, p. A2 The next US president must expand American involvement in the United Nations and other international bodies and dramatically increase foreign aid - especially among Muslim countries - to reverse the steep decline in American influence and enhance national security, a bipartisan group of politicians, business executives, and academics said in a report yesterday. The report, titled "A Smarter and Safer America," also condemned what it called the American "exporting of fear" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and criticized the use of "hard power," military might, as the main component of US foreign policy instead of the "soft power" of positive US influences.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Apolarity Collapses Multilateralism

Nonpolarity collapses multilateralism
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs , May/June 2008 ,

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html?mode=print

Nonpolarity complicates diplomacy. A nonpolar world not only involves more actors but also lacks the more predictable fixed structures and relationships that tend to define worlds of unipolarity, bipolarity, or multipolarity. Alliances, in particular, will lose much of their importance, if only because alliances require predictable threats, outlooks, and obligations, all of which are likely to be in short supply in a nonpolar world. Relationships will instead become more selective and situational. It will become harder to classify other countries as either allies or adversaries; they will cooperate on some issues and resist on others. There will be a premium on consultation and coalition building and on a diplomacy that encourages cooperation when possible and shields such cooperation from the fallout of inevitable disagreements. The United States will no longer have the luxury of a "You're either with us or against us" foreign policy.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Declining Asia

War on terror has undermined U.S. influence in Asia
Yoichi Kato is bureau chief of the American General Bureau of the Asahi Shimbun, Fall 2008, Washington Quarterly, p. 165 Return from 9/11 PTSD to Global Leader Moreover, the challenges facing the United States do not come only from Islamic extremism or the Middle East. Various challenges in the Asia-Pacific region, especially the rise of China, must also be addressed. The failure of the Iraq war and the war on terrorism has had an enormous impact on U.S. standing in the Asia Pacific. It has reduced U.S. influence among the policy elites and the general publics of nations throughout the region. The United States is now often perceived as a not-socapable and sometimes insecure country despite its powerful hard-power economic and military assets. One of the most telling examples of U.S. insecurity is the way the United States scrambled to respond to the region's initiation of a new multilateral policy forum in 2005, the East Asia Summit, which does not include the United States. Koizumi first proposed the summit in 2002. Yet, the Bush administration perceived the initiative as a strategic move by China to marginalize the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, which the United States regards as the mainstay of multilateral cooperation in the region. Even though the U.S. government refrained from making an open criticism of the plan, they expressed intense frustration to the Japanese government. At one point, the Japanese government ironed out a compromise to offer observer status to the United States, but the United States flatly rejected it. One U.S. official asked, "The United States owns the Pacific. Why do we have to sit in the back of the room and take notes?" 5 Instead of accepting the observer status, the United States quietly accused Japan of being naive in working with China to establish a new regional forum. The prevailing perception among the regional states was that this kind of reaction showed U.S. weakness and a lack of confidence rather than strength.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Declining - - China Power Increasing General

China boosting all forms of power hard, soft, and military
Khaleej Times (United Arab Emirates), April 5, 2009 This February Xi Jinping, China's vice-president and heir presumptive to Hu Jintao, sounded off to a Chinese audience in Mexico about rich, powerful countries "messing around" with poorer ones. Now who could he be thinking of? Last year a senior official in China's defence ministry said the world should not be surprised if China builds its own aircraft carrier. Beijing and Washington have publicly locked horns about the level of Chinese defence spending. At the same time, the Chinese are fascinated by the idea, originally promoted by an American scholar, of a G2 within the G20. China and the United States - this Group of Two - should be to the world what the Franco-German couple used to be to Europe. China is also investing more in public diplomacy, with nearly 300 Confucius Institutes around the world, increased international broadcasting, and Chinese leaders placing op-ed pieces in western newspapers. "Soft power" is well on the way to becoming a Chinese phrase. So in all three key dimensions of power economic, military and soft - China is stepping up its game . There's many a slip twixt cup and lip. China has so far weathered the economic crisis better than America. Millions of suddenly unemployed migrant workers have not yet shaken the system.

Chinas military, economic, and soft power are all growing

China Post, April 1, 2009, p. online With the issue of Taiwan independence having subsided, China is turning its attention to the question of Tibet, using its newly acquired power, soft and hard, to impress upon all countries that if they want good relations with Beijing, they will have to give up support of the Dalai Lama. China's determination to get its way was illustrated by its decision to cancel a summit meeting with the European Union in December because of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to meet the exiled Tibetan leader. One sign of China's success was the decision by South Africa to bar the Dalai Lama, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, from taking part in a peace conference. China knows it is unlikely that any country in Asia, Africa or Latin America will stand in its way. Its focus is on the West. In March, the United States Congress, to mark the 50th anniversary of the failed Tibetan uprising, voted 422 to 1 to adopt a resolution calling on Beijing to end repression in Tibet. At the same time, the European Parliament passed a resolution urging dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government. China clearly feels the tide is turning. The successful Olympic Games last summer was a demonstration of the country's greatly enhanced soft power, while its dispatching of a naval task force to the Somali coast and of patrol vessels to the South China Sea are signs of its increasing hard power . Beijing's demands for reform of the international financial system ahead of the G-20 meeting in London are another reflection of its new-found influence amid the global economic crisis, which it clearly sees as an opportunity .

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Declining China Power Increasing Economy

China ascending economically
New York Times, April 2, 2009, p. 12 Evidence of China's ascension is everywhere. Three years ago, China did not have a single bank among the world's top 20, measured by market capitalization. Today the top three are Chinese . (In 2006, the United States had 7 of the top 20 banks, including the top 2; today it has 3, and the biggest, Morgan Stanley, is rated fifth.) China's government-owned enterprises are buying companies, technology and resources worldwide. This year they have spent $13 billion in Europe, and plan new investments in the United States. China has struck long-term oil contracts with Brazil and Russia, and is angling for a more than $20 billion stake in three Australian mining companies . China holds $1 trillion in United States government debt, and that is but half the foreign reserves generated by its huge trade surplus and investment inflows. The rest of the West owes China money, too.

Chinas economic growth is strong

New York Times, April 2, 2009, p. 12 That does not negate China's newly enhanced status. With most of the world in financial collapse, China's economy has suddenly become too big -- and too healthy, expected to grow by at least 6.5 percent this year -- for the rest of the world to ignore.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Declining -- China Power Increasing -- Military

China naval power expanding while U.S. naval power is declining Robert D. Kaplan, National Correspondent for The Atlantic and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2009, Center Stage for the Twenty-First Century, pp. 16-31 Meanwhile, by sometime in the next decade, China's navy will have more warships than the United States'. China is producing and acquiring submarines five times as fast as is the United States. In addition to submarines, the Chinese have wisely focused on buying naval mines, ballistic missiles that can hit moving targets at sea, and technology that blocks signals from GPS satellites, on which the U.S. Navy depends. (They also have plans to acquire at least one aircraft carrier; not having one hindered their attempts to help with the tsunami relief effort in 2004-5.) The goal of the Chinese is "sea denial," or dissuading U.S. carrier strike groups from closing in on the Asian mainland wherever and whenever Washington would like. The Chinese are also more aggressive than U.S. military planners. Whereas the prospect of ethnic warfare has scared away U.S. admirals from considering a base in Sri Lanka, which is strategically located at the confluence of the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, the Chinese are constructing a refueling station for their warships there. Chinas military and economic power are increasing
Joseph Nye, Harvard, Chinadaily.com.cn, March 26, 2009, p. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/200903/26/content_7617363.htm A: China has a lot to gain from soft power. China's economic and military power are clearly rising, and in a period when you have a rising power, it often creates fear in neighboring countries, and that often leads other countries to join together to resist the rising country. But if the rising country also has soft power, and it is able to make itself attractive, it reduces the amount of fear the other countries have, and that makes it less likely that the other countries will try to balance China's power.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Declining -- China Power Increasing Soft Power

Chinas soft power will continue to increase
Josephy Nye, Harvard, Chinadaily.com.cn, March 26, 2009, p. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/200903/26/content_7617363.htm Joseph Nye, professor of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, is the creator of the theory of "soft power". He was interviewed by masters degree student Ying Carol Yu recently. Nye gives his thoughts on issues including China's Soft Power, Sino-US Relations and China's Foreign Policies. Following is first part of the interview: Soft Power Implications Q: In what areas do you think China can further improve its soft power? Do you think one day China's soft power might catch up with that of the US? A: I think in the long term, China's soft power will definitely be increased, as long as China continues to liberalize and open up among other reforms as well. If China becomes more prosperous and democratic, that will increase Chinese soft power. I would expect that to be the case.

China working to boost its global soft power

Australian, April 8, 2009, p. 12 China's international bid for soft power comes with arm-twistin g, contends David Bandurski WHEN China's ideological chief, politburo member Li Changchun, met Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on March 21, his visit was undoubtedly part of an attempt by China to boost its global soft power. For months Communist Party leaders have spoken of this as an urgent need. Following an important use of the term by President Hu Jintao in October 2007, Li made the point more forcefully late last year. ``Communication capacity determines influence,'' he said. ``In the modern age, whatever nation's communication techniques are most advanced, whatever nation's communication capacity is strongest, it is that nation whose culture and core values are able to spread far and wide, that nation that has the most power to influence the world.'' Li spoke about the need to strengthen China's ``communication capacity'' at home and abroad to give China a more prominent place ``within the international public opinion structure''. China's propaganda campaign on Tibet, which in recent weeks has saturated its domestic media and sent salvos scudding overseas, reads like the opening act of this strangely antagonistic bid. The campaign, an all-out assault on the notion that Tibet is a troubled region, argues aggressively that human rights in Tibet have taken a dramatic turn for the better in the past 50 years and that Tibetan culture has been generously preserved by the Chinese Communist Party.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Declining -- China Power Increasing -- Asia

Chinas influence in Asia is rapidly expanding
Agence France Presse , April 8, 2009, p. online China and Japan will battle for influence in Southeast Asia at a key summit this week, holding out the promise of economic aid as the region reels from the impact of the global downturn. The Asian giants are trying to win not only the lion's share of the market of more than five hundred million people but also the hearts and minds of the region to expand their diplomatic and political sway. Tokyo and Beijing are the biggest contributors to a massive currency swap fund designed to provide emergency liquidity, which will be discussed at the three-day summit starting on Friday in the Thai resort of Pattaya. But they will be making separate efforts to woo the region, with China looking to capitalise on its continued growth despite the global meltdown even as Japan tries to mitigate its worst post-war recession. Analysts said the summit -- grouping the Association of Southeast Asian nations with regional partners China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand -would be an indication of the way the wind is blowing. "At the summit, the countries will probably remain in a cooperative tune to cope with the economic crisis. But in the long term, China will expand its economic power in the region over Japan," said Yoshinobu Yamamoto, professor of international politics at Japan's Aoyama Gakuin University. While Japan has traditionally relied on "soft power" and aid programmes, China is still widely seen as wielding its growing economic and military might in a bid to accumulate natural resources for its rapid expansion.

Chinas military spending is increasing

New York Times, April 2, 2009, p. 12 Just as clearly, China harbors global ambitions. Military spending has grown for years at a double-digit clip, though as a share of gross domestic product, it is half of the United States' military spending. China is slowly building a blue-water navy, and in December it sent three ships to the waters off Somalia to patrol against pirates, in the first modern active deployment of its warships beyond its home waters.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Declining Human Rights Leadership Declining

U.S. human rights leadership is collapsing
USA TODAY February 27, 2009, p. 10A When it comes to relationships, particularly in today's globalized world, countries are like people: complex, intertwined. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set off a controversy simply by bowing to that reality on a recent trip to China. The global economic crisis is too important, she said, to press hard and publicly on human rights in a ritual in which the back-and-forth is always the same. For good measure, she added climate change and national security issues to the priority list. Clinton's comments have human rights advocates up in arms. The Obama administration, they say, is abandoning imprisoned dissidents, setting back the cause of repressed Tibetans and sending the signal that it will look the other way when abuses occur.

U.S. human rights credibility has collapsed

Yoichi Kato is bureau chief of the American General Bureau of the Asahi Shimbun, Fall 2008, Washington Quarterly, p. 165 Return from 9/11 PTSD to Global Leader As such, the United States can no longer champion human rights, with its credibility severely undermined by the controversial treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, nor can American society proclaim its erstwhile openness. Immigration controls have been made ever stricter, security checks have been stepped up across the nation, and people remain fearful of the next terrorist attack. For foreigners, it is not as fun and comfortable to live in the United States as it once was. It seems the free, open, and just America has gone, as has its exceptional soft power and the unique global leadership role that power guaranteed. Former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage has lamented that following the September 11 attacks, Americans "started exporting something that's very foreign to the United States: we started exporting our anger and our fear, rather than more traditional exports of hope, opportunity, [and] optimism." 1 Some of the changes in how the United States acts have probably been inevitable in order to secure the nation from the new type of threats that emerged on September 11, 2001. In the eyes of the rest of the world, however, some of those changes seem to be unjustifiable overreactions, difficult to understand and to support.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Multipolarity Now
Financial system multipolar now
Reuters, October 9, 2008, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081009060122.8tk2vw73&show_article=1

The Group of Seven meeting will bring together finance ministers and central bankers on Friday from the United States, Germany, Japan, France, Britain, Italy and Canada for some collective-thinking on the credit crunch and crashing stocks. They are to be joined by counterparts from emerging markets including Brazil, Russia, India and China for an impromptu gathering of the expanded so-called G20 group.
The United States finds itself in a rare position of weakness, facing many allies that have been highly critical of its economic policy and regulatory system blamed for the problems. The gathering will be closely watched by investors, who are eager to see solutions and cross-border action by the world's leading powers to help a return to normal lending practices and calm stock markets. US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Wednesday the meeting would be a forum "to discuss the steps that each of us are taking to confront this crisis and ways to further enhance our collective efforts." Treasury Under Secretary David McCormick said the meeting would be "heavily focused on current economic conditions, financial market developments and our collective and individual policy responses to recent financial market turmoil." A final statement from the group is expected late on Saturday. Paulson played down the possibility of a one-size-fits-all response to the crisis, however, stressing the different challenges by each country. The four European members of the G7 have themselves been unable to find a common response and other countries have declined to follow the example set by the United States despite pleas from Paulson. The US approved a 700-billion-dollar rescue package for financial firms last week that will see the Treasury buy up toxic debt from banks in a bid to encourage them to continue lending. A European source told AFP at the beginning of the week that it was difficult to predict what would be in the final

On Wednesday, leading central banks unleashed coordinated interest rate cuts on Wednesday in their latest attempt to counter the financial problems, caused by bad debts linked to declining house prices in the United States. Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso on Tuesday urged the G7 to send a "strong message" on the market turmoil. "If the G7 fails to
communique given the rapid developments in the crisis . send a strong message, it will have a big impact which I am concerned could spread to Japan," Aso told reporters. "I would like them to make an effort to reach an agreement that everybody can support," he said. Tension is expected at the meeting given recent comments by countries affected by the crisis. German officials in particular have been openly critical in the past weeks, saying the United States and Britain had delayed for years efforts to regulate financial markets that were out of control. "The United States lacked laws, a regulatory framework that would have prevented" what Social-Democrat Finance

"The USA will lose its superpower status in the global financial system. The world financial system is becoming multipolar," Steinbrueck said on September 25 in a speech to parliament.
Minister Peer Steinbrueck called "uncontrolled speculation" in an interview on September 28.

Financial crisis means economic multilateralism now

Lee Hudson Teslik, Associate Editor, CFR.org, 10-9, 8, Long-Term Implications of the Financial Crisis, http://www.cfr.org/publication/17489/future_of_financial_power.html?breadcrumb=%2F

Taking a step back from the fear gripping global financial markets, many analysts are starting to grapple with the long-term implications of the 2008 credit crisis. The financial breakdown, which originated in the United States, coincides with what many see as a shift from U.S. geopolitical dominance to a multipolar international framework. Here, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, discusses what she sees coming of the turmoil.Slaughter, a member of CFR's Board of Directors, says she doesn't see any city taking over as the world's financial superpower, even if New York loses its financial preeminence. Rather, she foresees a more integrated network in which financial firms do business in many different regional financial hubs. In terms of U.S. geopolitical influence more broadly, she fears a fiscal pinch will lead to reductions in U.S. foreign aid, with potentially harmful side effects both for U.S. security and overall strategy.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Multipolarity Now
Globalization of financial capital now
Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, 109, 8, Long-Term Implications of the Financial Crisis, http://www.cfr.org/publication/17489/future_of_financial_power.html? breadcrumb=%2F I think on this one it's what Fareed Zakaria calls the rise of the rest. I lived in Shanghai for the last ten months, and Shanghai is booming, and Hong Kong is booming, and Singapore is booming. London was already growing enormously so I would have said that London and New York together were the greatest concentration of global capital. That trend will continue regardless of this financial crisis. The problem is that it's wrong to think that any one city can possibly be the source of global capital. If you look at the people who work in those cities, who work in New York, they spend their time hopscotching from one center to another. It makes much more sense to think of a network of global capitals that you can get capital from. All the major firms or the hedge funds or private equity firms operate in all of them.

No dominant international financial power now or in the future

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, 109, 8, Long-Term Implications of the Financial Crisis, http://www.cfr.org/publication/17489/future_of_financial_power.html? breadcrumb=%2F The global financial system is the most integrated part of the world. It is way ahead, certainly, of any kind of global political integration, but [it's] even [ahead of] global social or global economic integration if what you're talking about is movement of labor. Capital is the easiest thing to move. Think about what Sam Palmisano, the head of IBM, calls the globally integrated enterprise. ArcelorMittal, the steel company, doesn't have a global headquarters. They meet in different countries around the world. That's already this notion that it is a combination of cities and countries that are the global financial system, and no one is going to be so dominant that you can talk about it in those terms.

Georgia proves the world is multipolar

Gulf News, September 1, 2008, p. online (Dr Abdullah Al Shayji is Professor of International Relations and the Head of the American Studies Unit- Kuwait University) Anthony Cordesman, the head of the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Centre of Strategic and International Studies, opined: "We need to face the fact that the time window in which the Soviet Union was in collapse and China was still a weak and uncertain power is over... Accordingly, if there is any lesson that can be drawn from the fighting in Georgia... America's so-called status as a 'superpower' does not prevent us from living in a multi-polar world in which America's 'real power' is sometimes challenged by Russia and China, and is at other times ignored because they see other strategic interests as more important".

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

*** Uniqueness Issues Hegemony/Leadership High Now ***

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining General

The U.S. is structurally superior to all other challengers and will remain so in the future
Heinrich Kreft, senior foreign policy advisor to the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the german bundestag, The World Today, February 2009 p. 11 During the presidential election campaign, both Barack Obama and his Republican opponent John McCain expressed the view that the United States was and ought to remain the guarantor of international stability and the indispensable stabilising power. Against the backdrop of the present financial and economic crisis and rekindled discussion about the decline of US power, it is easy to overlook the fact that America is structurally superior to all other countries and will remain so for the foreseeable future. THE GEOGRAPHICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE UNITED States, its material resources and human capital, its military strength and economic competitiveness as well as its liberal political and economic traditions, are the ingredients of superiority. It has the capacity to heal its own wounds like no other country. STRENGTHS The US not only possesses large deposits of natural resources and vast areas of productive farmland, but also enjoys favourable medium- and long-term demographic trends. Thanks to immigration and a high birth rate, it has a young population compared to Europe, Japan, Russia as well as China. This makes the burden of providing for an ageing population far less onerous. In spite of the present crisis, the economy, which accounts for more than a quarter of the world's gross domestic product (GDP), is essentially vibrant. Over the past twenty five years, its growth has been significantly higher than Europe's and Japan's; the economy is adaptable and more innovative than any other. It is the most competitive globally, with particular strengths in crucial strategic areas such as nanotechnology and bioengineering. The US has the best universities and research institutes and trains more engineers in relation to its population than any other major economy. It invests 2.6 percent of its GDP in higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan. President Barack Obama's plan for more educational investment aims to maintain this advantage also against China, which is increasing its higher education investments. In the military domain too, no other country comes close to matching the capability of the US to project its power globally. America accounts for almost half of global military spending, six times more than China, its only potential rival. Current defence spending, however, at 4.2 percent of GDP, is still far below the double-digit Cold War peak. Even if the cost of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan runs at an annual figure of $125 billion, this is less than one per cent of GDP and hence considerably lower than the cost of the Vietnam war. In contrast to the 'hard power' of military strength, Iraq and the Guantnamo Bay and Abu Ghraib problems have severely dented the image and thereby diminished its 'soft power'. Nevertheless, the structural components of soft power remain intact, from US mass culture - the dominance of American global communications such as the internet and television - to the unfailing appeal of its universities.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining General

A decline in relative power is insignificant
Heinrich Kreft, senior foreign policy advisor to the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the german bundestag, The World Today, February 2009 p. 11 There is no doubt that the relative world power of the US is diminishing. The percentage contribution of the US economy to global GDP is falling because of growth in emerging economies. The global connections of the US economy are also expanding rapidly, particularly with China, which has replaced Japan as Washington's main creditor. And Europe has become the preferred partner formany countries. In spite of these developments there has been scarcely a sign of any significant 'ganging up' on the US, which has been extremely unpopular under President George Bush. No country or coalition has emerged as a credible rival, if we set aside the long-termp rospect that China might one day be able to mount a serious challenge. Europe's GDP is larger than that of the US, and in economic and fiscal policy the European Union has long been an equal partner, but for want of progress in political unification, the Europeans are not yet strategic world players; the EU is at best a major political power in the making . With German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in charge, there has been a reversion to a more realistic view of the Union's role in the world than under their immediate predecessors, who harboured the perfectly serious intention of establishing the EU as a counterweight to American hyperpower'. Russia undoubtedly has the political will to challenge the US. Over the past two years, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev have scarcely missed an opportunity to stake their country's claim. With a national economy comparable in size to that of the Benelux countries, however, its economic basis is too weak and its dependence on energy exports revenue too great. These factors, along with a spectacular decline in the size of the population, which is already only half that of the US, are hardly the basis from which Russia could aspire to medium- or long-term global leadership. China has a great interest in internal and external stability. Although it has achieved an impressive economic, and hence political, upsurge over the past thirty years, the social and environmental debit side of this development is becoming ever more plainly visible. Since a high rate of economic growth, which is regarded as a prerequisite for the country's social stability, and thus its political stability, is dependent on exports and on imports of raw materials and energy sources, Beijing has a great interest in global free trade and stable international relations. India undoubtedly possesses great growth potential. But an oversized bureaucracy and inadequate infrastructure still weigh like millstones on its emerging economy. In addition, there are major social challenges and growing threats of terrorism, which came to light in the recent attacks in Mumbai. India likewise needs stability in the surrounding region to enable it to concentrate on these major domestic challenges. Japan has a declining, ageing population, and the idea of playing a leading role in international politics is alien to its political culture. In view of the growing strength of China, whose long-term political intentions are distrusted in Tokyo, Japan's relations with the US, particularly in security policy, have become even closer.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General

U.S. decline claims poorly founded Stephen G. Brooks & William Wohlforth, government professors, Dartmouth, Foreign Affairs; March/April 2009, p49-63
Only a few years ago, pundits were absorbed in debates about American "empire." Now, the conventional wisdom is that the world is rapidly approaching the end of the unipolar system with the United States as the sole superpower. A dispassionate look at the facts shows that this view understates U.S. power as much as recent talk of empire exaggerated it. That the United States weighs more on the traditional scales of world power than has any other state in modern history is as true now as it was when the commentator Charles Krauthammer proclaimed the advent of a "unipolar moment" in these pages nearly two decades ago. The United States continues to account for about half the world's defense spending and one-quarter of its economic output. Some of the reasons for bearishness concern public policy problems that can be fixed (expensive health care in the United States, for example), whereas many of the reasons for bullishness are more fundamental (such as the greater demographic challenges faced by the United States' potential rivals). So why has opinion shifted so quickly from visions of empire to gloomy declinism? One reason is that the United States' successes at the turn of the century led to irrational exuberance, thereby setting unreasonably high standards for measuring the superpower's performance. From 1999 to 2003, seemingly easy U. S. victories in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq led some to conclude that the United States could do what no great power in history had managed before: effortlessly defeat its adversaries. It was only a matter of time before such pie-in-the-sky benchmarks proved unattainable. Subsequent difficulties in Afghanistan and Iraq dashed illusions of omnipotence, but these upsets hardly displaced the United States as the world's leading state, and there is no reason to believe that the militaries of its putative rivals would have performed any better. The United States did not cease to be a superpower when its policies in Cuba and Vietnam failed in the 1960s; bipolarity lived on for three decades. Likewise, the United States remains the sole superpower today.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General

There is no rise of the rest
Stephen G. Brooks & William Wohlforth, government professors, Dartmouth, Foreign Affairs; March/April 2009, p49-63 Another key reason for the multipolar mania is "the rise of the rest." Impressed by the rapid economic growth of China and India, many write as if multipolarity has already returned. But such pronouncements mistake current trajectories for final outcomes--a common strategic error with deep psychological roots. The greatest concern in the Cold War, for example, came not from the Soviet Union's actually attaining parity with the United States but from the expectation that it would do so in the future. Veterans of that era recall how the launch of Sputnik in 1957 fed the perception that Soviet power was growing rapidly, leading some policymakers and analysts to start acting as if the Soviet Union were already as powerful as the United States. A state that is rising should not be confused with one that has risen, just as a state that is declining should not be written off as having already declined. China is generally seen as the country best positioned to emerge as a superpower challenger to the United States. Yet depending on how one measures GDP, China's economy is between 20 percent and 43 percent the size of the United States'. More dramatic is the difference in GDP per capita, for which all measures show China's as being less than 10 percent of the United States'. Absent a 1930s-style depression that spares potential U.S. rivals, the United States will not be replaced as the sole superpower for a very long time. Real multipolarity--an international system of three or more evenly matched powers--is nowhere on the horizon. Relative power between states shifts slowly.

No country can match U.S. power in the future

Stephen G. Brooks & William Wohlforth, government professors, Dartmouth, Foreign Affairs; March/April 2009, p49-63 When it comes to making, managing, and remaking international institutions, states remain the most important actors--and the United States is the most important of them. No other country will match the United States' combination of wealth, size, technological capacity, and productivity in the foreseeable future. The world is and will long remain a 1 + x world, with one superpower and x number of major powers. A shift from 1 + 3 to 1 + 4 or 5 or 6 would have many important consequences, but it would not change the fact that the United States will long be in a far stronger position to lead the world than any other state.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General

Innovation means the U.S. will remain a global leader
Anne-Marie Slaughter, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century, p. 94 A nation's economic fate depends on its being able to maintain and nurture innovation. This past year, all the U.S. presidential candidates made repeated calls for a renewal of the conditions that had long made the United States the world leader in innovative technology. In the twenty-first century, corporations, civic organizations, and government agencies will increasingly operate by collecting the best ideas from around the globe. In such an environment, it is critical not only to stimulate domestic innovation but also to foster networks that can produce collaborative innovations across the globe . To this end, the United States needs to improve education and increase government investment in science and technology. But the most important U.S. edge in innovation is cultural. Fundamental flaws in China's political and economic systems will make it very difficult for China to move from being the world's factory to being the world's designer. The Chinese government is determined to develop innovation as if it were developing a fancy variety of soybeans, relying on industrial parks that mix equal parts technology, education, research, and recreation in
self-described "talent highlands." The results can be extraordinary, as I saw last year at the Shanghai Zizhu Science-Based Industrial Park. The park, built in just five years, has enormous university campuses, research headquarters for over 20 Asian and Western firms, and a residential complex. The aim is to inspire innovation through a balance of nature, science, and ecology, or, as its planners suggest, to create the "building blocks" for a future Chinese society, just like the building blocks for a new generation of skyscrapers. The park is awe-inspiring. "In China," our guide told us, "anything is possible." Looking at the pace, scale, and quality of the construction, it was quite possible to believe it. In the end, however, the Zizhu industrial park struck me as being similar to an aquacultural facility for manufacturing cultured pearls. But as all pearl lovers know, the richest innovations are created through unexpected and irregular irritations, not tightly controlled conditions. In 2003, the University of California alone generated more patents than either China or India. That same year, IBM generated five times as many patents as both countries combined. The problem is certainly not a lack of creativity on the part of Chinese or Indians; Silicon Valley is full of entrepreneurs from both groups. The issue is the surrounding culture, or what the urban studies theorist Richard Florida calls an "innovation ecosystem." At the same time that China is seeking to maintain political tranquility, it depends on continued growth powered by innovation, which requires conflict -- not violent conflict but positive, or constructive, conflict, the kind of conflict that produces non-zero-sum solutions. This is the kind of conflict found on American playing fields, in American courtrooms, and in the American political system. It is the conflict of structured competition, in which losers have a chance to win another day and everyone has a stake in continually improving the game. It is also the conflict of creative destruction, the process of destroying old business models to make way for new ones. Most important, a culture of constructive conflict rewards challenging authority in every domain. Perhaps the best example is Google, a company in which hierarchy is almost

. In the United States, educational institutions have long emphasized critical thinking in ways that China and other countries are now trying to emulate. But a culture of innovation requires more than the ability to critique. It requires saying what you think, rather than what you believe your boss wants to hear, something many Western managers struggle fruitlessly to encourage in China. A culture that requires a constant willingness to reimagine the world is not one that the Chinese Communist Party is likely to embrace. Indeed, a culture of innovation requires the encouragement of conflict within a larger culture of transparency and trust, placing a premium on cross-cultural competence. It is a cul ture for which Americans are ideally suited by both temperament and history.
nonexistent. Individuals are encouraged to go their own way, come up with their own ideas, and counter orthodoxies at every turn

U.S. global credibility has collapsed

Nicholas Kristoff, January 23, 2009, p. A13 The second reassuring theme has to do with "hard power" and "soft power," in the terminology of Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor. In the Bush-Cheney years, America sought to rely overwhelmingly on military "hard power," and the result was setbacks around the world, from Iran's accelerated nuclear program to North Korea's processing of plutonium for a half-dozen nuclear weapons (compared with zero during the Clinton presidency). As my colleague David Sanger documents in his superb new book, "The Inheritance": "We pursued a path that has left us less admired by our allies, less feared by our enemies, and less capable of convincing the rest of the world that our economic and political model is worthy of emulation."

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General

U.S is an entrepreneurial leader
The Economist, March 14, 2009, p. http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13216037 FOR all its current economic woes, America remains a beacon of entrepreneurialism. Between 1996 and 2004 it created an average of 550,000 small businesses every month. Many of those small businesses rapidly grow big. The world's largest company, Wal-Mart, was founded in 1962 and did not go public until a decade later; multi-million dollar companies such as Google and Facebook barely existed a decade ago. America was the first country, in the late 1970s, to ditch managerial capitalism for the entrepreneurial variety. After the second world war J.K. Galbraith was still convinced that the modern corporation had replaced "the entrepreneur as the directing force of the enterprise with management". Big business and big labour worked with big government to deliver predictable economic growth. But as that growth turned into stagflation, an army of innovators, particularly in the computer and finance industries, exposed the shortcomings of the old industrial corporation and launched a wave of entrepreneurship. America has found the transition to a more entrepreneurial economy easier than its competitors because entrepreneurialism is so deeply rooted in its history. It was founded and then settled by innovators and risk-takers who were willing to sacrifice old certainties for new opportunities. American schoolchildren are raised on stories about inventors such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison. Entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford are celebrated in monuments all over the place. One of the country's most popular television programmes, currently being recycled as a film, features the USS Enterprise boldly going where no man had gone before.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining -- General

U.S. benefits in a wiki-dominated world
Anne-Marie Slaughter, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century, p. 94 THE WORLD OF WIKIS Starting with Alexis de Tocqueville, nearly every observer of American culture has noted that Americans are inveterate joiners, volunteers, and debaters. Today, however, instead of sewing circles, debating societies, and charity bake sales, Americans have MySpace, blogs, and the Clinton Global Initiative. These qualities are evident in a growing number of collaborative enterprises, both online and off. In the world of wikis, perhaps best exemplified by Wikipedia, ideas are challenged, edited, and challenged again. The final product is the result of a different and gentler kind of adversarial process than that found in the U.S. legal system. But the premise is the same: multiple minds clashing and correcting one another in pursuit of the truth. The work of one contributor is open and available for others to use. Participants in this process are trusted to not take advantage of that openness but instead add their own contributions. In a world that favors decentralization and positive conflict, the United States has an edge . Although trust and transparency are not unique to the United States, it is still one of the most open societies in the world. The Internet world, the wiki world, and the networked world all began in the United States and radiated outward. The characteristics of those worlds are the keys to innovation and problem solving in the twenty-first century. In his book Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, writes of human history as a steady process of increased exposure to complexity and the resulting ability to turn zero-sum problems into non-zero-sum solutions. The barbarian invasions that swept across Asia and Europe, for instance, were disastrous for many individual societies. Yet by adding new ideas and practices to the sum of human knowledge, the invaders spurred the process of innovation and problem solving. In other words, they brought progress. Today, the invaders are online rather than on horseback, and interaction is considerably more voluntary. The benefits will flow to those individuals and states that are most comfortable reaching across cultures. It will become increasingly necessary to appreciate and absorb contributions in any language and from any context. Here, however, the conventional wisdom depicts Americans as woefully ignorant of foreign geography, languages, and cultures. Many Americans may still fit this description. But many others -- immigrants and their children especially -- negotiate cultural differences every day in their schools, in their workplaces, and on the street. From Boston to Los Angeles, recently immigrated Africans, Arabs, East Asians, Latinos, South Asians, and Southeast Asians all rub shoulders with members of more established communities, both black and white. At the elite level, the top graduate schools in the United States offer a similar education in multicultural competence; many of the cross-cultural couples who are changing the face of global cities met at places such as Harvard and Stanford. Obama's parents may have been ahead of their time, but today far more young Americans than ever before are following their example. They are truly, as Zogby calls them, "the First Globals."

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Will be the Hegemon of the Future

U.S. will become the dominant global power in the future
Ilan Peleg is a professor of government and law, Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode Island), March 7, 2009, p. 5 Although some observers might believe that America s days as a world leader are numbered, the future looks significantly more promising. By the sheer size of its economic and military power, the creative inventiveness and ingenuity of its people, the diversity of its population, and the openness of its culture, the U.S. is destined to be among the top world leaders and, in all probability, the single most prominent global leader in decades to come.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining India Focused Inward

India is too focused inward to advance geopolitically
Roger Altman, Chair and CEO of Evercore Partners, He was U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary in 1993-94.Foreign Affairs, February 2009, The Great Crash, 2008 Subtitle: A Geopolitical Setback for the West, p. 2 India may also survive the crisis relatively unhurt. There, as in China, the financial system plays a small role in the overall economy. India also remains a fairly closed economy in terms of foreign investment, and so it is less dependent on external capital. Close observers expect India's growth to continue, perhaps at an annual rate of 6.5-7 percent. But India does not have nearly the wealth or the internal cohesion of China. This past fall, the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh narrowly avoided losing a parliamentary vote of no confidence and having to dissolve itself over opposition to the nuclear agreement it signed with the United States in 2005. The overall result is that India is inwardly focused and not particularly equipped to advance its geopolitical standing. Much of the rest of the world, however, has been hit hard by the crisis.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining

U.S legitimacy has not collapsed
Stephen G. Brooks & William Wohlforth, government professors, Dartmouth, Foreign Affairs; March/April 2009, p49-63 For analysts such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, the key reason for skepticism about the United States' ability to spearhead global institutional change is not a lack of power but a lack of legitimacy. Other states may simply refuse to follow a leader whose legitimacy has been squandered under the Bush administration; in this view, the legitimacy to lead is a fixed resource that can be obtained only under special circumstances. The political scientist G. John Ikenberry argues in After Victory that states have been well positioned to reshape the institutional order only after emerging victorious from some titanic struggle, such as the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, or World War I or II. For the neoconservative Robert Kagan, the legitimacy to lead came naturally to the United States during the Cold War, when it was providing the signal service of balancing the Soviet Union. The implication is that today, in the absence of such salient sources of legitimacy, the wellsprings of support for U.S. leadership have dried up for good. But this view is mistaken. For one thing, it overstates how accepted U.S. leadership was during the Cold War: anyone who recalls the Euromissile crisis of the 1980s, for example, will recognize that mass opposition to U.S. policy (in that case, over stationing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe) is not a recent phenomenon. For another, it understates how dynamic and malleable legitimacy is. Legitimacy is based on the belief that an action, an actor, or a political order is proper, acceptable, or natural. An action--such as the Vietnam War or the invasion of Iraq--may come to be seen as illegitimate without sparking an irreversible crisis of legitimacy for the actor or the order. When the actor concerned has disproportionately more material resources than other states, the sources of its legitimacy can be refreshed repeatedly. After all, this is hardly the first time Americans have worried about a crisis of legitimacy. Tides of skepticism concerning U.S. leadership arguably rose as high or higher after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and during Ronald Reagan's first term, when he called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Even George W. Bush, a globally unpopular U.S. president with deeply controversial policies, oversaw a marked improvement in relations with France, Germany, and India in recent years--even before the elections of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy in France.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining

U.S. leadership will be sustained Stephen G. Brooks & William Wohlforth, government professors, Dartmouth, Foreign Affairs; March/April 2009, p49-63 Of course, the ability of the United States to weather such crises of legitimacy in the past hardly guarantees that it can lead
the system in the future. But there are reasons for optimism. Some of the apparent damage to U.S. legitimacy might merely be the result of the Bush administration's approach to diplomacy and international institutions. Key underlying conditions remain particularly favorable for sustaining and even enhancing U.S. legitimacy in the years ahead. The United States continues to have a far larger share of the human and material resources for shaping global perceptions than any other state, as well as the unrivaled wherewithal to produce public goods that reinforce the benefits of its global role. No other state has any claim to leadership commensurate with Washington's. And largely because of the power position the United States still occupies, there is no prospect of a counterbalancing coalition emerging anytime soon to challenge it. In the end, the legitimacy of a system's leader hinges on whether the system's members see the leader as acceptable or at least preferable to realistic alternatives. Legitimacy is not necessarily about normative approval: one may dislike the United States but think its leadership is natural under the circumstances or the best that can be expected.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining

Networking means the U.S. will continue to dominate the world
Anne-Marie Slaughter, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century, p. 94 Almost 30 years ago, the psychologist Carol Gilligan wrote about differences between the genders in their modes of thinking. She observed that men tend to see the world as made up of hierarchies of power and seek to get to the top, whereas women tend to see the world as containing webs of relationships and seek to move to the center. Gilligan's observations may be a function of nurture rather than nature; regardless, the two lenses she identified capture the differences between the twentieth-century and the twenty-first-century worlds. The twentieth-century world was, at least in terms of geopolitics, a billiard-ball world, described by the political scientist Arnold Wolfers as a system of self-contained states colliding with one another. The results of these collisions were determined by military and economic power. This world still exists today: Russia invades Georgia, Iran seeks nuclear weapons, the United States strengthens its ties with India as a hedge against a rising China. This is what Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, has dubbed "the post-American world," in which the rise of new global powers inevitably means the relative decline of U.S. influence. The emerging networked world of the twenty-first century, however, exists above the state, below the state, and through the state. In this world, the state with the most connections will be the central player , able to set the global agenda and unlock innovation and sustainable growth. Here, the United States has a clear and sustainable edge. THE HORIZON OF HOPE The United States' advantage is rooted in demography, geography, and culture. The United States has a relatively small population, only 20-30 percent of the size of China's or India's. Having fewer people will make it much easier for the United States to develop and profit from new energy technologies. At the same time, the heterogeneity of the U.S. population will allow Washington to extend its global reach. To this end, the United States should see its immigrants as living links back to their home countries and encourage a two-way flow of people, products, and ideas. The United States is the anchor of the Atlantic hemisphere, a broadly defined area that includes Africa, the Americas, and Europe. The leading countries in the Atlantic hemisphere are more peaceful, stable, and economically diversified than those in the Asian hemisphere. At the same time, however, the United States is a pivotal power, able to profit simultaneously from its position in the Atlantic hemisphere and from its deep ties to the Asian hemisphere. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have long protected the United States from invasion and political interference. Soon, they will shield it from conflicts brought about by climate change, just as they are already reducing the amount of pollutants that head its way. The United States has a relatively horizontal social structure -- albeit one that has become more hierarchical with the growth of income inequality -- as well as a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. These traits are great advantages in a global economy increasingly driven by networked clusters of the world's most creative people. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will set about restoring the moral authority of the United States. The networked world provides a hopeful horizon. In this world, with the right policies, immigrants can be a source of jobs rather than a drain on resources, able to link their new home with markets and suppliers in their old homes. Businesses in the United States can orchestrate global networks of producers and suppliers . Consumers can buy locally, from revived local agricultural and customized small-business economies, and at the same time globally, from anywhere that can advertise online. The United States has the potential to be the most innovative and dynamic society anywhere in the world.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining

Connectivity and net-working mean the U.S. will dominate the 21st century
Anne-Marie Slaughter, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century, p. 94 The power that flows from this type of connectivity is not the power to impose outcomes. Networks are not directed and controlled as much as they are managed and orchestrated. Multiple players are integrated into a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts -- an orchestra that plays differently according to the vision of its conductor and the talent of individual musicians. Obama's team-based campaign, with its relatively flat structure and emphasis on individual organizers, is a model of the twenty-first century's management style. Most important, networked power flows from the ability to make the maximum number of valuable connections. The next requirement is to have the knowledge and skills to harness that power to achieve a common purpose. The United States is already following this model in a few specific ways. In combating terrorism, it has been able to stop planned attacks thanks to a dense global network of law enforcement officers, counterterrorism officials, and intelligence agencies. The U.S. government dramatically improved its standing in the Muslim world due to its swift and effective relief effort in Asia following the December 2004 tsunami. It coordinated an emergency-response strategy among government agencies and aid workers in Australia, India, Japan, and the United States itself. More recently, when the global financial crisis hit this past fall, the United States first reached out to central banks around the world to coordinate a monetary response and then reached out to central banks in key emerging markets to make sure their foreign currency needs were being met. From this vantage point, predictions of an Asian century -- such as those made by Kishore Mahbubani, a foreign policy scholar and dean of the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy, in Singapore -- seem premature. Even Zakaria's argument about "the rise of the rest" takes on a different significance. If, in a networked world, the issue is no longer relative power but centrality in an increasingly dense global web, then the explosion of innovation and entrepreneurship occurring today will provide that many more points of possible connection. The twenty-first century looks increasingly like another American century -although it will likely be a century of the Americas rather than of just America.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Will Rebound

U.S. leadership will be restored now, China & Russia will also suffer
Francis Fukuyama; professor of International Political Economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 13, 2008, Newsweek, p. 29 American influence can and will eventually be restored. Since the world as a whole is likely to suffer an economic downturn, it is not clear that the Chinese or Russian models will fare appreciably better than the American version. The United States has come back from serious setbacks during the 1930s and 1970s, due to the adaptability of our system and the resilience of our people.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Counterbalancing Now
Counterbalancing arguments empirically false, more nations aligning with the U.S. than against Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of The Return of History and the End of Dreams, September/October 2008, Foreign Affairs, THE NEXT administration has a chance to learn from the Bush administration's mistakes, as well as to build on the progress the Bush administration has made in correcting them. The United States' position in the world today is not nearly as bad as some claim. Predictions that other powers would join together in an effort to balance against the rogue superpower have proved inaccurate. Other powers are emerging, but they are not aligning together against the United States. China and Russia have an interest and a desire to reduce the scale of U.S. predominance and seek more relative power for themselves. But they remain as wary of each other as they are of Washington. Other rising powers, such as Brazil and India, are not seeking to balance against the United States. Indeed, despite the negative opinion polls, most of the world's great powers are drawing closer to the United States geopolitically. A few years ago, France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroder flirted with turning to Russia as a way of counterbalancing U.S. power. But now, France, Germany, and the rest of Europe are tending in the other direction. This is not out of a renewed affection for the United States. The more pro-U.S. foreign policies of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel reflect their judgment that close but not uncritical relations with the United States enhance European power and influence. The eastern European nations, meanwhile, worry about a resurgent Russia States in Asia and the Pacific have drawn closer to the United States mostly out of concern about the rising power of China. In the mid-1990s, the U.S.-Japanese alliance was in danger of eroding. But since 1997, the strategic relationship between the two countries has grown stronger. Some of the nations of Southeast Asia have also begun hedging against a rising China. (Australia may be the one exception to this broad trend, as its new government is tilting toward China and away from the United States and other democratic powers in the region.) Even in the Middle East, where anti-Americanism runs hottest and where images of the U.S. occupation in Iraq and memories of Abu Ghraib continue to burn in the popular consciousness, the strategic balance has not shifted against the United States. Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia continue to work closely with the United States, as do the nations of the Persian Gulf that worry about Iran.
The most notable shift has occurred in India, a former ally of Moscow that today sees good relations with the United States as critical to achieving its broader strategic and economic goals.

Iraq has shifted from implacable anti-Americanism under Saddam to dependence on the United States, and a stable Iraq in the years to come would shift the strategic balance in a decidedly pro-U.S. direction, since Iraq sits on vast oil reserves and could become a significant power in the region.

This situation contrasts sharply with the major strategic setbacks the United States suffered in the Middle East during the Cold War. In the 1950s and 1960s, a pan-Arab nationalist movement swept
across the region and opened the door to unprecedented Soviet involvement, including a quasi alliance between the Soviet Union and the Egypt of Gamal Abdel Nasser, as well as a Soviet alliance with Syria. In 1979, a key pillar of the U.S. strategic position in the region toppled when the pro-American shah of Iran was overthrown by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's virulently anti-American revolution. That led to a fundamental shift in the strategic balance in the region, a shift from which the United States is still suffering. Nothing similar has yet occurred as a result of the Iraq war.

Those who today proclaim that the United States is in decline often imagine a past in which the world danced to an Olympian America's tune. That is an illusion. Nostalgia swells for
the wondrous U.S.-dominated era after World War II. But although the United States succeeded in Europe then, it suffered disastrous setbacks elsewhere. The "loss" of China to communism, the North Korean invasion of South Korea, the Soviet Union's testing of a hydrogen bomb, the stirrings of postcolonial nationalism in Indochina--each was a strategic calamity of immense scope, and was understood to be such at the time. Each critically shaped the remainder of the twentieth century, and not for the better. And each proved utterly beyond the United States' power to control or even to manage successfully. Not a single event in the last decade can match any one of those events in terms of its enormity as a setback to the United States' position in the world.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Will Remain a Global Hegemon

U.S. will remain the dominant global superpower Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of The Return of History and the End of Dreams, September/October 2008, Foreign Affairs, Chinese strategists believe that the present international configuration is likely to endure for some time, and they are probably right. So long as the United States remains at the center of the international economy and continues to be the predominant military power and the leading apostle of the world's most popular political philosophy; so long as the American public continues to support American predominance, as it has consistently done for six decades; and so long as potential challengers inspire more fear than sympathy among their neighbors, the structure of the international system should remain as it has been, with one superpower and several great powers.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Sustainable

Globalization will make the U.S. a global economic power Futurist, September 1, 2008
Most of the discussion revolves around the impact of globalization, which Shapiro believes will produce the greatest amount of change as it breaks down barriers and opens up economies. He argues that the United States (along with the rest of the world) has no choice but to embrace globalization, despite its drawbacks and limitations. In fact, globalization will ultimately favor the United States and China, while creating much greater economic challenges for Europe and Japan (whose economies are significantly less productive overall). Indeed, the economic futures of America and China are intrinsically linked, for better or for worse, now that China has emerged as an economic superpower. One reason for this connection is the seemingly endless shift of production jobs to China, which provides an equally endless supply of low-skilled, lowwage workers. "A decade from now, America will still be the world's largest and most technologically advanced economy, and the one with the greatest impact on everyone el se," Shapiro writes. "But nothing will stop globalization from destroying job security for millions of Americans, along with their European and Japanese counterparts." By the year 2020, the vast majority of manufacturing jobs will have permanently relocated to the developing world.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be

No U.S. hegemonic decline, comparrisons to Britain are false Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2008,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power.html? mode=print

Fast-forward to today. Another superpower, militarily unbeatable, wins an easy victory in Afghanistan and then takes on what it is sure will be another simple battle, this one against Saddam Hussein's isolated regime in Iraq. The result: a quick initial military victory followed by a long, arduous struggle, filled with political and military blunders and met with intense international opposition. The analogy is obvious; the United States is Britain, the Iraq war is the Boer War -- and, by extension, the United States' future looks bleak. And indeed, regardless of the outcome in Iraq, the costs have been massive. The United States has been overextended and distracted, its army stressed, its image sullied. Rogue states such as Iran and
Venezuela and great powers such as China and Russia are taking advantage of Washington's inattention and bad fortunes. The familiar theme of imperial decline is playing itself out one more time. History is happening again. THE LONG GOODBYE But whatever the

apparent similarities, the circumstances are not really the same. Britain was a strange superpower.

Historians have written hundreds of books explaining how London could have adopted certain foreign policies to change its fortunes. If only it had avoided the Boer War, say some. If only it had stayed out of Africa, say others. The historian

Niall Ferguson provocatively suggests that had Britain stayed out of World War I (and there might not have been a world war without British participation), it might have managed to preserve its great-power position. There is some truth to this line of reasoning (World War I did bankrupt Britain), but to put things properly in historical context, it is worth looking at this history from another angle. Britain's immense empire was the product of unique circumstances. The wonder is not that it declined but that its dominance lasted as long as it did. Understanding how Britain played its hand -- one that got weaker over time -- can help illuminate the United States' path forward. Britain has been a rich country for centuries (and was a great power for most of that time), but it was an economic superpower for little more than a generation. Observers often make the mistake of dating its apogee by great imperial events such as the Diamond Jubilee. In fact, by 1897, Britain's best years were already behind it. Its true apogee was a generation earlier, from 1845 to 1870. At the time, it was producing more than 30 percent of global GDP. Its energy consumption was five times that of the United States and 155 times that of Russia. It accounted for one-fifth of the world's trade and two-fifths of its manufacturing trade. And all this was accomplished with just two percent of the world's population. By the late 1870s, the United States had equaled Britain on most industrial measures, and by the early 1880s it had actually surpassed it, as Germany would about 15 years later. By World War I, the United States' economy was twice the size of Britain's, and together France's and Russia's were larger as well. In 1860, Britain had produced 53 percent of the world's iron (then a sign of supreme industrial strength); by 1914, it was making less than 10 percent. Of course, politically, London was still the capital of the world at the time of World War I, and its writ was unequaled and largely unchallenged across much of the globe. Britain had acquired an empire in a period before the onset of nationalism, and so there were few obstacles to creating and maintaining control in far-flung places. Its sea power was unrivaled, and it remained dominant in banking, shipping, insurance, and investment. London was still the center of global finance, and the pound still the reserve currency of the world. Even in 1914, Britain invested twice as much capital abroad as its closest competitor, France, and five times as much as the United States. The economic returns of these investments and other "invisible trades" in some ways masked Britain's decline. In fact, the British economy was sliding. British growth rates had dropped below two percent in the decades leading up to World War I. The United States and Germany, meanwhile, were growing at around five percent. Having spearheaded the first Industrial Revolution, Britain was less adept at moving into the second. The goods it was producing represented the past rather than the future. In 1907, for example, it manufactured four times as many bicycles as the United States did, but the United States manufactured 12 times

Scholars have debated the causes of Britain's decline since shortly after that decline began. Some have focused on geopolitics; others, on economic factors ,
as many cars.

such as low investment in

new plants and equipment and bad labor relations. British capitalism had remained old-fashioned and rigid, its industries set up as small cottage-scale enterprises with skilled craftsmen rather than the mass factories that sprang up in Germany and the United States. There were signs of broader cultural problems as well. A wealthier Britain was losing its focus on practical education, and British society retained a feudal cast, given to it by its landowning aristocracy. But it may be that none of these failings was actually crucial. The historian Paul Kennedy has explained the highly unusual circumstances that produced Britain's dominance in the nineteenth century. Given its portfolio of power -- geography, population, resources -- Britain could reasonably have expected to account for three to four percent of global GDP, but its share rose to around ten times that figure. As those unusual circumstances abated -- as other Western countries caught up with industrialization, as Germany united, as the United States resolved its North-South divide -- Britain was bound to decline. The British statesman Leo Amery saw this clearly in 1905. "How can these little islands hold their own in the long run against such great and rich empires as the United States and Germany are rapidly becoming?" he asked. "How can we with forty millions of people compete with states nearly double our size?" It is a question that many Americans are now asking in the face of China's rise. Britain managed to maintain its position as the leading world power for decades after it lost its economic dominance thanks to a combination of shrewd strategy and good diplomacy. Early on, as it saw the balance of power shifting, London made one critical decision that extended its influence by decades: it chose to accommodate itself to the rise of the United States rather than to contest it. In the decades after 1880, on issue after issue London gave in to a growing and assertive Washington. It was not easy for Britain to cede control to its former colony, a country with which it had fought two wars and in whose recent civil war it had sympathized with the secessionists. But it was a strategic masterstroke. Had Britain tried to resist the rise of the United States, on top of all its other commitments, it would have been bled dry. For all of London's mistakes over the next half century, its strategy toward Washington -- one followed by every British government since the 1890s -- meant that Britain could focus its attention on other critical fronts. It remained, for example, the master of the seas, controlling its lanes and pathways with "five keys" that were said to lock up the world -- Singapore, the Cape of Good Hope, Alexandria, Gibraltar, and Dover. Britain maintained control of its empire and retained worldwide influence with relatively little opposition for many decades. (In the settlement after World War I, it took over 1.8 million square miles of territory and 13 million new subjects, mostly in the Middle East.) Still, the gap between its political role and its economic capacity was growing. By the twentieth century, the empire was an enormous drain on the British treasury. And this was no time for expensive habits. The British economy was reeling. World War I cost over $40 billion, and Britain, once the world's leading creditor, had debts amounting to 136 percent of domestic output afterward. By the mid-1920s, interest payments alone sucked up half the government's budget. Meanwhile, by 1936, Germany's defense spending was three times as high as Britain's. The same year that Italy invaded Ethiopia, Mussolini also placed 50,000 troops in Libya -- ten times the number of British troops guarding the Suez Canal. It was these circumstances -- coupled with the memory of a recent world war that had killed more than 700,000 young Britons -- that led the British governments of the 1930s, facing the forces of fascism, to prefer wishful thinking and appeasement to confrontation. World War II was the final nail in the coffin of British economic power: in 1945, the United States' GDP was ten times that of Britain. Even then, Britain remained remarkably influential, at least partly because of the almost superhuman energy and ambition of Winston Churchill. Given that the United States was paying most of the Allies' economic costs, and Russia was bearing most of the casualties, it took extraordinary will for Britain to remain one of the three major powers deciding the fate of the postwar world. (The photographs of Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and Churchill at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 are somewhat misleading: there was no "big three" at Yalta; there was a "big two" plus one brilliant political entrepreneur who was able to keep himself and his country in the game.) But even this came at a cost. In return for its loans to London, the United States took over dozens of British bases in Canada, the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific. "The British Empire is handed over to the American pawnbroker -- our only hope," said one member of Parliament. The economist John Maynard Keynes described the Lend-Lease Act as an attempt to "pick out the eyes of the British Empire." Less emotional observers saw that the transition was inevitable. Toynbee, by then a distinguished historian, consoled Britons by noting that the United States' "hand will be a great deal lighter than Russia's, Germany's, or Japan's, and I suppose these are the alternatives." THE ENTREPRENEURIAL EMPIRE Britain was undone as a global power not because of bad politics but because of bad economics. Indeed, the impressive skill with which London played its weakening hand despite a 70-year economic decline offers important lessons for the United States. First, however, it is essential to note that the central feature of Britain's decline -- irreversible economic deterioration -- does not really apply to the United States today. Britain's unrivaled economic status lasted for a few decades; the United States' has lasted more than 120 years. The U.S. economy has been the world's largest since the middle of the 1880s, and it remains so today. In fact, the United States has held a surprisingly constant share of global GDP ever since. With the brief exception of the late 1940s and 1950s, when the rest of the industrialized world had been destroyed and its share rose to 50 percent, the United States has accounted for roughly a quarter of world output for over a century (32 percent in 1913, 26 percent in 1960, 22 percent in 1980, 27 percent in 2000, and 26 percent in 2007). It is likely to slip, but not significantly, in the next two decades. Most estimates suggest that in 2025 the United States' economy will still be twice the size of China's in

This difference between the United States and Britain is reflected in the burden of their military budgets. Britannia ruled the seas but never the land. The British army was sufficiently small that Otto von Bismarck once quipped that were the British ever to invade Germany, he would simply have the local police force arrest them. Meanwhile, London's advantage over the seas -- it had more tonnage than the next two navies put together -- came at ruinous cost. The U.S. military, in contrast, dominates at every level -- land, sea, air, space -- and spends more than the next 14 countries combined, accounting for almost 50 percent of global defense spending. The United States also spends more on defense research and development than the rest of the world put together. And crucially, it does all this without breaking the bank. U.S. defense expenditure as a percent of GDP is now 4.1 percent, lower than it was for most of the Cold War (under Dwight Eisenhower, it rose to ten percent). As U.S. GDP has grown larger and larger, expenditures that would have been backbreaking have become affordable. The Iraq war may be a tragedy or a noble endeavor, but either way, it will not bankrupt the United States. The price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan together -$125 billion a year -- represents less than one percent of GDP. The war in Vietnam, by comparison, cost the equivalent of 1.6 percent of U.S. GDP in 1970, a large difference. ( U.S. military power is not the cause of its strength but the consequence. The fuel is the United States' economic and technological base, which remains extremely strong . The United States
terms of nominal GDP.

Neither of these percentages includes second- or third-order costs of war, which

allows for a fair comparison even if one disputes the exact figures.)

does face larger, deeper, and broader challenges than it has ever faced in its history, and it will undoubtedly lose some share of global GDP. But the process will look nothing like Britain's slide in the twentieth

. The United States will remain a vital, vibrant economy, at the forefront of the next revolutions in science , technology, and industry. In trying to understand how the United States will fare in the new
century, when the country lost the lead in innovation, energy, and entrepreneurship world, the first thing to do is simply look around: the future is already here. Over the last 20 years, globalization has been gaining breadth and depth. More countries are making goods, communications technology

capital has been free to move across the world -- and the United States has benefited massively from these trends. Its economy has received hundreds of billions of dollars in
has been leveling the playing field,

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File investment, and its companies have entered new countries and industries with great success. Despite two decades of a very expensive dollar, U.S. exports have held ground ,
holds. Consider the industries of the future.

65

and the World Economic Forum currently ranks the United States

as the world's most competitive economy. GDP growth, the bottom line, has averaged just over three percent in the United States for 25 years, significantly higher than in Europe or Japan. Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, a full percentage point higher than the European average. This superior growth trajectory might be petering out, and perhaps U.S. growth will be more typical for an advanced industrialized country for the next few years. But the general point -- that the United States is a highly dynamic economy at the cutting edge, despite its enormous size --

Nanotechnology (applied science dealing with the control of matter at the atomic or molecular scale) is likely to lead to fundamental breakthroughs over the next 50 years, and the U nited States dominates the field. It has more dedicated "nanocenters" than the next three nations (Germany, Britain, and China) combined and has issued more patents for nanotechnology than the rest of the world combined, highlighting its unusual strength in turning abstract theory into practical products.

Biotechnology (
explanation of

a broad category that describes the use of biological systems to create medical, agricultural, and industrial products

) is also dominated by the United States.

Biotech revenues in the United States approached $50 billion in 2005, five times as large as the amount in Europe and representing 76 percent of global biotech revenues. Manufacturing has, of course, been leaving the country, shifting to the developing world and turning the United States into a service economy. This scares many Americans, who wonder what their country will make if everything is "made in China." But Asian manufacturing must be viewed in the context of a global economy. The Atlantic Monthly's James Fallows spent a year in China watching its manufacturing juggernaut up close, and he provides a persuasive

howoutsourcing has strengthened U.S. competitiveness. What it comes down to is that the real money is in designing and distributing products -- which the United States dominates -- rather than manufacturing them. A

vivid example of this is the iPod: it is manufactured mostly outside the United States, but most of the added value is captured by Apple, in California. Many experts and scholars, and even a few politicians, worry about certain statistics that bode

ill for the United States. The U.S. savings rate is zero; the current account deficit, the trade deficit, and the budget deficit are high; the median income is flat; and commitments for entitlements are unsustainable. These are all valid concerns that will have to be addressed. But it is important to keep in mind that many frequently cited statistics offer only an approximate or an antiquated measure of an economy. Many of them were developed in the late nineteenth century to describe industrial economies with limited cross-border activity, not modern economies in today's interconnected global market. For the last two decades, for example, the United States has had unemployment rates well below levels economists thought possible without driving up inflation. Or consider that the United States' current account deficit -- which in 2007 reached $800 billion, or seven percent of GDP -- was supposed to be unsustainable at four percent of GDP. The current account deficit is at a dangerous level, but its magnitude can be explained in part by the fact that there is a worldwide surplus of savings and that the United States remains an unusually stable and attractive place to invest. The decrease in personal savings, as the Harvard economist Richard Cooper has noted, has been largely offset by an increase in corporate savings. The U.S. investment picture also looks much rosier if education and research-and-development spending are considered along with spending on physical capital and housing.

The United States has

serious problems.

By all calculations, Medicare threatens to blow up the federal budget. The swing from surpluses to deficits between 2000 and 2008 has serious implications. Growing inequality (the result of the knowledge economy, technology, and globalization) has

But such problems must be considered in the context of an overall economy that remains powerful and dynamic.
become a signature feature of the new era. Perhaps most worrying, Americans are borrowing 80 percent of the world's surplus savings and using it for consumption: they are selling off their assets to foreigners to buy a couple more lattes a day.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Global Hegemon Now 30 Years

The U.S. will retain primacy for at least the next thirty years. 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. 12]
The United States has the ability to dominate the world because it has prodigious military capability, economic might, and soft power. The United States dominates the world today, but will it be able to do so in the future? The answer is yes, for the foreseeable futurethe next thirty to forty years . Indeed, it may exist for much longer. I would not be surprised to see American dominance last much longer and, indeed, anticipate that it will. But there is simply too much uncertainty about events far in the future to make reliable predictions .

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Global Hegemon Now

U.S. is a global power now
Helle Dale is director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation Washington Times, November 14, 2007, http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071114/EDITORIAL06/111140011/1013/EDITORIAL And yet, it remains true that as with Rome, all roads lead to Washington. In times of a challenge, the world continues to look to the United States for leadership. It remains the case, though, that the United States is the only country able and willing to enforce the international order by military force - to be the world's policeman, if you will. When international concerns go up about Iran's nuclear ambitions, when Turkey threatens to invade northern Iraq, when the Pakistani government looks to be on the verge of collapse, and when Russian authoritarianism is on the rise. Washington still plays the key role in setting the course.

Primacy is high now the U.S. has unchallenged dominance. 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,]
While all states have grand strategies, they differ in their means to advance their interests in the face of threats. France has greater means than Bangladesh. The United States has the greatest means. In fact, the United States finds itself in a special position in international politics: by almost any measureeconomic, ideological, military it leads the world. It is the dominant state, the hegemon, in international politics. If you stop and think a moment, it is really remarkable that 6 percent of the worlds population and 6 percent of its land mass has the worlds most formidable military capabilities, creates about 25 to 30 percent of the gross world product, and both attracts and provides the most foreign direct investment of any country. If it were a person, it would have the wealth of Microsoft chairman Bill Gates or entrepreneur Donald Trump; its [end page 1] military would have the punch of a heavyweight boxer like Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson; its charisma and charm would equal those of a movie star such as Cary Grant or George Clooney; and it would have as many friends, hangers on, and potential suitors as Frank Sinatra did at one time or as Oprah or Britney Spears do now .

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Now, Sustainable

Hegemony is high and sustainable the will to primacy is key. 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, p.12]
The U.S. military, economy, and soft power answer the first question these elements give it the ability to do so. How long the American Empire

lasts depends on three variables: first, its hard and soft power capabilities; second, the actions of other states; and third, its will to continue its empire. Americas ideology answers the second issue. These critical questions are inextricably linked. The United States has the ability to dominate the world, but that is only one of the key ingredients necessary for the meal of empire. The will to do so is equally important. If the United States does not have the will, then no amount of combat aircraft or ships or economic might will suffice to ensure its dominance in international politics. I will consider the second issue in the next section of this chapter.
At the outset of this discussion, I want to state an obvious but, nonetheless, salient point: Nothing lasts forever. The American Empire will end at some point in time, as every empire has in the past from the empire the Egyptian Pharaohs created over 2,800 years before Christ to the one forged by Lenins Bolsheviks in 1917and as future empires will as well. As Table 1.2 shows, the American Empire is young when compared to the other empires throughout history, having lasted Just over a century if we take the beginning of the SpanishAmerican War as its starting date, as conventional history often does. Although it may be young, it is the profound responsibility of the custodians of the American Empire to use hard and soft power to ensure that it lasts as long as they want .

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be

The U.S. will remain a dominant military and economic power The Washington Times, April 6, 2008, p. B3
Surely, America is powerful. Never has there been a nation as economically potent, geopolitically influential, culturally dominant, scientifically important, and with a language that has become universal - American, or if you prefer, English. I have worked more than 40 years examining and interpreting American and international social and economic data. To me the evidence seems clear. There is no collapse in sight. The United States will become vastly more powerful in the decades to come. My primary reason concerns demographics. The first U.S. Census counted 3.9 million Americans. The Census of 2000 counted roughly 300 million Americans, an increase of 7,500 percent. Just over the course of the 20th century, the population grew by 400 percent. Careful projections by both the U.S. Census Bureau and the United Nations Population Division now show a growth path to 400 million by 2050 and 500 million by 2100 . But that is an increase of 67 percent - not close to 7,500 percent or 400 percent. Relatively, growth is slowing down - but a half a billion people is a big number. Population yields influence. The astonishing point of this sequence of numbers is that almost every other nation - developed or less-developed - is on a path toward, or has already started decline. The exceptions I can think of are Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. In 2004 I wrote a book titled "Fewer." Its operative sentence was "Never have birth and fertility rates fallen so far, so fast, so low, for so long, in so many places, so surprisingly." I think the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is the most meaningful way of measuring what is going on demographically. It reflects the average total number of children born per woman over the course of her childbearing years. It takes 2.1 children per woman to "replace" a population over time. Sooner or later the two parents die - and the .1 represents those children who do not live to the reproductive age.

U.S. is a global hegemon now and will remain so

Professor Robert Singh is in the School of Politics and Sociology at Birkbeck College, London University.World Today, January 1, 2008 A 'new declinism' is fashionable among commentators on American power . Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, with anti-Americanism widespread and the International Monetary Fund revising forecasts of United States economic growth downwards to 1.9 percent for this year, Washington appears a weakened global force. Yet, despite the unpopularity of Bush's foreign policies, no other power is close to challenging American primacy. Whether rising: China, recovering: Russia or hedging: the European Union (EU), America's predominant position is intact. Beyond the international system's unipolar, multipolar or post-polar structure, the more prosaic features remain that only Washington can project global military power, its economy accounts for a quarter of global gross domestic product, and a weakened America is in the interest of neither other advanced industrialised democracies nor an increasingly integrated world economy. There is also still no evidence of 'hard' military balancing against America, not least since those regional powers on the rise - China, Russia, Iran - are of immeasurably more concern to their immediate neighbours than is the US. The challenges confronting other powers - from ageing populations to potential pandemics - suggest additional caution in heralding the end of the American era.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be Educational System Strong

The U.S. educational system is not collapsing Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2008,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power.html? mode=print

The numbers, however, are wrong. Several academics and journalists investigated the matter and quickly realized that the Asian totals included graduates of two- or three-year programs training students in simple technical tasks. The National Science Foundation, which tracks these statistics in the United States and other nations, puts the Chinese number at about 200,000 engineering degrees per year, and the Rochester Institute of Technology's Ron Hira puts the number of Indian engineering graduates at about 125,000 a year. This means that the United States actually trains more engineers per capita than either China or India does. And the numbers do not
address the issue of quality. The best and brightest in China and India -- those who, for example, excel at India's famous engineering academies, the Indian Institutes of Technology (5,000 out of 300,000 applica nts make it past the entrance exams) -- would do well in any educational system. But once you get beyond such elite institutions -- which graduate under 10,000 students a year -- the quality of higher education in China and India remains extremely poor, which is why so many students leave those countries to get trained abroad. In 2005, the McKinsey Global Institute did a study of "the emerging global labor market" and found that 28 low-wage countries had approximately 33 million young professionals at their disposal. But, the study noted, "only a fraction of potential job candidates could successfully work at a foreign company," largely because of inadequate education. Indeed, higher education is the United States' best industry. In no other field is the United States' advantage so overwhelming. A 2006 report from the London-based Center for European Reform points out that the United States invests 2.6 percent of its GDP in higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan. Depending on which study you look at, the United States, with five percent of the world's population, has either seven or eight of the world's top ten universities and either 48 percent or 68 percent of the top 50. The situation in the sciences is particularly striking. In India, universities graduate between 35 and 50 Ph.D.'s in computer science each year; in the United States, the figure is 1,000. A list of where the world's 1,000 best computer scientists were educated shows that the top ten schools are all American. The United States also remains by far the most attractive destination for students, taking in 30 percent of the total number of foreign students globally, and its collaborations between business and educational institutions are unmatched

And although China and India are opening new institutions, it is not that easy to create a world-class university out of whole cloth in a few decades.
anywhere in the world. All these advantages will not be erased easily, because the structure of European and Japanese universities -- mostly state-run bureaucracies -- is unlikely to change.
deep regional, racial, and socioeconomic variation.

Few people believe that U.S. primary and secondary schools deserve similar praise. The school system, the line goes, is in crisis, with its

students performing particularly badly in science and math, year after year, in international rankings. But the statistics here, although not wrong, reveal something slightly different. The real problem is one not of excellence but of access. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the standard for comparing educational programs across nations, puts the United States squarely in the middle of the pack. The media reported the news with a predictable penchant for direness: "Economic Time Bomb: U.S. Teens Are Among Worst at Math," declared The Wall Street Journal. But the aggregate scores hide

Poor and minority students score well below the U.S. average, while, as one study noted, "students in affluent suburban U.S. school districts score nearly as well as students in Singapore, the runaway leader on TIMSS math scores." The difference between the average science scores in poor and wealthy school
districts within the United States, for instance, is four to five times as high as the difference between the U.S. and the Singaporean national average. In other words, the problem with U.S. education is a problem of inequality. This will, over time, translate into a competitiveness problem, because if the United States cannot educate and train a third of the working population to compete in a knowledge economy,

U.S. system may be too lax when it comes to rigor and memorization, but it is very good at developing the critical faculties of the mind. It is surely this quality that goes some way in explaining why the United States produces so many entrepreneurs, inventors, and risk takers. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, until recently Singapore's minister of education, explains the difference between his country's system and that of the United States: "We both have meritocracies," Shanmugaratnam says. "Yours is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. We know how to train people to take exams. You know how to use people's talents to the fullest. Both are important, but there are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well -- like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition. Most of all, America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority." This is one reason that Singaporean officials recently visited U.S. schools to learn how to create a system that nurtures and rewards ingenuity, quick thinking, and problem solving. "Just by watching, you can see students are more engaged, instead of being spoon-fed all day," one Singaporean visitor told The Washington Post. While the United States marvels at Asia's test-taking skills, Asian governments come to the United States to figure out how to get their children to think.
this will drag down the country. But it does know what works. The

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege Now, Iraq doesnt Threaten

IRAQ HAS NOT DESTROYED ROLE OF US HEGEMONY IN GLOBAL STABILITY
Kurt M. Campbell & Michael E. OHanlon, CSIS & Brookings, 2006, HARD POWER: THE NEW POLITICS OF NATIONAL SECURITYp. 83 It is also important to remember that much about todays global security environment is desirable. The United States leads a remarkable alliance system. Never before has a great power elicited such support from the worlds other powers and provoked so little direct opposition. This situation is in some jeopardy as a result of the Bush administrations internationally unpopular decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein in 2003, but on balance it holds

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be University Educational System Strong
The U.S. is a university educational leader Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 187 Higher education is America's best industry. There are two rankings of universities worldwide. In one of them, a purely quantitative study done by Chinese researchers, eight of the top ten universities in the world are in the United States. In the other, more qualitative one by London's Times Higher Educational Supplement, it's seven. The numbers flatten out somewhat after that. Of the top twenty, seventeen or eleven are in America; of the top fifty, thirtyeight or twenty-one. Still, the basic story does not change. With 5 percent of the world's population, the United States absolutely dominates higher education, having either 42 or 68 percent of the world's top fifty universities (depending which study you look at). In no other field is America's advantage so overwhelming. A 2006 report from the London-based Centre for European Reform, "The Future of European Universities," points out that the United States invests 2.6 percent of its GDP in higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 per- cent in Japan. The situation in the sciences is particularly striking. A list of where the world's 1,000 best computer scientists were educated shows that the top ten schools are all American. U.S. spending on R&D remains higher than Europe's, and its collaborations between business and educational institutions are unmatched anywhere in the world. America remains by far the most attractive destination for students, taking 30 percent of the total number of foreign students globally. All these advantages will not be erased easily, because the structure of European and Japanese universitiesmostly state-run bureaucraciesis unlikely to change. And while China and India are opening new institutions, it is not that easy to create a world-class university out of whole cloth in a few decades. Here's a statistic about engineers that you might not have heard. In India, universities graduate between 35 and 50 Ph.D.'s in computer science each year; in America, the figure is 1,000.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be Secondary Educational System Strong
U.S. secondary schools are innovative leaders Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 191-2
If American

universities are first-rank, few believe that the same can be said about its schools. Everyone knows that the American school system is in crisis and that its students do particularly badly in science and math, year after year, in international rankings. But the statistics here, while not wrong, reveal something slightly different. America's real problem is one not of excellence but of access. Since its inception in 1995, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) has become the standard for comparing educational programs across nations. The most recent results are in. Most of all, America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. These are the areas where Singapore must learn from America." This is one reason that Singaporean officials recently visited U.S. schools to learn how to create a system that nurtures and rewards ingenuity, quick thinking, and problem solving. As the Washington Post reported in March 2007, researchers from Singapore's best schools came to the Academy of Science, a public magnet school in Virginia, to examine U.S. teaching methods.' As the students "studied tiny, genetically altered plants one recent afternoon, drawing leaves and jotting data in logbooks," the Singaporean visitors "recorded how long the teacher waited for students to answer questions, how often the teenagers spoke up and how strongly they held to their views." Har Hui Peng, a visitor from Singapore's Hwa Chong Institution, was impressed, as the Post noted. "Just by watching, you can see students are more engaged, instead of being spoon-fed all day," said Har. The Post article continued, "[In Singapore], she said, the laboratories are fully stocked but stark, and the students are bright but reluctant to volunteer answers. To encourage spontaneity, Hwa Chong now bases 10 percent of each student's grade on oral participation." While America marvels at Asia's test-taking skills, Asian countries come to America to figure out how to get their kids to think. Top high schools in Beijing and Shanghai are emphasizing independent research, science competitions, and entrepreneur clubs. "I like the way your children are able to communicate," said Rosalind Chia, another Singaporean teacher on tour
9

in the States. "Maybe we need to cultivate that morea conversation between students and teachers." Such c ha nge d oe s not c om e e a s i l y. I nde e d, J a p a n re c e nt l y attempted to improve the flexibility of its national education system by eliminating mandatory Saturday classes and increasing the time dedicated to general studies, where students and teachers can pursue their own interests. "But the Japanese shift to yutori kyoiku, or relaxed education," the Post says, "has fueled a back-to-basics backlash from parents who worry that their children are not learning enough and that test scores are slipping."

In other words, simply changing curricula a top-down effortmay lead only to resistance. American culture celebrates and reinforces problem solving, questioning authority, and thinking heretically. It allows people to fail and then gives them a second and third chance. It rewards self- starters and oddballs. These are all bottom-up forces that cannot be produced by government fiat.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be U.S. Will Lead Global Growth
U.S will continue to lead global growth Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World,

p. 182-3
When trying to explain how America will fare in the new world, I sometimes say, "Look around." The future is already here. Over the last twenty years, globalization has been gaining breadth and depth. More countries are making goods, communications technology has been leveling the playing field, capital has been free to move across the world. And America has benefited massively from these trends. Its economy has received hundreds of billions of dollars in investment a rarity for a country with much capital of its own. Its companies have entered new countries and industries with great success and used new technologies and processes, all to keep boosting their bottom lines. Despite two decades of a very expensive dollar, American exports have held ground. GDP growth, the bottom line, has averaged just over 3 percent for twenty-five years, significantly higher than in Europe. (Japan's averaged 2.3 percent over the same period.) Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, again a full percentage point higher than the European average. The United States is currently ranked as the most competitive economy in the world by the World Economic Forum. These rankings
have been produced every year since 1979, and the U.S. position has been fairly constant, slipping sometimes in recent years to small northern European countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland (whose collective population is twenty million, less than that of the state of Texas). America's superior growth trajectory might be petering out, and perhaps its growth will be more "normal" for an advanced industrial country for the next few years. But

the general pointthat America is a highly dynamic economy at the cutting edge, despite its enormous sizestill holds. Look at the industries of the future. Nanotechnology applied science dealing with the control of matter at the atomic or molecular scaleis considered likely to lead to fundamental breakthroughs over the next fifty years. At some point in the future, or so I'm told, households will construct products out of raw materials, and businesses will simply create the formulas that turn atoms into goods. Whether this is hype or prescience, what is worth noticing is that by every conceivable measure, the United States dominates the field. It has more dedicated nanocenters than the next three nations (Germany, the United Kingdom, and China) combined, and many of its new centers focus on narrow subjects with a high potential for practical, marketable applications such as the Emory-Georgia Tech Nanotechnology Center for Personalized and Predictive Oncology. At market exchange rates, government nanotech funding in the United States is almost double that of its closest competitor, Japan. And while China, Japan, and Germany contribute a fair share of journal articles on nanoscale science and engineering topics, the United States has issued more patents for nanotechnology than the rest of the world combined, highlighting America's unusual strength in turning abstract theory into practical products. The firm Lux,
led by Dr. Michael Holman, constructed a matrix to assess countries' overall nanotech competitiveness. Their analysis looked not just at nanotechnology activity but also at the ability to "generate growth from scientific innovation."12 It found that certain countries that spend much on research can't turn their science into business. These "Ivory Tower" nations have impressive research funding, journal articles, and even patents, but

gory. A full 85 percent of venture capital investments in nanotechnology went to U.S. companies. Biotechnologya broad category that describes the use of
somehow don't manage to translate this into commercial goods and ideas. China, France, and even Britain fall into this cate biological systems to create medical, agricultural, and industrial productsis already a multibillion-dollar industry. It, too, is dominated by the United States. More than $3.3 billion in venture financing went to U.S. biotech companies in 2005, while European companies received just half that amount. Follow-on equity offerings (that is, post-IPO) in the United States were more than seven times those in Europe. And while European IPOs attracted more cash in 2005, IPO activity is highly volatilein 2004, U.S. IPO values were more than four times Europe's. As with nanotechnology, American companies excel at turning ideas into marketable and lucrative products. U.S. biotech revenues approached $50 billion in 2005, five times greater than those in Europe and representing 76 percent of global revenues.* Manufacturing has, of course, been leaving the United States, shifting to

Asian manufacturing must be viewed in the context of a global economy in which countries like China have become an important part of the supply chainbut still just a part.
the developing world and turning America into a service economy. This scares many Americans and Europeans, who wonder what their countries will make if everything is "made in China." But

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be U.S. Will Lead Global Growth
The U.S. retains almost all of the economic value from produced products Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 186 The Atlantic Monthly writer James Fallows spent a year in China watching that manufacturing juggernaut up close, and he provides a persuasive explanationone well understood by Chinese businessmenof how outsourcing has strengthened American competitiveness. Most Americans, even management experts, have not heard of the "smiley curve." But Chinese manufacturers know it well. Named for the U- shaped smile on the simple 1970s cartoon of a happy face, 0, the curve illustrates the development of a product, from conception to sale. At the top left of the curve one starts with the idea and high-level industrial designhow the product will look and work. Lower down on the curve comes the detailed engineering plan. At the bottom of the U is the actual manufacturing, assembly, and shipping. Then rising up on the right of the curve are distribution, marketing, retail sales, service contracts, and sales of parts and accessories . Fallows observes that, in almost all manufacturing, China takes care of the bottom of the curve and America the top the two ends of the Uwhich is where the money is. "The simple way to put this that the real money is in the brand name, plus retailmay sound obvious," he writes, "but its implications are illuminating." A vivid example of this is the iPod: it is manufactured mostly outside the United States, but the majority of value added is captured by Apple, Inc. in California. The company made $80 in gross profit on a 30gigabyte video iPod that retailed (in late 2007) for $299. Its profit was 36 percent of the estimated wholesale price of $224. (Add to that the retail profit if it was sold in an Apple store.) The total cost of parts was $144. Chinese manufacturers, by contrast, have margins of a few percent on their products.)
13 14

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be U.S Will Dominate Europe
U.S will dominate Europe economically Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 195-6
America's advantages might seem obvious when compared with Asia, which is still a continent of mostly developing countries. Against Europe, the margin is slimmer than many Americans believe, The Eurozone has been growing at an impressive clip, about the same pace per capita as the United States since 2000. It takes in half the world's foreign investment, boasts labor productivity often as strong as that of the United States, and posted a $30 billion trade surplus in 2007 from January through October. In the WEF Competitiveness Index, European countries occupy seven of the top ten slots. Europe has its problemshigh unemployment, rigid labor marketsbut it also has advantages, including more efficient and fiscally sustainable health care and pension systems. All in all, Europe presents the most significant short-term challenge to the United States in the economic realm. But

most of the developed world. Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, estimates that the U.S. population will increase by 65 million by 2030, while Europe's will remain "virtually stagnant." Europe, Eberstadt notes, "will by that time have more than twice as many seniors older than 65 than children under 15, with drastic implications for future aging. (Fewer children now means fewer workers later.) In the United States, by contrast, children will continue to outnumber the elderly. The U.N. Popul at i on Di vi si on e st i ma t e s t ha t t he ra ti o of working-age people to senior citizens in western Europe will drop from 3.8:1 today to just 2.4:1 in 2030. In the U.S.,

Europe has one crucial disadvantage . Or, to put it more accurately, the United States has one crucial advantage over Europe and The United States is demographically vibrant.

. Some of these demo graphic problems could be ameliorated if older Europeans chose to work more, but so far they do not, and trends like these rarely reverse." The only real way to avert this demographic decline is for Europe to take in more immigrants . Native Europeans actually stopped replacing themselves as early as 2007, so even maintaining the current population will require modest immigration. Growth will require much more. But European societies do not seem able to take in and assimilate people from strange and unfamiliar cultures, especially from rural and backward regions in the world of Islam. The question of who is at fault herethe immigrant or the societyis irrelevant. The political reality is that Europe is moving toward taking in fewer immigrants at a time when its economic future rides on its ability to take in many more. America, on the other hand, is creating the first universal nation, made up of all colors, races, and creeds, living and working together in considerable harmony .
the figure will fall from 5.4:1 to 3.1:1
20

Surprisingly, many Asian countrieswith the exception of Indiaare in demographic situations similar to or even worse than Europe's. The fertility rates in Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong, and China* are well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per female, and estimates indicate that major East Asian nations will face a sizable reduction in their working-age population over the next half century. The working-age population in Japan has already peaked; by 2010, Japan will have three million fewer workers than in 2005. Worker populations in China and Korea are also likely to peak within the next decade. Goldman Sachs predicts that China's median age will rise from thirty-three in 2005 to forty-five in 2050, a remarkable graying of the population. By 2030, China may have nearly as many senior citizens sixty-five years of age or older as children under fifteen. And Asian countries have as much trouble with immigrants as European ones. Japan faces a large prospective worker shortage because it can neither take in

. The effects of an aging population are considerable. First, there is the pension burdenfewer workers supporting more gray-haired elders. Second, as the economist Benjamin Jones has shown, most innovative inventorsand the overwhelming majority of Nobel laureatesdo their most important work between the ages of thirty and forty-four. A smaller working- age population, in other words, means fewer technological, scientific, and managerial advances. Third, as workers age, they go from being net savers to being net spenders, with dire ramifications for national saving and investment rates. For advanced industrial countrieswhich are already comfort able, satisfied, and less prone to work hard bad demographics are a killer disease. The native-born, white American population has the same low fertility rates as Europe's. Without immigration,
enough immigrants nor allow its women to fully participate in the labor force U.S. GDP growth over the last quarter century would have been the same as Europe's. America's edge in innovation is overwhelmingly a product of immigration. Foreign students and immigrants account for 50 percent of the science researchers in the country and, in 2006, received 40 percent of the doctorates in science and engineering and 65 percent of the doctorates in computer science. By 2010, foreign students will get more than 50 percent of all Ph.D.'s awarded in every subject in the United States. In the sciences, that figure will be closer to 75 percent. Half of all Silicon Valley start-ups have one founder who is an immigrant or first-generation American. America's potential new burst of productivity, its edge in nanotechnology, biotechnology, its ability to invent the futureall rest on its immigration policies. If America can keep the people it educates in the country, the innovation will happen here. If they go back home, the innovation will travel with them. Immigration also gives America a quality rare for a rich countryhunger and energy. As countries become wealthy, the drive to move up and succeed weakens. But America has found a way to keep itself constantly revitalized by streams of people who are looking to make a new life in a new world. These are the people who work long hours picking fruit in searing heat, washing dishes, building houses, working night shifts, and cleaning waste dumps. They come to the United States under terrible conditions, leave family and community, only because they want to work and get ahead in life. Americans have almost always worried about such immigrants whether from Ireland or

these immigrants have gone on to become the backbone of the American working class, and their children or grandchildren have entered the American mainstream. America has been able to tap this energy, manage diversity, assimilate newcomers, and move ahead economically. Ultimately, this is what sets the country apart from the experience of Britain and all other historical
Italy, China or Mexico. But

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

examples of great economic powers that grow fat and lazy and slip behind as they face the rise of leaner, hungrier nations.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be No Economic Declne Now

Statistics that show U.S. economic weakness are misleading Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 199-201 Many experts, scholars, and even a few politicians worry about a set of statistics that bode ill for the United States. The savings rate is zero, the current-account deficit, trade deficit, and budget deficit are high, median income is flat, and commitments for entitlements are unsustainable. These are all valid concerns and will have to be addressed by Washington. If America's economic system is its core strength, its political system is its core weakness. But the numbers might not tell us everything we need to know. The economic statistics that we rely on give us only an approximate, antiquated measure of an economy. Many of them were developed in the late nineteenth century to describe an industrial econ omy with limited cross-border activity. We now live in an interconnected global market, with revolutions in financial instruments, technology, and trade. It is possible that we're not measuring things correctly. It used to be a law of macroeconomics, for example, that in an advanced industrial economy there is such a thing as NAIRUthe nonaccelerating inflation rate of unemployment. Basically, this meant that unemployment could not fall below a certain level, usually pinned at 6 percent, without driving inflation up. But for the last two decades, many Western countries, especially the United States, have had unemployment rates well below levels economists thought possible. Or consider that America's current-account deficitwhich in 2007 reached $800 billion, or 7 percent of GDPwas supposed to be unsustainable at 4 percent of GDP. The current- account deficit is at dangerous levels, but we should also keep in mind that its magnitude can be explained in part by the fact that there is a worldwide surplus of savings and that the United States remains an unusually stable and attractive place in which to invest. Harvard University's Richard Cooper even argues that the American savings rate is miscalculated, painting an inaccurate picture of massive credit card debt and unaffordable mortgages . While many households do live beyond their means, the picture looks healthier at the aggregate level, Cooper argues. Private U.S. savings, which includes both household saving (the "often-cited" low figure of about 2 per- cent of personal income) and corporate saving, reached 15 percent in 2005. The decrease in personal saving, in other words, has been largely offset by an increase in corporate saving. More important, the whore concept of "national saving" might be outdated, not reflecting the reality of new modes of production. In the new economy, growth comes from "teams of people creating new goods and services, not from the accumulation of capital," which was more impor tant in the first half of the twentieth century. Yet we still focus on measuring capital .

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be

The U.S. will remain the leading global power
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs , May/June 2008 ,

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html?mode=print

In this world, the United States is and will long remain the largest single aggregation of power. It spends more than $500 billion annually on its military -- and more than $700 billion if the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are included -- and boasts land, air, and naval forces that are the world's most capable. Its economy, with a GDP of some $14 trillion, is the world's largest. The United States is also a major source of culture (through films and television), information, and innovation. The U.S. is a leader now the choice is between cooperation and domination Zbibniew Brezisnski, former national security advisor, 1-27, 8
JP: In an August 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama said the US must "lead the world once more." Surely, with the Bush era near its close, we've learnt that it doesn't work for America to lead the world alone. It has to be a group effort. ZB: Well, yes and no. The way I'd put it is that the US is, and potentially still will be, preponderant in foreign affairs. But one should not confuse preponderance with omnipotence. What "leading" really means is that the US is the critical catalyst for effective international co-operation. No one else can do it. There's a choice between leadership and domination.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be No Asia Threat

No leadership threat from Asia Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2008,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power.html? mode=print

Surprisingly, many Asian countries (with India an exception) are in demographic situations similar to or even worse than Europe's. The fertility rates in China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman, and estimates indicate that the major East Asian nations will face a sizable reduction in their working-age populations over the next half century. The working-age population in Japan has already peaked; by 2010, Japan will have three million fewer workers than it did in 2005. The worker populations in China and South Korea are also likely to peak within the next decade. Goldman Sachs predicts that China's median age will rise from 33 in 2005 to 45 in 2050, a remarkable graying of the population. And Asian countries have as much trouble with immigrants as European countries do. Japan faces a large prospective worker shortage because it can neither take in enough immigrants nor allow its women to fully participate in the labor force. Pivotal powers do not threaten U.S. leadership
Ni na Hachi gi a n & Mona S tup he n , S t anford Gradu at e S chool and fo rm er S ervi ce Offi c er in t he C li nt on adm i ni st rat i on, 200 8 , The Next Am eri c an C ent ury p. 162-3 Now push comes to shove, so to speak. We have argued so far in this book that we cannot know which, whether, or how fast the pivotal powers will continue to grow. Demographics, climate, political stability, and myriad other factors Americans do not control will conspire to shape their futures. We have also shown that the pivotal powers affect what Americans care about in both positive and harmful ways, but that the benefits are more substantial, broad, or immediate and the harm is more nebulous, indirect, narrow, or distant. The pivotal powers help the U.S. battle the largest security threats it now faces in terrorism, disease, and proliferation of nuclear and other dangerous materials. The pivotal powers benefit from the world order and fight side by side with the U.S. against global killers that heed no authority. None poses a direct security threat to America today, and their growth supports overall U.S. economic growth. The pivotal powers do not undermine U.S. liberal democracy at home and do not present a serious ideological challenge outside our borders either. Finally, we know that the pivotal powers want stable and positive relations with the United States, and the United States is largely in the driver's seat in steering these relationships . For now, none seeks to unseat the U.S. as sole superpowerrowever, the pivotal powers are challenging U.S. leadership and prestige, as well as making it more difficult for the U.S. to get its way in all matters. America is seeing its operational freedom erode.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be No European Economic Threat

Europe is not a serious economic threat to the U.S. Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2008,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501facomment87303/fareed-zakaria/the-future-of-american-power.html? mode=print
The United States' advantages might seem obvious when compared with conditions in Asia, which is still a continent of mostly developing countries. Against Europe, the margin is slimmer than many Americans believe. The eurozone has been growing at an impressive clip, about the same pace per capita as the United States since 2000. It takes in half the world's foreign investment, boasts strong labor productivity, and posted a $30 billion trade surplus in the first ten months of 2007. In the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index, European countries occupy seven of the top ten slots. Europe has its problems -high unemployment, rigid labor markets -- but it also has advantages, including more efficient and fiscally sustainable health-care and pension systems. All in all,

Europe presents the most significant short-term challenge to the United States in the economic realm. But Europe has one crucial disadvantage. Or, to put it more accurately, the United States has one crucial advantage over Europe and most of the developed world. The United States is demographically vibrant. Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, estimates that the U.S. population will increase by 65 million by 2030, whereas Europe's population will remain "virtually stagnant." Europe, Eberstadt notes, "will by that time have more than twice as many seniors older than 65 than children under 15, with drastic implications for future aging. (Fewer children now means fewer workers later.) In the United States, by contrast, children will continue to outnumber the elderly. The United Nations Population Division estimates that the ratio of working-age people to senior citizens in western Europe will drop from 3.8:1 today to just 2.4:1 in 2030. In the U.S., the figure will fall from 5.4:1 to 3.1:1." The only real way to avert this demographic decline is for Europe to take in more immigrants. Native Europeans actually stopped replacing themselves as early as 2007, and so even maintaining the current population will require modest immigration. Growth will require much more. But European societies do not seem able to take in and assimilate people from strange and unfamiliar cultures, especially from rural and backward regions in the world of Islam. The question of who is at fault here -the immigrant or the society -- is irrelevant. The reality is that Europe is moving toward taking in fewer immigrants at a time when its economic future rides on its ability to take in many more. The United States, on the other hand, is creating the first universal nation, made up of all colors, races, and creeds, living and working together in considerable harmony. Consider the current presidential election, in which the contestants have included a black man, a woman, a Mormon, a Hispanic, and an Italian American. .. The effects of an aging population are considerable. First, there is the pension burden -- fewer workers supporting more gray-haired elders. Second, as the economist Benjamin Jones has shown, most innovative inventors -- and the overwhelming majority of Nobel laureates -- do their most important work between the ages of 30 and 44. A smaller working-age population, in other words, means fewer technological, scientific, and managerial advances. Third, as workers age, they go from being net savers to being net spenders, with dire ramifications for national savings and investment rates. For advanced industrialized countries, bad demographics are a killer disease.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, Will Continue to Be No China Threat

China will not replace the U.S. as a superpower Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 98 China will not replace the United States as the world's superpower. It is unlikely to surpass it on any dimensionmilitary, political, or economicfor decades, let alone have dominance in all areas

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony Not Declining Asia

Despite Bush, U.S. soft power in Asia is high now
Josephy Nye, Harvard, Chinadaily.com.cn, March 26, 2009, p. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/200903/26/content_7617363.htm American soft power rests also on culture, values and foreign policies. What's interesting is that in the Bush administration, American policies were not seen as legitimate in many parts of the world, and this undercut American soft power. But American culture remained attractive. So when the Chicago Counsel on Global Affairs did a study of soft power in Asia, which they published last year, it still showed American soft power being higher than that of China or Japan or any other country .

U.S. leadership in East Asia is high

The Economist, February 21, 2009, http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13145069 A well-received first trip abroad as secretary of state, listening not lecturing UNTIL this week only one American secretary of state had made his first foreign trip to Asia: Dean Rusk, in 1961. So Hillary Clinton's decision to start her travels with a tour to Tokyo, Jakarta, Beijing and Seoul surprised even her hosts. The message seems to be that war elsewhere and economic turmoil may be the current preoccupations, but America's future environment will be shaped in Asia. Besides, it is always good to go where you are welcome. It is not simply that President Barack Obama's four childhood years in Indonesia make him a hero there; nor that learners of English have cleaned out the Tokyo bookshops of volumes of his speeches. Rather, despite the damage George Bush did to America's prestige, in East Asia it remains high.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Chinese Soft Power Doesnt Threaten

Chinas confrontational approach to promoting soft power undermines its ability to project it
Australian, April 8, 2009, p. 12 In countries such as the US, soft power arises predominantly from strong, independent institutions, from the strength of nongovernmental organisations, universities, media and cultural industries such as Hollywood. On the issue of Tibet, China's leaders have approached soft power as though it can be packaged for export at a central location in Beijing, which is precisely what they have done. A photography exhibition, consonant with the CCP's propaganda message on Tibet, has travelled across the world, from Seoul, South Korea, to Larnaca, Cyprus, highlighting the sufferings of Tibetans before 1959 and portraying the Dalai Lama as a hateful oppressor. The exhibition's international reception has been reported loudly and favourably in numerous languages by China's official state media. These and other soft power ploys have worked in tandem with political arm-twisti ng. Facing stiff Chinese pressure, the South African Government denied entry to the Dalai Lama, who was to have participated in a conference of Nobel peace prize winners on March 27. Hong Kong's Foreign Correspondents Club, an independent professional association, was similarly pressured into postponing a scheduled talk by Kate Saunders, of the Washington-based International Campaign for Tibet. One underlying problem with China's conception of soft power is its fundamentally confrontational view of the world. In articulating the need for a bigger share of ``global public opinion'', China reverts to type, talking in official rhetoric about ``anti-Chinese forces'' and a monolithic and hostile Western media. It rails against the West for ``harbouring a Cold War mind-set'', when what it glimpses is in fact little more than a self-reflection of its persistent Mao-era rhetoric about the West. In fact, China's deficit of soft power has little to do with its ``communication capacity'' or the hostile attitude of the foreign press and everything to do with its failure to recognise the basic nature of soft power: the articulation of values that the rest of the world can aspire to and emulate. If China indeed hopes to improve its international reputation and boost its soft power, it will have to act in a spirit of openness and exchange, not with a hard-minded insistence on facts that do not admit discussion or challenge. Most important of all, it will have to allow the emergence within China of credible and diverse voices that can engage with the world, and this means encouraging more independent media, real academic and artistic freedom, and unleashing the power of civil society.

Government secrecy collapses Chinese soft power

South China Morning Post, April 7, 2009, p. 7 But Yu Wanli, an associate professor at Peking University's Centre for International and Strategic Studies, said there was also a gap in the way the central government wished to present itself and the way the world perceived it. "The soft-power campaigns will remain ineffective as long as the government keeps a tight control on everything. But in China, diplomacy is solely under the government's control," he said. "Soft power is not about what the government says, it's about what its people really think about their own country."

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Chinas Economic Power Doesnt Threaten

Chinas share of the global GDP isnt even close to the Wests
The Straits Times (Singapore), March 17, 2009, p. online For a start, China's share of global gross domestic product, though growing, is just 11.4 per cent, compared to 43 per cent for the US and Europe combined Asean's growth still hinges on these two economies, and their outlook is bleak according to the latest International Monetary Fund projections - negative growth this year and just slight expansion next year.

Chinas economic growth is not sustainable

Dr John Lee is a visiting fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, April 4, 2009, Sydney Morning Herald, p. 4 With the shift of economic power from West to East becoming more apparent, this issue has become more important. Beijing performs a double act. It is desperate to promote China as a successful and confident country, legitimately authoritarian. On the other hand, Chinese leaders are profoundly aware of weaknesses that could bring down the regime and cause chaos throughout the country. Despite three decades of economic growth, for example, half of the people live on $US2 a day or less. Illiteracy has doubled since 2000. China has become the most unequal Asian country and one of the more corrupt. Officially recorded instances of mass unrest reached 87,000 in 2005. Chinese economists are worried about the sustainability of China's economic approach. While many in countries like Australia fear perceptions of growing Chinese strength, the Chinese Communist Party fears China's weakness. As the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, repeatedly warns, hostile foreign forces have not given up on westernising and carving up a vulnerable China. The image of a secure and confident China is a staged act. China remains an insecure power governed by an insecure regime. Yet the Communist Party has staked its legitimacy on returning prosperity and respect to China and its people. In an attempt to remain relevant and in control, the party has expanded - rather than reduced - its role and influence in Chinese society and economy. Rather than one-party rule being identified as the source of many modern Chinese problems, Beijing insists only a strong, authoritarian apparatus can steer the ship and avoid chaos in a country of 1.3 billion people.

Poverty and authoritarianism limit Chinas rise

New York Times, April 2, 2009, p. 12 ''China is a major global economy now. That is a fundamental reality,'' Chu Shulong, who directs the Institute of Strategic Studies at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said in an interview. ''What China says and does has an effect on international finance, international economics and other economies.'' But just as real, Mr. Chu and others said, are the factors that hamstring China: widespread poverty, authoritarian rule, a culture shrouded by decades of isolation and poorly understood intentions. China's global ambitions are unlikely to be realized until it resolves those issues.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Low Population Growth Doesnt Threaten

Low population growth rates dont threaten U.S. power
Anne-Marie Slaughter, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century, p. 94 MORE PEOPLE, MORE PROBLEMS Demography is often cited as the chief factor behind the relative decline of the West. China and India make up over a third of the world's population, while Europe and Japan are actually shrinking and the United States is suddenly a relatively small nation of 300 million. This argument, however, rests largely on assumptions formed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Throughout most of human history, territory and population translated into military and economic power. Military power depended on the number of soldiers a state could put into the field, the amount of territory an enemy had to cross to conquer it, and the economy's ability to supply the state's army. Population size mattered for economic power because without trade a state needed a domestic market large enough for manufacturers and merchants to thrive. With trade, however, small mercantile nations such as the Netherlands and Portugal were able to punch far above their weight. In the nineteenth century, to increase their power, small countries expanded their territory through colonization. But by the twentieth century, as political unrest in the colonial world grew, the advantages of trading rather than ruling became increasingly clear. Although the United States and the Soviet Union, two great continental powers, dominated the second half of the twentieth century, the countries that grew the richest were often the smallest. In 2007, the ten countries with the highest per capita GDPs all had populations smaller than that of New York City, with one notable exception: the United States. In the twenty-first century, less is more. Domestic markets must be big enough to allow national firms to obtain a foothold so as to withstand international competition (although such markets can be obtained through free-trade areas and economic unions). But beyond this minimum, if trade barriers are low and transportation and communication are cheap, then size will be more of a burden than a benefit. When both markets and production are global, then productive members of every society will generate income across multiple societies. Business managers in one country can generate value by orchestrating a global and disparate network of researchers, designers, manufacturers, marketers, and distributors. It will remain the responsibility of government, however, to provide for the less productive members of society, namely, the elderly, the young, the disabled, and the unemployed -- think of them as national overhead costs. From this perspective, the 300 million citizens in the United States look much more manageable than the more than a billion in China or India. A shrinking population can actually act as a catalyst for innovation. In China, the answer to many problems is simply to throw people at them -- both because people are the most available commodity and because the Chinese government needs to provide as many jobs as possible. In Japan, by contrast, the answer is to innovate. Nintendo, the Kyoto-based gaming giant, is bringing much of its manufacturing back to Japan from China and other parts of Asia. How can it possibly compete using high-cost Japanese labor? It will not have to -- its new factories are almost entirely automated, with only a handful of highly skilled employees needed to run them. This approach uses less energy, costs less, and guarantees a higher standard of living for the Japanese population. As the priority shifts from economic growth to sustainable growth, the formula of fewer people plus better and greener technology will look increasingly attractive. Finally, size carries its own set of political challenges. Over the past four centuries, the arrow of history has pointed in the direction of national self-determination. Empires and multiethnic countries have steadily divided and subdivided into smaller units so that nations, or dominant ethnic groups, could govern themselves. Ninety years after Woodrow Wilson laid out his vision of self-determination for the Balkan states, the process continues in Kosovo. In many ways, the breakup of the Soviet Union was another round of the decolonization and self-determination movement that began in the 1940s. It continues today with the conflicts over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as with the potential for conflict on the Crimean Peninsula and in eastern Ukraine. Much of China's 5,000-year history has been a saga of the country's splitting apart and being welded back together. The Chinese government, like the Indian government, legitimately fears that current pockets of instability could quickly translate into multiple secessionist movements. The United States faces no threats to its essential unity, which has been forged by a political and cultural ideology of unity amid diversity. The principal alternative to this ideology is the solution employed by the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), in I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

which individual states come together as larger economic and, gradually, quasi-political units. The most promising dimension of recent Chinese politics has been its adoption of a version of this solution with regard to Hong Kong and Macao -- and one day Beijing may apply this model to Taiwan. The United States benefits not only from its limited population but also from who makes up that population. It has long attracted the world's most entrepreneurial, creative, and determined individuals. A vast mixing of cultures has created an atmosphere for a fruitful cross-fertilization and innovation. These arguments still hold. In San Francisco, for instance, a new municipal telephone help line advertises that it can talk with callers in over 150 languages. This diversity, and the creativity that it produces, is visible everywhere: in Hollywood movies, in American music, and at U.S. universities. At Princeton University this past fall, five of the six student award winners for the highest grade point averages had come from abroad: from China, Germany, Moldova, Slovenia, and Turkey. In the nineteenth- and twentieth-century era of nation-states, the United States absorbed its immigrants and molded them into Americans, thereby creating the national cohesion necessary to build military and economic strength. Today, diversity in the United States means something more. Immigrant communities flourish not only in large cities but also in smaller towns and rural areas. A mosaic has replaced the melting pot, and, more than ever, immigrants connect their new communities to their countries of origin. Along the southern border of the United States, for instance, immigration experts talk about "transnational communities," about clusters of families in the United States linked with the villages of Mexico and Central America. Now, where you are from means where you can, and do, go back to -- and whom you know and trust enough to network with. Consider, for example, how valuable the overseas Chinese community has been to China. Alan Wang, a former student of mine, was born in China, moved to Australia with his family at the age of 12, and went to college and law school there. He later came to the United States to pursue a graduate degree at Harvard. For a while, he practiced law with a large British firm in London, and then moved to its Shanghai office. When I asked him how he identified himself, he replied, "overseas Chinese." Millions of people similar to Wang have spread out from China throughout Southeast Asia, Australia, the United States, and Canada, creating trading and networking opportunities for people in all those places. Similarly, the United States must learn to think of its ethnic communities as the source of future generations of "overseas Americans." Already, young Chinese Americans and Indian Americans are heading back to their parents' homelands to seek opportunity and make their fortunes. Soon, the children of U.S. immigrants from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East will follow a similar path and return to their ethnic homelands, at least for a time. The key to succeeding in a networked economy is being able to harvest the best ideas and innovations from the widest array of sources. In this regard, the United States is plugged into all corners of the global brain. Beyond its immigrant communities, the United States can also depend on a new generation to forge connections around the world. John Zogby, the influential pollster, calls Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 "the First Globals," a group he describes as "more networked and globally engaged than members of any similar age cohort in American history." More than half of the respondents aged 18 to 29 in a poll conducted in the United States in June 2007 by Zogby International said that they had friends or family living outside the United States, vastly more than any other U.S. age group. Other Zogby polls have shown that this generation holds passports in roughly the same proportion as other age groups but uses them far more frequently. A quarter of this group, according to Zogby's data, believes that they will "end up living for some significant period in a country other than America." These young people spreading out around the world will be a huge asset to the United States. Children born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship as a result of their parents' heritage or life decisions will add to this number. A college classmate of mine was born to Hungarian immigrants in Canada and later acquired U.S. citizenship. After graduation, he moved to China and then Japan, where he gained a Japanese residency permit while also applying for Hungarian citizenship. He now lives with his Chinese wife in Beijing, where his daughter was born. Not long after her birth, he took her to Tokyo so that she could register as a U.S. citizen and reenter China on a U.S. passport. These stories are legion in any large global city -couples from two different countries who are raising their children in a third or fourth or even fifth country. For many people who orbit in this floating cloud of nationalities, a U.S. passport, particularly now that the United States has relaxed its rules on dual citizenship, has become a new kind of reserve currency. With one, even the most venturesome and peripatetic have the guarantee of the political and cultural stability of the West. The United States must devise the incentives and conditions that will allow it to both encourage this phenomenon and profit from it.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining No Eastern Shift

Global power is not shifting east
Anne-Marie Slaughter, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century, p. 94 THE WORLD IS ROUND AGAIN For most of modern history, the Eurocentric view of the world has placed North and South America in a hemisphere of their own -- the Western Hemisphere. Today, the world is mapped in the round, with Asia in the East and Africa, the Americas, and Europe in the West. That, at least, is how some Asians increasingly think of themselves. In his recently published book, The New Asian Hemisphere: The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East, Mahbubani argues that the era of "Western domination of world history is over" and that the world is witnessing an "Asian march to modernity." But if half of the world is now "the East," defined as the Asian hemisphere, then the other half is the Atlantic hemisphere, made up of Africa, the Americas, and Europe. It is quite a promising neighborhood, home to a wealth of human, economic, material, and natural resources. Politically, Europe and North America constitute a spreading community of liberal democracies that accounts for one-sixth of the world's population, almost 60 percent of global GDP, and the two primary global reserve currencies. More trade and direct investment pass over the Atlantic Ocean than any other part of the world -- over $2 trillion in cumulative foreign direct investment alone.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not a Threat Europe Not a Threat

Europe lacks hard & soft power
The Guardian (London), January 30, 2009, p. 41 The debate about Europe in this country always takes place on the basis that the EU is too strong. Yet the reality is in many ways the opposite. Actually Europe is often too weak, in terms both of the hard power of integrated military effectiveness and the soft power of international influence building. Whatever Europe's strength vis-a-vis the sovereign states that make up the union, it is certainly too weak to be really effective in representing its own best interests internationally, or in commanding resources that would enable it to sit at the top table as a truly effective player. Britain ought therefore to have a strong national interest in building up the EU.

Infighting means no unified European response

The Christian Science Monitor, April 2, 2009, p. 6 Even people with diverging views on economic and foreign policy were united against the US policy," says Karim Bitar, a Paris consultant and scholar at the Institute for International and Strategic Relations. "But now the US can no longer be accused of all the world's ills. The truth is, Europeans now think more about America than about Europe. There is no European consensus on the most basic questions of our future, what we should be. Under Bush, we could evade them. Not now." Europe's internal conflict over the Russian war in Georgia last summer, and the crisis over interrupted oil and gas supplies to Europe this winter, were indicators of division in what is still an economic union struggling to achieve political solidarity.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hegemony Not Declining Environmental Problems Dont Destroy

Environmental problems dont threaten American leadership
Anne-Marie Slaughter, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century, p. 94 The potential for further integration of the hemisphere is enormous. Even more important is the potential for deeper economic integration within the Americas. On energy questions, Canadian oil sands and Brazilian sugar cane are more promising than depending on Russian pipelines or Sudanese oil. Markets for renewable energy -- such as from biomass, wind, geothermal technology, and other sources -- are growing in Latin America. Miami is already a financial center for Latin America, and the steady growth of the Latino population in the United States will only deepen intra-American investment. The rise of Brazil and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Mexico will create an emerging counterbalance to the United States south of its border. But any initiative for strengthening economic ties must come from the United States itself. It first must address its immigration policy and then, similar to the economic and political assistance it provided to the European Union, offer support for an economic union in Central and South America. The result could be an integrated market and trading bloc of 800 million people, with tremendous natural resources, enormous opportunities for development and sustainable growth, and deep ties to Africa, Asia, and Europe. That market would still have the protection of two wide oceans, and even in a networked world, there are benefits in being disconnected. Those oceans protect the United States against massive refugee flows, against other threats to security from civil and interstate wars, and, increasingly, from the effects of climate change. Researchers at Princeton University have found that rain over the Pacific Ocean washes out of the air substantial amounts of ozone and some other gases emitted in Asia before the air can ever get to the Americas. Most climate-change projections forecast rising waters overflowing the deltas of South and Southeast Asia, potentially threatening millions of lives in countries such as Bangladesh. Increasing desertification in northern Africa will force emigrants across the Mediterranean and into Europe; a similar process in northern China could push even greater numbers into Russia. Conflict is likely to follow these displaced peoples. New democracies, such as Indonesia, and one-party states, such as China and Vietnam, will find themselves economically and politically vulnerable. Of course, the Americas will not be fully protected from rising oceans, flooding, desertification, or the other nasty consequences of climate change. Still, both geography and demography -- and the absence of hundreds of millions of people on the move -- will insulate the New World from the afflictions of the Old.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Hegemony U.S. Hedge High Now, Will Continue to Be Iraq Hasnt Hurt
The Iraq war has strengthened U.S. military dominance Australian, April 25, 2008,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23599516-25377,00.html
THE US war in Iraq has strengthened its strategic position, especially in terms of key alliances, and the only way this could be reversed would be if it lost the will to continue the struggle and abandoned Iraq in defeat and disarray. Surely the author of this sentence is on the ganja, you might say. Something a little weird in the coffee? It goes against every aspect of conventional wisdom. But the author of this thesis, stated only marginally less boldly, is one of the US's most brilliant strategic analysts. Mike Green holds the Japan chair at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies and was for several years the Asia director at the National Security Council. He is also one of America's foremost experts on Japan and northeast Asia generally. His thesis, applied strictly to the US position in Asia, is correct. First, Green states and acknowledges the negatives. He writes: ``The Iraq war has had one important, pernicious impact on US interests in Asia: it has consumed US attention.'' This has prevented the US from following up in sufficient detail on some positive developments in Asia. Green also acknowledges that the US's reputation has taken a battering among Muslim populations in Asia. Yet Green's positive thesis is fascinating. The US's three most important Asian alliances -- with Australia, Japan and South Korea -- have in his view been strengthened by the Iraq campaign. Each of these nations sent substantial numbers of troops to help the US in Iraq. They did this because they believed in what the US was doing in Iraq, and also because they wanted to use the Iraq campaign as an opportunity to strengthen their alliances with the US. More generally, in a world supposedly awash in anti-US sentiment, pro-American leaders keep winning elections. Germany's Angela Merkel is certainly more pro-American than Gerhard Schroeder, whom she replaced. The same is true of France's Nicolas Sarkozy. More importantly in terms of Green's analysis, the same is also true of South Korea's new President. Lee Myung-bak, elected in a landslide in December, is vastly more pro-American than his predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun. Even in majority Islamic societies, their populations allegedly radicalised and polarised by Bush's campaign in Iraq and the global war on terror more generally, election results don't show any evidence of these trends. In the most recent local elections in Indonesia, and in national elections in Pakistan, the Islamist parties with anti-American rhetoric fared very poorly. Similarly Kevin Rudd was elected as a very pro-American Labor leader, unlike Mark Latham, with his traces of anti-Americanism, who was heavily defeated. Even with China, the Iraq campaign was not a serious negative for the US. Beijing was far more worried by the earlier US-led NATO intervention into Kosovo because it was based purely on notions of human rights in Kosovo. Such notions could theoretically be used to justify action (not necessarily military action) against China over Taiwan and Tibet. Iraq, on the other hand, was justified on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, a justification with which the Chinese were much more comfortable. Further, the Chinese co-operated closely with the Americans in the war on terror, especially in tackling what they alleged was extremism among some of the Muslim Uighurs in the vast Xinjiang province.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

U.S. Hege High Now, No Challengers

No other powers are future competitors to the U.S. New Yorker, April 21, 2008
However fast the economies of new powers are growing, then, forecasts of their world domination leave out a great deal. China has a demographic problem--too many boys--compounding its potentially catastrophic ecological problems. Russia's wealth is dependent on the price of oil. India, with its messy democratic system, might well have staying power, but no one sees it as a threat to the United States. And, besides, the "Harmonious Society" of Asia could still be violently disrupted by conflicts over Taiwan, North Korea, Tibet, Kashmir, and various islands, some of them sitting on oil reserves claimed by Vietnam, India, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. China is frightened that Japan might become a nuclear power, and makes every effort to keep it down, or at least out of the United Nations Security Council. Russia and China watch each other tensely across the Siberian border. North Korea periodically lobs missiles in the direction of Japan. And the South Koreans and the Southeast Asians are stuck between a democratic Japan they don't trust and an autocratic China they must warily accommodate.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Collapse Leads to Apolarity

Collapse of U.S. unilpolarity leads to apolarity
Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs , May/June 2008 ,

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87304/richard-n-haass/the-age-of-nonpolarity.html?mode=print

The principal characteristic of twenty-first-century international relations is turning out to be nonpolarity: a world dominated not by one or two or even several states but rather by dozens of actors possessing and exercising various kinds of power. This represents a tectonic shift from the The twentieth century started out distinctly multipolar. But after almost 50 years, two world wars, and many smaller conflicts, a bipolar system emerged. Then, with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union, bipolarity gave way to unipolarity -- an international system dominated by one power, in this case the United States. But today power is diffuse, and the onset of nonpolarity raises a number of important questions. How does nonpolarity differ from other forms of international order? How and why did it materialize? What are its likely consequences? And how should the United States respond? NEWER WORLD ORDER In contrast to multipolarity -- which involves several distinct poles or concentrations of power -- a nonpolar international system is characterized by numerous centers with meaningful power. In a multipolar system, no power dominates, or the system will become unipolar. Nor do concentrations of power revolve around two positions, or the system will become bipolar. Multipolar systems can be cooperative, even assuming the form of a concert of powers, in which a few major powers work together on setting the rules of the game and disciplining those who violate them. They can also be more competitive, revolving around a balance of power, or conflictual, when the balance breaks down. At first glance, the world today may appear to be multipolar. The major powers -- China, the European Union (EU), India, Japan, Russia, and the United States -- contain just over half the world's people and account for 75 percent of global GDP and 80 percent of global defense spending. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Today's world differs in a fundamental way from one of classic multipolarity: there are many more power centers, and quite a few of these poles are not nation-states. Indeed, one of the cardinal features of the contemporary international system is that nation-states have lost their monopoly on power and in some domains their preeminence as well. States are being challenged from above, by regional and global organizations; from below, by militias; and from the side, by a variety of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations. Power is now found in many hands and in many places. In addition to the six major world powers, there are numerous regional powers: Brazil and,
arguably, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Venezuela in Latin America; Nigeria and South Africa in Africa; Egypt, Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East; Pakistan in South Asia; Australia, Indonesia, and

A good many organizations would be on the list of power centers, including those that are global (the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, the World Bank), those that are regional (the African Union, the Arab League, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the EU, the Organization of American States, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), and those that are functional (the International Energy Agency, OPEC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the World Health
South Korea in East Asia and Oceania.
Organization). So, too, would states within nation-states, such as California and India's Uttar Pradesh, and cities, such as New York, S o Paulo, and Shanghai. Then there are the large global companies, including those that dominate the worlds of energy, finance, and manufacturing. Other entities deserving inclusion would be global media outlets (al Jazeera, the BBC, CNN), militias (Hamas, Hezbollah, the Mahdi Army, the Taliban), political parties, religious institutions and movements, terrorist organizations (al Qaeda), drug cartels, and NGOs of a more benign sort (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Doctors Without Borders, Greenpeace).

Today's world is increasingly one

of distributed, rather than concentrated, power.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Isolationism Now
GLOBALIZATION AND THE INFORMATION AGE OVERWHELM ISOLATIONIST IMPULSES
Vans Binnendijk and Richard L. Kugler, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, SEEING THE ELEPHANT: THE U.S. ROLE IN GLOBAL SECURITY, 2006, p. 204 'A larger issue raised by Huntington is whether the American people, who -have historically preferred isolationism, will continue to support costly foreign policy involvements in faraway places such as the Middle East and Asia. If the American people see such involvements as only peripherally related to vital national interests, they might tire of them and withdraw support. A shift to a "fortress America" mentality could arise if its people believe that the United States is too big and powerful to be menaced by any coalition of overseas powers: it has wealth and technology, and its population now numbers nearly 300 million, more than double the 140 million during World War II. Such strength prevents invasion of its shores and might yield indifference to events abroad. Against this trend are globalization and the information age, the fact that fully one-fourth of the U.S. economy depends upon overseas commerce, and perhaps most visibly, the threats posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The American people seem to have no taste for empire, yet they appear willing to support an ambitious foreign policy.

INTERVENTIONISM MORE LIKELY THAN ISOLATIONISM

Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy Research for Citizen Outreach, FOREIGN FOLLIES: AMERICAS NEW GLOBAL EMPIRE, 2006, p. 33 Today the charge of isolationism is errant nonsense. The same Republican Senate that Clinton attacked for killing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) approved the expansion of NATO. The Republican Congress that cut the President's foreign aid budget nevertheless had approved nearly $13 billion in outlays. Indeed, the real danger today is promiscuous intervention, not isolation. On issue after issue, foolish and unnecessary meddling is making America as well as other nations less prosperous and secure

THE U.S. HAS NEVER DETACHED ITSELF FROM THE WORLD

Rajan Menon, international relations professor, Lehigh, THE END OF ALLIANCES, 2007, p. 20 Norand this bears repeatingdo I maintain that the United States will turn isolationist. The United States has never been detached from world politics and the label of "isolationism" that is routinely affixed to particular phases of American foreign policy is a misnomer. Even if it were possible to do so, a retreat into "Fortress America" is hardly the sole alternative to a strategy resting on fixed alliances and the permanent positioning of thousands of troops overseas. For most of its history the United States engaged the world while shunning alliances, but it changed course after 1945, adopting a strategy of permanent alliances. Both were ways of engaging the world)

THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS GLOBAL LEADERSHIP

Rajan Menon, international relations professor, Lehigh, THE END OF ALLIANCES, 2007, p p. 198 Last but not least, comes justice. Opinion polls show consistently that Americans want their country to do good works in the world and to practice the values it professes. One specific way to meet these expectations is for the U.S. government to assume the leadership in assembling a community of wealth and know-how dedicated to reducing global poverty.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Isolationism Now
PUBLIC OPPOSITION WONT TRIGGER MILITARY ISOLATIONISM
Ashton B. Carter, chair of the International Relations, Science and Security area at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. William J. Perry is a professor at Stanford's Institute for International Studies. Both are co-directors of the Preventive Defense Project, a research collaboration of Harvard and Stanford Universities, NATIONAL INTEREST, March/April 2007, p. 88 Meanwhile, experience in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the past 15 years suggests the world will call upon U.S. forces to conduct peacekeeping and stability operations, notwithstanding public ambivalence about such involvements. These missions require large ground forces with a wide range of capabilities, from combat to policing to economic reconstruction.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Iraq Not Causing Isolationist Backlash in the US

PUBLIC SUPPORTS US INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT DESPITE OPPOSITION TO IRAQ WAR
World Public Opinion.org, 2006, Americans continue to support international engagement despite frustration over the war in Iraq, October 10, http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/256.php?nid=&id=&pnt=256&lb=brusc Most Americans believe the war in Iraq has not reduced terrorism or helped spread democracy in the Middle East. Instead they say the war has hurt U.S. relations with the Muslim world and should make nations more cautious about using military force. Nonetheless, Americans are not turning against international engagementstrong majorities still want the United States to play an active role in world affairs. The 2006 Chicago Council on Global Affairs survey found no evidence of declining support for U.S. engagement on a wide-range of international issues. Americans believe the United States is and should remain the most influential country in the world. But they do not want their government to take on the role of world policeman, preferring that it work with other countries to solve global problems through the United Nations and other international institutions. Most Americans respond negatively when asked about the impact of the war in Iraq. Two out of three (66%) say that the war has damaged U.S. relations with the Muslim world and believe that the U.S. experience in Iraq should make nations more cautious about using military force to deal with rogue states. Majorities disagree with those who argue that the war will help promote democracy in the Middle East (64%) and that it has reduced the threat of terrorism (61%). Nonetheless, the Chicago Council survey finds that frustration with the war in Iraq has not affected Americans general attitudes about foreign policy. Since World War II, about two-thirds of the U.S. public has said that the United States should play an active role in world affairs, a proportion that fell significantly only during the period following the Vietnam War. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say in the 2006 poll that the United States should remain engaged in international affairs, statistically the same as in 2004 (67%).

US PUBLIC SUPPORTS CONTINUED MILITARY ENGAGEMENT WORLDWIDE

World Public Opinion.org, 2006, Americans continue to support international engagement despite frustration over the war in Iraq, October 10, http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/256.php? nid=&id=&pnt=256&lb=brusc Although Americans do not want the United States to be the worlds policeman, a majority (55%) says that maintaining military superiority should be an important goal of U.S. foreign policy. About the same percentage (53%) thinks the United States should keep most of its long-term overseas bases. Most Americans favor sending U.S. forces on humanitarian missions. Strong majorities say they support the use of U.S. troops to stop a government from committing genocide (71%), to deal with humanitarian crises (66%) and to join an international peacekeeping force to stop the killing in Darfur (65%).

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Bandwagoning Not Balancing

US PRIMACY CAUSES BANDWAGONING NOT BALANCING
Bradley A. Thayer, Professor Defense & Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, 2006, The National Interest, November/December, p. Lexis A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes-their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Military Lead Now

THE U.S. WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE WORLDS MOST ADVANCED ECONOMY AND MILITARY Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy Research for Citizen Outreach, FOREIGN FOLLIES: AMERICAS NEW GLOBAL EMPIRE, 2006, p. 31 Anyway, even significant budget cuts would leave Washington with the world's largest and most advanced military, far stronger than that of any other state or coalition of states. And those cuts would allow the economy, America's most important source of influence, to grow faster. Today, Washington's disproportionate military burden does more than divert precious economic resources down wasteful channels. It simultaneously relieves America's industrialized competitors from spending more on their militaries. This has allowed Japan and Europe, in particular, to gain an edge they otherwise would not have. Not surprisingly, such international dependents want to keep their generous U.S. subsidies: both Germany's Helmut Kohl and France's Jacques Chirac shamelessly demanded a continued U.S. military presence in Europe even while cutting back their own militaries.

THE U.S. ENJOYS GLOBAL MILITARY POWER PROJECTION & DOMINANCE

Chalmers Johnson, author and professor emeritus of the University of California, San Diego, NEMESIS: THE LAST DAYS OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC, 2006, p. 5-6 After all, we now station over half a million U.S. troops, spies, contractors, dependents, and others on more than 737 military bases spread around the world. These bases are located in more than 130 countries, many of them presided over by dictatorial regimes that have given their citizens no say in the decision to let us in. The Pentagon publishes an inventory of the real estate it owns in its annual Base Structure Report, but its official count of between 737 and 860 overseas installations is incomplete, omitting all our espionage bases and a number of others that are secret or could be embarrassing to the United States. For example, it leaves out the air force base at Manas in Kyrgyzstan, formerly part of the Soviet Union and today part of our attempt to roll back the influence of the Soviet Union's successor state, Russia, and to control crucial Caspian Sea oil. It even neglects to mention the three bases built in tiny Qatar over the past few years, the headquarters for our high command during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, so as not to embarrass the emir of that country, who invited in our "infidel" soldiers.

NO TIME-FRAME TO THEIR TURNS: THE U.S. WILL BE DOMINANT FOR 30 TO 50 YEARS!

Colin Gray, political scientist specializing in national security policy, THE SHERIFF: AMERICAS DEFENSE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, 2004, p. 178 U.S. military power should be globally dominant for at least the next thirty to fifty years. That claim can be advanced with a fair measure: of confidence . But that is not to suggest that the United States will win every conflict in which it participates. The claim is only that its potency in the increasingly joint regular warfare of the future assuredly should bury any enemy=. To beat the United States, adversaries will need either to prosecute unusual and irregular forms of combat or to devise cunning plans that succeed in locating and exploiting such vulnerabilities as may lurk beneath the obvious American strengths. Expressions of approval must be qualified because the only conclusive test is the test of actual war. It is important to remember that America's strategic performance in warfare will reflect both the character of the transforming military establishment and the effectiveness of its employment by political leaders.
I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Military Lead Now

THE U.S. MILITARY LEAD WILL INCREASE, NOT DECREASE
Colin Gray, political scientist specializing in national security policy, THE SHERIFF: AMERICAS DEFENSE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, 2004, p. 69 Military-technical competition comprises the third class of threat to American preeminence, or, more exactly, to America's ability to translate preeminence into strategic effectiveness. U.S. military preponderance over all comers, singly or in any combination, is simply a fact of strategic life in the early twenty-first century. Moreover, the U.S. lead over potential rivals in military reach and striking power is going to lengthen much further before it begins to shrink.

THE U.S. HAS GREATER RELATIVE POWER THAN ANY CHALLENGERS

Colin Gray, political scientist specializing in national security policy, THE SHERIFF: AMERICAS DEFENSE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, 2004, p. 69 It is true that both absolutely and relatively the United States is very such greater than were any of the great states of modern times, but only limited comfort should be taken from that impressive fact. The character of American military power in the twenty-first century, especially in its still growing dependence on information technologies, offers potential opportunities for exploitation by both state and transnational competitors. Such competitors will not he rivals for the sheriff's badge; by and large what they will seek is freedom of action to pursue their interests, forcefully if need be, in the neighborhoods in which they are most interested.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Global Military Dominance Now

THE U.S. PROJECTS ITS MILITARY POWER ALL OVER THE GLOBE
Julia Sweigh, Council on Foreign Relations, FRIENDLY FIRE, 2006, p. 34-5 America's military preeminence is both reflected by and enhanced by its global military presence. As of 2004, the United States had roughly 250,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen deployed in more than a hundred countries. It has 1,000 or more troops in at least a dozen countries, not counting the forces currently occupying Iraq.' Smaller contingents are also active in dozens of countries, and the United States provides military training for personnel from over 130 countries. ' The United States maintains hundreds of military bases and other facilities around the world, with an estimated replacement value of $118 billion." The United States has the largest and most sophisticated arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, and it is the only country with a global power projection capability, stealth aircraft, a large arsenal of precision-guided munitions, and integrated surveillance, reconnaissance, and command-and-control capabilities.' - U. S. military personnel are also far better trained."

THE U.S. COULD DEFEAT ANY FOE WITHOUT ANY MILITARY SUPPORT
Julia Sweigh, Council on Foreign Relations, FRIENDLY FIRE, 2006, p. 211 Given these disparities, the United States could have defeated anv of its recent foes without active military assistance from any other country. Indeed, the "coalitions" that the United States has organized and led during this period have been decidedly one-sided affairs. With the partial exception of Great Britain, its various allies have provided token forces largely for symbolic purposes. By 2001, the United States was refusing to let even its closest allies take on meaningful combat roles in Afghanistan so that it would not have to coordinate its military activities with any other country. Historian Paul Kennedy correctly termed this a "Potemkin alliance," where "the U.S. does 98 percent of the fighting, the British 2 percent, and the Japanese steam around Mauritius."" The US. Air Force performed the lion's share of the patrol duties over the "no-fly zones" in Iraq (with a modest assist from Great Britain), and the U.S. military has also provided logistical support for peacekeeping operations in Africa, East Timor, and elsewhere. The gap was perhaps most apparent in the invasion of Iraq: the United States supplied over 80 percent of the occupying force and used over 10 percent of its total military manpower. By contrast, other members of the coalition used less than 1 percent of their manpower. Clearly, no single state can hope to matched the combined U.S. economic and military capabilities, and even a large coalition would find it difficult to amass a comparable portfolio of power.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Economic Hege Decline Now

Hegemonic economic decline will not occur in the status quo
Joseph Nye, Harvard, university distinguished-service professor , July 27, 2007, American Foreign Policy After Iraq. By:

Nye Jr., Joseph S., Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 7/27/2007, Vol. 53, Issue 47, http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fweekly %2Fv53%2Fi47%2F47b00601.htm The bankruptcy he predicts from military expenditures seems unlikely. Wisely or not, we spend less than half the percentage of our GDP on the military today than we did at the height of the cold war. And Johnson's comparisons of the United States with the Roman Empire fail to convince, especially when couched in language that describes Octavian's rise to power as "tainted by constitutional illegitimacy -- not unlike that of our own putative Boy Emperor from Crawford, Texas." Whatever one thinks of the legal reasoning in the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, the political outcome in 2000 bears little resemblance to what Augustus did to Roman republican institutions in 23 BC.

U.S. growth & competitiveness rates relatively high

Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 40-1

What's puzzling, however, is that these trends have been around for a whileand they have actually helped America's bottom line. Over the past twenty years, as globalization and outsourcing have accelerated dramatically, America's growth rate has averaged just over 3 percent, a full percentage point higher than that of Germany and France. (Japan averaged 2.3 percent over the same period.) Productivity growth, the elixir of modern economics, has been over 2.5 percent for a decade now, again a full percentage point higher than the European average. Even American exports held up, despite a decade-long spike in the value of the dollar that ended recently. In 1980, U.S. exports represented 10 percent of the world total; in 2007, that figure was still almost 9 percent. According to the World Economic Forum, the United States remains the most competitive economy in the world and ranks first in innovation, ninth in technological readiness, second in company spending for research and technology, and second in the quality of its research institutions. China does not come within thirty countries of the United States in any of these, and India breaks the top ten on only one count: market size. In virtually every sector that advanced industrial countries participate in, U.S. firms lead the world in productivity and profits.
)

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Economic Hegemony Decline Now

No U.S. economic decline
Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, 2008, The Post-American World, p. 180-2

First, however, it is essential to note that the central feature of Britain's declineirreversible economic deteriorationdoes not really apply to the United States today. Britain's unrivaled economic status lasted for a few decades; America's has lasted more than 130 years. The U.S. economy has been the world's largest since the middle of the 1880s, and it remains so today. In fact, America has held a surprisingly constant share of global GDP ever since. With the brief exception of the late 1940s and 1950swhen the rest of the industrialized world had been destroyed and America's share rose to 50 percent!the United States has accounted for roughly a quarter of world output for over a century (32 percent in 1913, 26 percent in 1960, 22 percent in 1980, 27 percent in 2000, and 26 percent in 2007). It is likely to slip but not significantly in the next two decades. In 2025, most estimates suggest that the U.S. economy will still be twice the size of China's in terms of nominal GDP (though in terms of purchasing power, the gap will be smaller)." This difference between America and Britain can be seen in the burden of their military budgets. Britannia ruled the seas but never the land. The British army was sufficiently small that the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck once quipped that, were the British ever to invade Germany, he would simply have the local police force arrest them. Meanwhile, London's advantage over the seasit had more tonnage than the next two navies put togethercame at ruinous cost to its treasury. The American military, in contrast, dominates at every level land, sea, air, spaceand spends more than the next fourteen countries put together, accounting for almost 50 percent of global defense spending. Some argue that even this understates America's military lead against the rest of the world because it does not take into account the U.S. scientific and technological edge. The U nited States spends more on defense research and development than the rest of the world put together. And, crucially, it does all this without breaking the bank. Defense expenditure as a percent of GDP is now 4.1 percent, lower than it was for most of the Cold War. (Under Eisenhower, it rose to 10 percent of GDP.) The secret here is the denominator. As U.S. GDP grows larger and larger, expenditures that would have been backbreaking become affordable. The Iraq War may be a tragedy or a noble endeavor, depending on your point of view. Either way, however, it will not bankrupt the United States. The war has been expensive, but the price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan together$125 billion a yearrepresents less than 1 percent of GDP. Vietnam, by comparison, cost 1.6 percent of American GDP in 1970 and tens of thousands more soldiers' lives. American military power is not the cause of its strength but the consequence. The fuel is America's economic and technological base, which remains extremely strong. The United States does face larger, deeper, and broader challenges than it has ever faced in its history, and the rise of the rest does mean that it will lose some share of global GDP. But the process will look nothing like Britain's slide in the twentieth century, when the country lost the lead in innovation, energy, and entrepreneurship. America will remain a vital, vibrant economy, at the forefront of the next revolutions in science, technology, and industryas long as it can embrace and adjust to the challenges confronting it.
)

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Economic Hegemony Decline Now

Not true current defense spending is sustainable. 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. 14]
No other country, or group of countries, comes close to matching the defense spending of the United States . Table
1.3 provides a context for this defense spending through a comparison of the defense spending of major countries in 2004, according the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The United States is far ahead of the defense spending of all other countries, including its nearest competitor, China. This is by design. As former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich has argued, You do not need todays defense budget to defend

the United States. You need todays defense budget to lead the world. If you are prepared to give up leading the world, you can have a much smaller defense budget .9 To maintain the robust American lead in military capabilities, it must continue to spend large, but absolutely affordable, sums . And it is affordable. While the amount of U.S. defense spending certainly is a large sum, it is only about 4 percent of its gross domestic product, as Table 1.3 illustrates. An examination of the data in the table is remarkable for four reasons. First, U.S. defense spending is about half of the worlds total defense spending. Second, the United States spends more than almost all the other major military powers in the world combined. Of course, most of those major military powers are also allies of the United States. Third, U.S. defense spending is very low when measured as a percentage of its economy, about 3.7 percent of its total economy. Fourth, defense spending at that level is easily affordable for the United States into the future.

Imperial overstretch is impossible this evidence isolates several reasons that heg won't collapse the economy. 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, p. 20-25 ]
The United States is the worlds largest and most efficient economy. Its currency is the worlds reserve currency, it fosters and protects international trade and helps to serve as the lender of last resort for the world economy. Additionally, the United States is enjoying historically low levels of inflation, unemployment, and interest rates . However, despite this unrivaled economic dominance, no economy is perfect. The U.S. economy certainly has problems, such as a large
federal budget deficit and a considerable current account deficit (the difference between what Americans earn from and pay to foreigners). [end page 20] Continuing deficits have made the United States the worlds leading debtor. But neither deficits nor debt are a major problem for the United States.

The federal budget deficit may be serviced by selling bonds, raising taxes, or reducing the spending of the federal government. Unlike the budget deficit, the current account deficit is not something the United States wholly controls since it involves international trade. The United States must borrow money from abroad to service the debt if Americans choose not to save their disposable income. And Americans love to spend, rather than save, their money. Much of the current account deficit is due to China and, to a lesser extent, Japan. That actually is good news for the current account deficit of the United States because the Chinese, Japanese, and other central banks in East Asia have an enormous stake in selling to the United States. These economies depend on exports, and the United States is an enormous market for their products and services. To ensure that their currency is weak against the American dollar, which is good for their export industries, they keep buying dollars and securities based on the dollar . If they did not, the dollar would lose value against the Chinese currency (the renminbi), causing Chinese imports to cost more, resulting in fewer Americans buying them, in turn causing a loss of jobs and downturn in the Chinese economy at a critical timemillions of Chinese are moving from rural areas to the cities to seek manufacturing jobs. If there were a substantial downturn in the Chinese economy, unemployment could lead to political unrest. The communist leaders of China are acutely aware of this, since economic problems fueled the revolution in which they took power .

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Economic Hegemony Decline Now

(continued from previous page nothing cut)
Prominent historian Niall Ferguson estimates that if the dollar fell by one-third against the renminbi, the Chinese could suffer a loss of about 10 percent of their GDP.27 That would be catastrophic, and so it is unacceptable to the Chinese.

Thus, Chinas economic interest requires it to fund the current account deficit of the United States. The United States may be discovering what the British found in their imperial heyday, Ferguson writes; that is, If you are a truly powerful empire, you can borrow a lot of money at surprisingly reasonable rates. Todays deficits are in fact dwarfed in
relative terms by the amount the British borrowed to finance their Global War on (French) Terror between 1793 to 1815and the British Empire lasted another 150 years.28

Despite problems, the American economy is both huge and robust, and it continues to grow at healthy rates . Depending on how one counts the numbers, the U.S. economy accounts for between 20 to 30 percent of world GDP. Moreover, the United States is the worlds most productive country and still leads the World in innovation according
to the World Economic Forum (WEF), an organization that measures the competitiveness of countries around the world. Each year, it publishes a ranking of each countrys economic competitiveness. This is comprised of the quality of the macroeconomic environment of a given country, the health of its public institutions, and its technological [end page 21 pages 22 and 23 are graphs/tables] sophistication. Traditionally the United States is ranked first or second. In 2004, it was ranked second of 104 countries, behind only Finland (China is 46th). According to the World Economic Forum, the United States is ranked second, with overall technological supremacy, and especially high scores for such indicators as companies spending on R&D [research and development], the creativity of the scientific community, personal computer and internet penetration rates.29 Also in 2004, the United States was first in the WEFs rankings for business competitiveness (China is 47th) and technological innovation (China is 104th) a critical indication of long-term prosperity. Nor is the 2004 ranking an aberration; the United States historically ranks first in those categories of global competitiveness. The U.S. economy continues to grow and, most importantly, much of its productivity is based on the information technology (IT) revolution. Significantly, this is not the case in Europe or Japan, where substantial growth has yet to occur (as in Europe) or has peaked (as in Japan). According to economist Deepak Lal, the big difference in the productivity increases between the U.S. and Europe has been in the sectors that are substantial users of IT equipment I and software, and these industries are the key to continued economic growth in the information age.3 The United Statess lead in IT may be overcome a some point, perhaps by China, but not in the

foreseeable future, as the United States remains the worlds IT leader. In turn, this helps to ensure the military dominance of the United States, as so much military technology depends on information technology . Given the historical economic growth rates of these countries, it is unlikely that any of them (or the EU) will be able to reach the levels of economic growth required to match current U.S. defense spending and, thus, supplant the United States. China comes closest with 6.6 percent annual economic growth estimated by the World Bank through 2020, or the 7 percent annual
economic growth estimated by the World Economic Forum through 2020.31 It is not even clear if China can sustain its growth rates and, other than China, no other country is even in the ballpark. Table 1.5 shows the sustained economic growth rates necessary to match the present military spending by the United States. Thus, the economy is well placed to be the engine of the American Empire. Even the leading proponent of the imperial overstretch argument, Yale University historian Paul Kennedy, has acknowledged this. Imperial overstretch

occurs when an empires military power and alliance commitments are too burdensome for its economy. In the 1980s, there was much concern among academics that the United States was in danger of this as its economy strained to fund its military operations and alliance commitments abroad. However, Kennedy now acknowledges that he was wrong when he made that argument in his famous book , The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, because of the robustness of American economic and military power. Indeed, if there is any [end page 24] imperial overstretch, it is more likely to be by China, France, Britain, India, Russia, or the EUnot the United States . Reflecting on the history of world politics, Kennedy submits that the United States not only has overwhelming dominance but possesses such power so as to be a historically unique condition: Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing. I have returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close, not even an empire as great as the British, because even the Royal Navy was equal only to the next two navies. Right now all the other navies in the world combined could not dent American maritime supremacy. Moreover, Kennedy recognizes that the steady economic growth of the American economy, and the curbing of inflation, means that Americas enormous defense expenditures could be pursued at a far lower relative cost to the country than the military spending of Ronald Reagans years, and that fact is an incomparable source of the U.S. strength. When Kennedy, who was perhaps the strongest skeptic of the economic foundation of Americas power, comes to acknowledge, first, that no previous empire has been as powerful as America is now; and, second, that its strength will last because of the fundamental soundness of its economy, then, as Jeff Foxworthy would say, You might be an empire.. .. And it is one that will last a Considerable amount of time. As with its military might, the economic foundation of the American empire is sound for the projected future.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Economic Overstretch
U.S. HEGEMONY IS ON SOLID ECONOMIC GROUND; NO RISK OF OVERSTRETCH NOW OR IN THE FUTURE David H. Levey recently retired after 19 years as Managing Director of Moody's Sovereign Ratings Service. Stuart S. Brown is Professor of Economics and International Relations in the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs, 2005 (Foreign Affairs, March-April 2005 v84 i2 p2 The Overstretch Myth Can the Indispensable Nation Be a Debtor Nation?) Would-be Cassandras have been predicting the imminent downfall of the American imperium ever since its inception. First came Sputnik and "the missile gap," followed by Vietnam, Soviet nuclear parity, and the Japanese economic challenge--a cascade of decline encapsulated by Yale historian Paul Kennedy's 1987 "overstretch" thesis. The resurgence of U.S. economic and political power in the 1990s momentarily put such fears to rest. But recently, a new threat to the sustainability of U.S. hegemony has emerged: excessive dependence on foreign capital and growing foreign debt. As former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has said, "there is something odd about the world's greatest power being the world's greatest debtor." The U.S. economy, according to doubters, rests on an unsustainable accumulation of foreign debt. Fueled by government profligacy and low private savings rates, the current account deficit--the difference between what U.S. residents spend abroad and what they earn abroad in a year--now stands at almost six percent of GDP; total net foreign liabilities are approaching a quarter of GDP. Sudden unwillingness by investors abroad to continue adding to their already large dollar assets, in this scenario, would set off a panic, causing the dollar to tank, interest rates to skyrocket, and the U.S. economy to descend into crisis, dragging the rest of the world down with it. Despite the persistence and pervasiveness of this doomsday prophecy, U.S. hegemony is in reality solidly grounded: it rests on an economy that is continually extending its lead in the innovation and application of new technology, ensuring its continued appeal for foreign central banks and private investors. The dollar's role as the global monetary standard is not threatened, and the risk to U.S. financial stability posed by large foreign liabilities has been exaggerated. To be sure, the economy will at some point have to adjust to a decline in the dollar and a rise in interest rates. But these trends will at worst slow the growth of U.S. consumers' standard of living, not undermine the United States' role as global pacesetter. If anything, the world's appetite for U.S. assets bolsters U.S. predominance rather than undermines it.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Answers to: Foreign Debt Causes Overstretch

U.S. DEBT WONT DESTROY ITS ECONOMY
David H. Levey recently retired after 19 years as Managing Director of Moody's Sovereign Ratings Service. Stuart S. Brown is Professor of Economics and International Relations in the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs, 2005 (Foreign Affairs, March-April 2005 v84 i2 p2 The Overstretch Myth Can the Indispensable Nation Be a Debtor Nation?) Discussion of the United States' "net foreign debt" conjures up images of countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Turkey, evoking the currency collapses and economic crises they have suffered as models for a coming U.S. meltdown. There are key differences, however, between those emerging-market cases and the current condition of the global hegemon. The United States' external liabilities are denominated in its own currency, which remains the global monetary standard, and its economy remains on the frontier of global technological innovation, attracting foreign capital as well as immigrant labor with its rapid growth and the high returns it generates for investors. The statistic at the center of the foreign debt debate is the net international investment position (NIIP), the value of foreign assets owned by U.S. residents minus the value of U.S. assets owned by nonresidents. Until 1989, the United States was a creditor to the rest of the world; the NIIP peaked at almost 13 percent of GDP in 1980. But chronic current account deficits ever since have given the United States the largest net liabilities in world history. Since foreign claims on the United States ($10.5 trillion) exceed U.S. claims abroad ($7.9 trillion), the NIIP is now negative: -$2.6 trillion at the start of 2004, or -24 percent of GDP. Unpacking the NIIP gives a better sense of the risk it actually poses. It has two components: direct investment, the value of domestic operations directly controlled by a foreign company; and financial liabilities, the value of stocks, bonds, and bank deposits held overseas. At the start of 2004, foreign direct investment in the United States was $2.4 trillion, while U.S. direct investment abroad was about $2.7 trillion. (Direct investment is relatively stable, changing mostly in response to changes in expected long-term profitability.) Removing direct investment from the equation leaves $5.1 trillion in U.S.held foreign financial assets versus $8.1 trillion in U.S. financial assets held by foreign investors. This last figure represents a whopping 74 percent of U.S. GDP--a statistic that would seem to give ample cause for alarm. But considering foreign ownership of U.S. financial assets as a percentage of GDP is less enlightening than comparing it to the total available stock of U.S. financial assets. At the start of 2004, total U.S. securities amounted to $33.4 trillion (some 50 percent of the world total). Foreign investors held more than 38 percent of the $4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, but only 11 percent of the $6.1 trillion in agency bonds (such as those issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); 23 percent of the $6.5 trillion in corporate bonds; and 11 percent of the $15.5 trillion in equities outstanding. These foreign liabilities are the result of a string of current account deficits that have grown from 1.5 percent of GDP in the mid-1990s to an estimated 5.7 percent of GDP--about $650 billion--in 2004. Economists at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimate that ongoing deficits of 3 percent of GDP would bring the U.S. NIIP to -40 percent of GDP by 2010, and that it would eventually stabilize at around -63 percent. If the deficit remains at today's level, they foresee the NIIP growing to -50 percent of GDP by 2010 and eventually to -100 percent. These estimates, however, fail to consider that future dollar depreciation and market adjustments in interest rates and asset prices will likely check the increase of the NIIP. Dollar depreciation against the euro and the yen in 2002 and 2003 kept the NIIP flat despite large current account deficits. The same result is likely for 2004 (final numbers will not be available until the end of June). Thus, although the NIIP will surely continue to grow for many years to come, its increase will be far less dramatic than many economists fear. False Alarm The real question is just how much the United States' deteriorating NIIP threatens to undermine the economic foundations of U.S. hegemony. The precise answer depends on whether you explain current account deficits in terms of trade, domestic savings and investment, or the composition of global wealth. In each case, though, the risks are far less dire than they are made out to be. And in many ways, chronic current account deficits reflect strong economic fundamentals rather than fatal structural flaws.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Answers to: Foreign Debt Causes Overstretch

(continued) deficit because it grows faster than its trading partners and spends a disproportionate share of its growing income on imported goods and services. An alternative perspective takes as its point of departure the accounting identity that equates the current account deficit with the difference between total investment in the United States and U.S. domestic saving. Low domestic saving, according to this view, is to blame for deficits. The fear is that a sudden reluctance by foreigners to continue exporting their excess savings to the United States would choke off the investment needed to sustain economic growth, sending the U.S. economy into crisis. This explanation becomes less alarming, however, when you consider that both savings and investment are seriously undervalued in U.S. economic accounts. Capital gains on equities, 401(k) plans, and home values are excluded from measurements of personal saving; when they are added, total U.S. domestic saving is around 20 percent of GDP--about the same rate as in other developed economies. The national account also excludes "intangible" investment: spending on knowledge-creating activities such as on-the-job training, new-product development and testing, design and blueprint experimentation, and managerial time spent on workplace organization. Economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research estimate that intangible investment grew rapidly during the 1990s and is now at least as large as physical investment in plant and equipment: more than $1 trillion per year, or 10 percent of GDP. Consequently, the size and growth rate of the U.S. economy have been seriously underestimated. In fact, when tangible and intangible investment are both counted, the apparent (and much decried) increase in consumer spending as a share of GDP turns out to be a statistical artifact. A third approach to the current account deficit focuses on the growth and composition of global wealth. In this framework, international capital movements drive the current account balance, rather than vice versa. With the United States expected to grow faster than Europe and Japan over the next several decades and wealth growing rapidly in Asia-- especially in China and India--it makes sense that foreign investors will continue to flock to U.S. financial markets. This could generate a sequence of U.S. deficits as high as 5 percent of GDP, causing the NIIP to balloon. But such an increase would not mean an end to the foreign appetite for U.S. assets; NIIP ratios that appear dangerously high relative to U.S. GDP would be sustainable because of the rapid growth of global wealth. U.S. financial markets have stayed strong even as the financing of the U.S. deficit shifts from private investors to foreign central banks (from 2000 to 2003, the official institutional share of investment inflows rose from 4 percent to 30 percent). A large percentage of the $1.3 trillion in Asian governments' foreign exchange reserves is in U.S. assets; central banks now claim about 12 percent of total foreign-owned assets in the United States, including more than $1 trillion in Treasury and agency securities. Official inflows from Asia will likely continue for the foreseeable future, keeping U.S. interest rates from rising too fast and choking off investment. In a series of recent papers, economists Michael Dooley, David Folkerts- Landau, and Peter Garber maintain that Asian governments--pursuing a "mercantilist" development strategy of undervalued exchange rates to support export-led growth--must continue to finance U.S. imports of their manufactured goods, since the United States is their largest market and a major source of inward direct investment. Only a fundamental transformation in Asia's growth strategy could undermine this mutually advantageous interdependence--an unlikely prospect at least until China absorbs the 300 million peasants expected to move into its
industrial and service sectors over the next generation. Even the widely anticipated loosening of China's exchange-rate peg would not alter the imperatives of this overriding structural transformation. Ronald McKinnon of Stanford argues that Asian governments will continue to prevent their currencies from depreciating too much in order to maintain competitiveness, avoid imposing capital losses on domestic holders

Official Asian capital inflows, moreover, should soon be supplemented by a renewal of private inflows responding to the next stage of the information technology (it) revolution. Technological revolutions unfold in stages over many decades. The it revolution had its roots in World War II and has proceeded via the development of the mainframe computer, the integrated circuit, the microprocessor, and the personal computer to culminate in the union of computers and telecommunications that has brought the Internet. The United States--thanks to its openness, its low regulatory burden, its flexible labor and capital markets, a positive environment for new business formation, and a financial market that supports new technology--has dominated every phase of this technological wave. The spread of the IT revolution to additional sectors and new industries thus makes a revival of U.S.-bound private capital flows likely.
of dollar assets, and reduce the risk of an economic slowdown that could lead to a deflationary spiral. According to both theories, there should be no breakdown of the current dollar-based regime.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Answers to: Dollar Collapse

DOLLAR COLLAPSE WONT TRIGGER A MASSIVE INVESMENT WITHDRAWL
David H. Levey recently retired after 19 years as Managing Director of Moody's Sovereign Ratings Service. Stuart S. Brown is Professor of Economics and International Relations in the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs, 2005 (Foreign Affairs, March-April 2005 v84 i2 p2 The Overstretch Myth Can the Indispensable Nation Be a Debtor Nation?) Whichever perspective on the current account one favors, the United States cannot escape a growing external debt. The "hegemony skeptics" fear such debt will lead to a collapse of the U.S. dollar triggered by a precipitous unloading of U.S. assets. Such a selloff could result--as in emerging-market crises--if investors suddenly conclude that U.S. foreign debt has become unsustainably large. A panicky "capital flight" would ensue, as investors raced for the exits to avoid the falling dollar and plunging stock and bond prices. But even if such a sharp break occurs--which is less likely than a gradual adjustment of exchange rates and interest rates--market-based adjustments will mitigate the consequences. Responding to a relative price decline in U.S. assets and likely Federal Reserve action to raise interest rates, U.S. investors (arguably accompanied by bargain-hunting foreign investors) would repatriate some of their $4 trillion in foreign holdings in order to buy (now undervalued) assets, tempering the price decline for domestic stocks and bonds. A significant repatriation of funds would thus slow the pace of the dollar decline and the rise in rates. The ensuing recession, combined with the cheaper dollar, would eventually combine to improve the trade balance. Although the period of global rebalancing would be painful for U.S. consumers and workers, it would be even harder on the European and Japanese economies, with their propensity for deflation and stagnation. Such a transitory adjustment would be unpleasant, but it would not undermine the economic foundations of U.S. hegemony.

THE U.S. DOLLAR WILL CINTINUE TO DRIVE GLOBAL TRADE

David H. Levey recently retired after 19 years as Managing Director of Moody's Sovereign Ratings Service. Stuart S. Brown is Professor of Economics and International Relations in the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs, 2005 (Foreign Affairs, March-April 2005 v84 i2 p2 The Overstretch Myth Can the Indispensable Nation Be a Debtor Nation?) The U.S. dollar will remain dominant in global trade, payments, and capital flows, based as it is in a country with safe, well-regulated financial markets. Provided U.S. firms maintain their entrepreneurial edge--and despite much anxiety, there is little reason to expect otherwise--global asset managers will continue to want to hold portfolios rich in U.S. corporate stocks and bonds. Although foreign private demand for U.S. assets will fluctuate--witness the slowdown in purchases that precipitated the decline in the U.S. dollar in 2002 and 2003--rapid growth of world financial wealth will allow the proportion of U.S. assets held by foreigners to increase.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

No Military Hegemony Decline Now

US military power is uber-high in the squo. 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. 12-13]
The U.S. military is the best in the world and it has been so since end of World War II. No country has deployed its forces in so many countries and varied climatesfrom the Arctic to the Antarcticfrom below the sea to outer space. [end page 12] No country is better able to fight wars of any type, from guerrilla conflicts to major campaigns on the scale of World War II. No country or likely alliance has the ability to defeat the U.S. military on the battlefield. Thus, measured on either an absolute or relative (that is, comparing the U.S. military to the militaries of other countries) scale, American military power is overwhelming. Indeed, it is the greatest that it has ever been . This is not by accident. The United States has worked assiduously, particularly since 1940, to produce the best military. The causes of American military predominance include extensive training and professional education, high morale, good military doctrine, frequency of use, learning from other militaries in the right circumstances, exceptional equipment and sound maintenance, and high levels of defense spending .

Despite challenges, military strength is high the military is incredibly adaptive and has high-quality officers. 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. 18]
Although the United States is the dominant military power at this time, and will remain so into the foreseeable future, this does not mean that it does not suffer from problems within its own military , many of which are being addressed. The defense transformation efforts started by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are attempts to make the U.S. military more combat effective and efficient. The U.S. military is the best, but no one would claim that it is perfect. However, a large part of the reason the U.S. military is the best is because it is constantly evaluating its problems so that it may solve them. Many people do not realize this. Despite a common image of the military in American popular culture as lowbrow and full of Cletus-the-Slack-Jawed-Yokel characters from The Simpsons television show, the military is comprised of some of the smartest and best-educated people you will ever meet. Most mid- and high-ranking officers have masters or even doctoral (Ph.D.) degrees. These are people who would be very successful in corporate careers but choose the military because of their patriotism and desire to serve their country.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

A2: Layne Primacy Sustainable / No Overstretch

Layne is wrong about imperial overstretch heg is sustainable and off-shore balancing doesn't save enough money to justify the risk. Gary J. SCHMITT, Director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies and Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2007
["Pax Americana," The Weekly Standard, Posted Online March 5th, Published March 12th, Available Online at http://www.aei.org/publications/ pubID.25706,filter.all/pub_detail.asp]
And speaking of money: Layne's argument about looming imperial overstretch is itself a stretch. Even with all the problems in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and an emerging hedging strategy vis-a-vis China, the defense burden is still barely over 4 percent of the country's gross domestic product. The United States has certainly had far higher defense burdens in the past, while still retaining its status as the world's economic juggernaut. There may be plenty of reasons to worry about the country's economy, but "guns over butter" is hardly one of them. Moreover, while pulling back from a forward-leaning defense strategy would undoubtedly save money, offshore balancing would still require

the United States to have a major military establishment in reserve if it wanted to be capable of being a decisive player in a game of great power balancing. Is the $100 billion or so saved--or, rather, spent by Congress on "bridges to nowhere"--really worth the loss in global influence that comes from adopting Layne's strategy?

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

A2: Layne Primacy = Bandwagoning

Primacy spurs bandwagoning Layne is wrong about counterbalancing. Bradley A. THAYER, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, 2007
["Reply to Christopher Layne: The Strength of the American Empire," American Empire: A Debate, Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415952034, p. 107-108]
Third, countries want to align themselves with the United States. Far from there being a backlash against the United States, there is worldwide bandwagoning with it. The vast majority of countries in international politics have alliances with the United States. There are approximately 192 countries in the world, ranging from the size of giants like Russia to Lilliputians like Vanuatu. Of that number, you can count with one hand the countries opposed to the United States China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. Once the leaders of Cuba and Venezuela change, there is every reason to believe that those countries will be allied with the United States, as they were before their present rulersFidel Castro and Hugo Chavezcame to power. North Korea will collapse someday, removing that threat, although not without significant danger to the countries in the region. Of these states, only China has the potential power to confront the United States. The potential power of China should not be underestimated, but neither should the formidable power of the United States and its allies. There is an old saying that you can learn a lot about someone by looking at his friends (or enemies). It may be true about people, but it is certainly true of the United States. Of the 192 countries in existence, a great number, 84, are allied with the United States, and they include almost all of the major economic and military states. This includes twenty-five members of NATO (excluding the United StatesBelgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom); fourteen major non-NATO allies (Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Jordan, New Zealand, Argentina, Bahrain, Philippines, Thailand, Kuwait, Morocco, and Pakistan); nineteen Rio Pact members (excluding Argentina and VenezuelaThe Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay [end page 106], Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay); seven Caribbean Regional Security System members (Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), and thirteen members of the Iraq coalition who are not captured by the other categories: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Fiji, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Singapore, Tonga, and Ukraine. In addition, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Tunisia are now important U.S. allies. This is a ratio of almost 17 to 1 (84 to 5) of the countries allied with the United States against those who are opposed to it. And other states may be added to the list of allies. For example, a country like Nigeria is essentially pro-United States although there is no formal security arrangement between those countries. This situation is unprecedented in international politics never have so many countries been aligned with the dominant state in modern history. As Figure 3.1 demonstrates, it is a big change from the Cold War when most of the countries of the world were aligned either with the United States (approximately forty-five) or the Soviet Union (about twenty-four countries), [end page 107] as captured by Figure 3.2. Figure 3.3 illuminates the ratio of states aligned with the United States to those opposed to it in the post-Cold War period. So, while we are entitled to our own opinions about international politics, we not entitled to our own facts. They must be acknowledged. In the post-Cold War world, the United States is much better offit is much more powerful and more securethan was during the Cold War. What is more, many of the allies of the United States have become more dependent on the United States for their security than during the Cold War. For many years now, most NATO countries have only spent a fraction of their budget on defense, and it is not transparent how they would defend themselves if not for the United States did not. Only six of the twenty-five members of NATO (not counting the United States) are spending 2 percent or more of their GDP on defense, while nineteen spend less than 2 percent. Such a low level of defense spending is possible only because of the security provided by the United States.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

A2: Layne War On Terrorism Is Winnable

The war on terror is winnable -- a commitment to victory is key. 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. 3941]
The Threat from Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism: Dangerous but Manageable The terrorist attacks of 9/11 demonstrated the danger the terrorist group al Qaeda poses to the United States. In the wake of that attack, the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which sheltered al Qaeda, and to put great pressure on al Qaedas members and finances throughout the world. Great progress has been made in the war against al Qaeda. The United States has been successful at undermining that terrorist network, the Department of Homeland Security has been created to aid the defense of American territory, and, most importantly, no attacks have occurred on American soil since 9/11. But the war on terrorism is at root a war of ideas. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld explained 2003, all elements of national power: military, financial, diplomatic, law enforcement, intelligence and public diplomacy, are necessary to win the war on terror. But, he added, to win the war on terror, we must also win the war of ideas. Military, diplomatic, and other elements are necessary to stop terrorists before they can terrorize, but even better, we must lean forward and top them from becoming terrorists in the first place.55 Winning the war of ideas is critical to keeping people from becoming terrorists. Americans need to

remember that their country has fought and won wars of ideas before. World War II was a war of ideas between liberalism and fascism. The Cold War took the war of ideas to new heights . Few Americans comprehend how attractive
communism was in a Europe destroyed by World War II. Communism seemed to offer a better life and, in many countries, such s Prance and Italy, the communists had a solid record of fighting the Germans. Nonetheless, the United States engaged communism in a war of ideas and won. It can also win the physical battle with the few extremists in the Islamic world who are motivated by a

contorted fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. The majority of Muslims are not fundamentalists, and in fact reject fundamentalism as simply wrong. Leading Sunni scholars have stigmatized fundamentalism as aberrant a perversion of the religion. Even to most Muslims who are fundamentalists, al Qaeda is seen as a deviant group that is wrong to use terrorism as a weapon against innocent civilians, including their coreligionists (many of al Qaedas victims have been Muslim), governments in the Islamic world, and the West. [end page 39] To combat al Qaeda, the United States must take the following actions. First, it has to stress that the war on terrorism is not conducted by the West against Muslims, but is a struggle between al Qaeda, which wants to take the Muslim world into the twelfth century, and those who want to bring it into the twenty-first. Americans must realize that we have many allies in the Muslim world. Like the Cold War, the war against terrorism is not a war we fight alone . The United States has many
allies not only in Europe and northeast Asia, like Japan but, more importantly for this struggle, it has numerous allies in the Muslim world. In fact, when one examines the U.S. allies in the region, what is remarkable is the amount of support that Washington has among the governments in the Middle East. The major allies of the United States at the end of the Cold War remainEgypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are strong allies. Moreover, from Morocco to the Gulf, most of the smaller states in the Arab world are allied with the United States. Jordan is a reliable ally, as is Morocco. This provides the United States with a powerful foundation from which to exert influence within and outside of the Middle East . Even Libya has made a dramatic about-face. In 2003, it renounced its weapons of mass destruction program and now is changing from being one of the most anti-American countries to one that is beginning to support the United States and the West as it seeks to integrate into the global economy. Indeed, of all the states in

the Middle East, only Iran and Syria remain outside the orb of U.S. influence. From Morocco to Indonesia, the vast majority of the countries of the Arab and, more broadly, Muslim world are allied with the United States . Second, the United States must have the will to conduct this war. It will be a long conflict with setbacks, including other terrorist attacks against American targets at home and abroad. The American people need to be steeled for a long campaignone that George W. Bush will pass on to his successor, and the one after that. There were nine U.S. presidents during the Cold War, and we should expect a like number in this campaign . To its credit, the administration is taking many of the right steps and has labored assiduously to place pressure on at Qaeda as rapidly as possible to weaken it. It has evicted at Qaeda from its training camps in Afghanistan and labored to cut off at Qaedas considerable financial resources. It is attempting to extinguish all of the known cells at once, from Germany to Kenya to Malaysia, by placing pressure on the governments . There will be no quick and easy victory against al Qaeda and its related and spin-off terrorist groups, but there will be victory. It will not be like the end of World War II, where there was a surrender ceremony on the decks of the USS Missouri; this does not happen when terrorist groups are defeatedthey usually just wither away. This might happen as terrorist organizations splinter into impotence and gradually die as the social and political conditions in the Muslim world change, making al Qaeda and similar groups political [end page 40] dinosaurs in the age of mammals. Or perhapsmuch like the Provisional IRAformer terrorists could melt into established political life of some countries in the Islamic world .

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

A2: Layne War On Terrorism Is Winnable

(continued from previous page nothing cut)
The American victory in the war against at Qaeda begins by recognizing that terrorist organizations not only can be defeated but, indeed, often are. Almost all of the left-wing terrorist organizations of the Cold War were defeated-from the Weather Underground in the United States to the Japanese Red Army, the Red Army faction in Germany, and the Red Brigades in Italy. The Peruvians defeated the Shining Path. The British fought the IRA to a standstill. The French defeated Corsican nationalists and the communist terrorist group Direct Action. The Algerians have successfully suppressed the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), an especially vicious terrorist organization
that killed well over one hundred thousand people between 1990 and 2000 in Algeria and France.56 In 1994, a GIA terrorist thankfully was thwarted from flying an Air France aircraft into the Eiffel Toweran attack that served as a template for the 9/11 attacks in the United States. Spain has greatly weakened the Basque separatist terrorist group ETA. The Turks have emasculated the PKK (now called New PKK). The

Israelis defeated the PLO, as did the Jordanians. And while the Israelis have not destroyed the three major terrorist groups, Fatah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, they have been extremely effective at penetrating these groups to prevent attacks. Attacks have declined 60 percent between 2003 and 2004there were only six suicide bombings in Israel and eight in the occupied
territoriesand the Israelis believe they foiled 114 planned suicide bombings in 2004. Reflecting on the decline of these groups over the last few years, the Israel internal security organization, Shin Bet, estimates that it prevents 90 percent of attacks before they occur. The Egyptians have broken the

back of the Islamic Group and of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. So while it is true that at Qaeda should not be underestimatedit is motivated, competent, and resilientit does have vulnerabilities and can be defeated, just as many terrorist groups before it were.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

A2: Layne Iraq War Was/Is Good

The Iraq war was justified and successful removing Hussein was worth the cost. Bradley A. THAYER, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, 2007
["Reply to Christopher Layne: The Strength of the American Empire," American Empire: A Debate, Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415952034, p. 110-112]
This should not be a surprise, since much of the American media persistently shows a country of bombings and chaos. Most Americans do not have the time to get their news from other, more objective sources that illuminate the good, the bad, and the ugly in Iraq, rather than just the bad (terrorism) and ugly (corruption). Too frequently, the goodIraqs liberation and path toward democratic ruleis not emphasized. Countless American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have complained about the coverage of Iraq by the American media and have argued that such negative coverage ignores the great improvements taking place in Iraq, undermines the support of the American people for the efforts of the military, and aids the insurgency, making the job of the military that much harder. You can find these accounts online, in blogs and other news sources. It takes effort to bypass big media corporations, or, at least, access to the Internet and a bit of time to gain a more accurate impression. But because not everyone has the time, there is a common perception that Iraq is in chaos. That impression is wholly wrong. Iraq has gone from an authoritarian country to a free country with a constitution. Iraqis are voting in elections for the first time in their lives. More Iraqis participate in the electoral process than Americans. In 90 percent of Iraq, peace and stability reign, and people see the U.S. military as liberators and want to work with the United States as a partner in the region. That is the success of Iraqand it is a success. To be sure, with economic and political modernization there will be ups and downs. No country has transitioned without profound difficulties from the misrule of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein through liberation to its social and physical reconstruction after generations of horrible abuses and great neglect. But the slope of the curve is positive; Iraq is becoming stronger and more stable every day. Elections are a major indication of progress, and demonstrate that the vast majority of Iraqis support the government. Iraq has about 14 million eligible voters, and 11 million voted in 2005. Its voter participation rate puts the United States to shame. It is common wisdom that the Kurds and Shia support the government, but now the majority of Sunnis do as well. For example, voter turnout from the mostly Sunni province of Anbar climbed from 2 percent in the elections of January 30, 2005, when Sunnis where opposed to the government, to 55 percent in the elections of December 2005. [end page 110] When Iraq is a free and stable country, when its economy flourishes due to its oil wealth, when tourists flock to wonder at the remnants of ancient Babylon, what will those who belittled the Iraqi reconstruction and stabilization efforts say? There will come a day when they have to respond to the facts on the ground and admit that Iraq has been restored to its rightful place in the community of nations and as a leader in the Arab world. To get to that day, the United States labors to resolve two problems. The first is the insurgency, which is comprised of foreign jihadists who have come to Iraq to fight the United States and the new Iraqi government; criminals who were let loose by Saddam before the invasion in March 2003; and diehard Baathists who dream of restoring Saddam Hussein to power and who comprise most of the insurgents. Second, there is the risk of civil war among the three major groups in Iraq: the Shia (about 60 percent of Iraqs population), Sunni (between 15 and 20 percent), and Kurds (approximately 17 percent). The risk of civil war is reduced as long as a large U.S. military force is present in Iraq. Its risk is disappearing as the new Iraqi government finds its strength. The insurgency is a danger the United States confronts now. The insurgency can be defeated and is being defeated by following the classic prescription for doing soadvancing economic, political, and social changes simultaneously with improving the lives of the Iraqi people. Principally, these measures will be done by the Iraqis themselves, not by the United States. One of the foremost experts on guerrilla warfare, T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia because he led the Arab guerrilla war against the Ottoman Empire in World War I, famously described fighting an insurgency as learning how to eat soup with a knife. 3

That is, counterinsurgency operations are messy and they take a longtime. The Iraqi and American people and their militaries have to understand both points. Fighting the insurgency in Iraq is messy at times there is great violence, innocent people are hurt or killed, soldiers are killed brutally, and Iraqi governmental forces are targeted by the insurgents. Both the U.S. and Iraqi forces must have the will power to endure this difficult situation.

(continued on next page)

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

A2: Layne Iraq War Was/Is Good

(continued from previous page nothing cut)
Prodigious progress is being made. The infrastructure of Iraq is being rebuilt, and life has returned to normal for the vast majority of Iraqis. But progress takes time, just as eating soup with a knife does. Indeed, time is probably the most important factor for counterinsurgencies. Time is necessary to convince the proSaddam diehards in the insurgent movement that Saddam and Baath rule are never coming backthe new Iraq is here to stay. Time is necessary to weaken the insurgency gradually and bring its members to realize that their path is a dead end. The new Iraq is passing them by. Every campaign against guerrilla movements takes timeat least a half a decade, and sometimes several decades. The American and Iraqi people must realize that the counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq will take many years, and they must have the will to stick it out, to persevere through the low points in [end page 111] the campaign against the guerrillas. The insurgency is roughly fixed in size, it is not likely to grow or decline rapidly, and, as history has proven of most insurgencies, they are resilient. Table 3.1 provides important context for the insurgency in Iraq. Historically, major insurgencies averaged a little over thirteen years to resolve. The United States is undermining guerrillas and destroying their cohesion by demonstrating the integrity and competence of the new government in Iraqthe new government is working for the people of Iraq, all elements of the Iraqi population, and it is an encouraging sign that the Sunni Population is participating in the political process. In contrast, the insurgents want to take the Iraqi people back to the bad old days of torture, executions, and misery under Saddam Hussein and Baath Party rule. The insurgents murder innocent Iraqis and attack Iraqi and Coalition troops but offer no positive vision for the people of Iraq. They can offer only intimidation, subjugation, and hatred. This malicious message resonates less and less with the Iraqi people and with others in the region. Commentators often speak of the Arab Street, popular opinion in the Arab world, and warn that it will erupt against the United States. The assumption is that the Arab Street will always be opposed to the United States and its allies. The evidence does not support that. In December 2005, the Arab Street did erupt, but it did so against Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Over two hundred thousand Jordanians protested his terror attacks in Jordan and Iraq. This shows that Arabs, just as everyone else, are fed up with the senseless killing conducted by the insurgents in Iraq.

Their Iraq war is a success liberating its people has paved the way for democracy and U.S. leadership. Bradley A. THAYER, Associate Professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, 2007
["Reply to Christopher Layne: The Strength of the American Empire," American Empire: A Debate, Published by Routledge, ISBN 0415952034, p. 115-116]
The United States will be successful in Iraq, and the insurgency will wither away, despite the best efforts of Iran to keep it going. But Americans must understand that an independent and free Iraq will not be a toady or pawn of the United States. The United States may expect to have significant differences with a free Iraq, and this may cause frustration in Washington. When Iraqs interests coincide with those of the United States, Washington may expect to be able to work closely with Baghdad. In other words, we may expect Iraq not to be subservient to the United States, but an ally of it: a major reason for America to have fought to liberate Iraq from tyranny. Most poignantly, in 2006, U.S. Army Colonel H.R. McMaster, who was a hero in Operation Desert Storm, reflected on his long experience in Iraq as commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment and what he could communicate to the American people to permit them to understand the conditions in Iraq: I was patrolling after an attack on police recruits. It was a suicide attack immediately after the operation. And I was walking with a small element up the street of Hasan Koy, which previously was a hostile area. I saw an Iraqi coming toward me on crutches, a young man, and I thought, well, this is an insurgent, a terrorist... .So I went up to him and started asking him some questions. It turns out he was wounded in that attack where he was waiting in line to be recruited for the Iraqi police. He was now walking on crutches across town to join the Iraqi army so he could defeat these terrorists and bring security to his family. guess what people dont get to see is, they dont get to see how resolute and how determined these courageous Iraqis are. And the other thing I wish we could communicate more clearly is the relationships weve developed with people. I mean, weve made lifetime friends among the good Iraqi people. So the Iraqi people you tend to see most on coverage.. .are the ones.. .who are conducting attacks against us.. ..But there are so many good people in this country who deserve security and who [end page 115] are doing everything they can to build a future for their families, their towns and their country.4 A major step in remaking the Middle East began with Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a result of the success of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States has been able to foster change in the region from Lebanon to Iraq. The change has been along the following parameters. First, regimes opposed to the interests of the United States are pressured to reform or face the possibility of being removed. Second, the United States should spread democracy in the Middle East if this can be accomplished without hurting existing friendly regimes.5 This is part of a larger effort to promote liberal democracy around the world. The more liberal democracies there are in the world, the more congenial for the United States and the easier it is for the United States to maintain its hegemony.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

A2: Layne Layne Relies On Ad Homs

Layne relies on ad homs his arguments rely on anger, not logic. Gary J. SCHMITT, Director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies and Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2007
["Pax Americana," The Weekly Standard, Posted Online March 5th, Published March 12th, Available Online at http://www.aei.org/publications/ pubID.25706,filter.all/pub_detail.asp]
The biggest problem, however, lies in Christopher Layne's dyspeptic analysis of current policy opponents. Rather than taking the opposing argument as seriously as Thayer takes his, Layne resorts to unsubstantiated claims about "neocons," the White House lying, and small cabals (the so-called "Blue Team") trying to foment a "preventive" war with China. Similarly, his dismissal of the democratic peace theory is equally over-the-top. Even if one thinks that the theory is, at times, oversold, to claim that it has absolutely no merits is bound to leave most readers with the sense that there is as much anger as argument in the case Layne is making.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Multipolarity Now
World moving to multipolarity now China Daily, March 11, 2008 (The author is a researcher with the Research Center of Contemporary World)
However, this situation does not mean the US will give up unilateralism in favor of multilateralism, but rather it has been forced to go along with the latter. The same is true with multi-polarization, which the US would very much not have but cannot get rid of at the moment. Because the gap between the "sole superpower" and "multiple major powers" is narrowing by the day, the idea of the world entering the era of "relative major powers" in the next 30 to 40 years sounds original, but it is far from confirming the word "superpower" is already obsolete. The debate over the question of world structure has been going on since day one, because the international situation has been complicated and changing all the time.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

*** Advantage Answers ***

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Leadership Advantage Answers -- Frontline

EVEN CRITICS CONCED THAT THE U.S. WILL LEAD FOR AT LEAST TWO DECADES IN THE SATUS QUO
Walden Bellow, Director of Focus on the Global South, DILEMMAS OF DOMINATION: THE UNMAKING OF AMERICAN POWER, 2005, p. 213 The crisis of overproduction and overcapacity will continue to haunt the global economy. Financial crises will increase in number and intensity. These will eat away at the leading role of the U.S. economy. The United States is likely to remain the dominant power over the next two decades. In terms of relative economic strength, however, the nation is on the decline. Analysts estimate that, barring a massive downturn or a political catastrophe, China will have an economy larger than that of the United States perhaps within two or three decades, and one 50 percent larger by 2050

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Leadership Advantage Answers Frontline

Military primacy does not prevent a global nuclear exchange or create regional stability
Nina Hachigan and Monica Sutphen, Stanford Center for International Security, 2008, The Next American Century, p. 168-9 In practice, the strategy of primacy failed to deliver. While the fact of being the worlds only superpower has substantial benefits, a national security strategy based on suing and ratiaing primacy has not made America more secure. Americas military might has not been the answer to terrorism, disease, climate change, or proliferation. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have become more dangerous in the last seven years, not less. Worse than being ineffec tive with transnational threats and smaller powers, a strategy of maintaining primacy is counterproductive when it comes to pivotal powers. If America makes primacy the main goal of its national security strategy, then why shouldnt the pivotal powers do the same? A goal of primacy signals that sheer strength is most critical to security. American cannot trumpet its desire to dominate the world military and then question why China is modernizing its military.

Unipolar hegemony is unsustainable and doesnt solve the terminal impacts David P. Calleo, September 2007, Survival, p. 73-8 (David Calleo Dean Acheson Professor; Director of the
European Studies Program; University Professor of The Johns Hopkins University)

Given our future's high potential for discord and destruction, having a hegemonic superpower already installed might seem a great good fortune. Yet, recent experience also reveals that America's global predominance has been seriously overestimated. Put to the test, American power counts for less than expected. While the United States is lavishly outfitted for high-technology warfare, pursuing a hegemonic agenda in today's world requires different capabilities for more primitive forms of combat, like countering guerrilla warfare and suicidal terrorism. The American military loathes this kind of fighting and, to date, has not been very good at it. Greater success would seem to require a different sort of military - with more and cheaper troops, trained for intimate contact with the enemy, and prepared for high casualties. Controlling hostile populations will demand extensive linguistic and policing skills. The United States is now spending heavily to compensate for its deficiencies, but is still far short of the resources needed to prevail. This current shortage of means is a further blow to America's hegemonic expectations. Financial experience during the Cold War accustomed the United States to abundant credit from the world economy, with
a good part of the exchange costs of America's world role eventually covered by others who accumulated the surplus dollars. During the Cold War, however, these others were allies dependent on American

the United States' external deficit is bigger than ever, credit to finance it no longer depends on allies in urgent need of protection. Instead, credit comes increasingly from states whose indefinite accumulation of dollars seems contrary to their own long-term interests. China, for example, by continuing to add to its already immense reserves of surplus dollars, subsidises its own imports, together with American consumption and investment, but at the expense of its own more balanced internal development. Given the growing protectionism against its exports, it seems unreasonable to expect China to continue this practice indefinitely. If credit from China is restricted, the United States will face the tougher choices between guns and butter it has long been able to avoid. In the face of this unaccustomed constraint, how long will America's enthusiasm for hegemony endure?
military protection. Today, while

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Leadership Advantage Answers -- Frontline

A UNIPOLAR POWER IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD WILL SPREAD CONFLICT, NOT CONTAIN IT
Steven Weber, Director of the Institute for International Studies, Berkeley, Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2007., p. 48
That's nice work if you can get it. But the United States almost certainly cannot. Not only because other countries won't let it, but, more profoundly, because that line of thinking is faulty. The predominance of American power has many benefits, but the management of globalization is not one of them. The mobility of ideas, capital, technology, and people is hardly new. But the rapid advance of globalization's evils is.

. For the first time in modern history, globalization was superimposed onto a world with a single superpower. What we have discovered in the past 15 years is that it is a dangerous mixture. The negative effects of globalization since 1990 are not the result of globalization itself. They are the dark side of American predominance. THE DANGERS OF UNIPOLARIT A straightforward piece of logic from market economics helps explain why unipolarity and globalization don't mix. Monopolies, regardless of who holds them, are almost always bad for both the market and the monopolist. We propose three simple axioms of "globalization under unipolarity" that reveal these dangers. Axiom 1: Above a certain threshold of power, the rate at which new global problems are generated will exceed the rate at which old problems are fixed Power does two things in international politics: It enhances the capability of a state to do things, but it also increases the number of things that a state must worry about. At a certain point, the latter starts to overtake the former. It's the familiar law of diminishing returns. Because powerful states have large spheres of influence and their security and economic interests touch every region of the world, they are threatened by the risk of things going wronganywhere. That is particularly true for the United States, which leverages its ability to go anywhere and do anything through massive debt. No one knows exactly when the law of diminishing returns will kick in. But, historically, it starts to happen long before a single great power dominates the entire globe, which is why large empires from Byzantium to Rome have always reached a point of unsustainability. That may already be happening to the United States today, on issues ranging from oil dependency and nuclear proliferation to pandemics and global warming. What Axiom 1 tells you is that more U.S. power is not the answer; it's actually part of the problem. A multipolar world would almost certainly manage the globe's pressing problems more effectively. The larger the number of great powers in the global system, the greater the
Most of that advance has taken place since 1990. Why? Because what changed profoundly in the 1990s was the polarity of the international system chance that at least one of them would exercise some control over a given combination of space, other actors, and problems. Such reasoning doesn't rest on hopeful notions that the great powers will work together. They might do so. But even if they don't, the result is distributed governance, where some great power is interested in most every part of the world through productive competition Axiom 2: In an increasingly

The second axiom acknowledges that highly connected networks can be efficient, robust, and resilient to shocks. But in a highly connected world, the pieces that fall between the networks are increasingly shut off from the benefits of connectivity. These problems fester in the form of failed states, mutate like pathogenic bacteria, and, in some cases, reconnect in subterranean networks such as al Qaeda. The truly dangerous places are the points where the subterranean networks touch the mainstream of global politics and economics. What
networked world, places that fall between the networks are very dangerous places-and there will be more ungoverned zones when there is only one network to join made Afghanistan so dangerous under the Taliban was not that it was a failed state. It wasn't. It was a partially failed and partially connected state that worked the interstices of globalization through the drug trade,

Can any single superpower monitor all the seams and back alleys of globalization? Hardly. In fact, a lone hegemon is unlikely to look closely at these problems, because more pressing issues are happening elsewhere, in places where trade and technology are growing. By contrast, a world of several great powers is a more interest-rich environment in which nations must look in less obvious places to find new sources of advantage. In such a system, it's harder for troublemakers to spring up, because the cracks and seams of globalization are held together by stronger ties Axiom 3: Without a real chance to find useful allies to counter a superpower, opponents will try to neutralize power, by going underground, going nuclear, or going "bad. Axiom 3 is a story about the preferred strategies of the weak. It's a basic insight of international relations that states try to balance power. They protect themselves by joining groups that can hold a hegemonic threat at bay. But what if there is no viable group to join? In today's unipolar world, every nation from Venezuela to North Korea is looking for a way to constrain American
counterfeiting, and terrorism power. But in the unipolar world, it's harder for states to join together to do that. So they turn to other means. They play a different game. Hamas, Iran, Somalia, North Korea, and Venezuela are not going to become allies anytime soon. Each is better off finding other ways to make life more difficult for Washington. Going nuclear is one way. Counterfeiting U.S. currency is another. Raising uncertainty about oil

Here's the important downside of unipolar globalization. In a world with multiple great powers, many of these threats would be less troublesome. The relatively weak states would have a choice among potential partners with which to ally, enhancing their influence. Without that more attractive choice, facilitating the dark side of globalization becomes the most effective means of constraining American power The world is paying a heavy price for the instability created by the combination of globalization and unipolarity, and the United States is bearing most of the burden. Consider the case of nuclear proliferation. There's effectively a market out there for proliferation, with its own supply (states willing to share nuclear technology) and demand (states that badly want a nuclear weapon). The overlap of unipolarity with globalization ratchets up both the supply and demand, to the detriment of U.S. national security.
supplies is perhaps the most obvious method of all

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

*** More Links to the Hegemony Debate ***

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony

INTERNATIONAL INSTUTTIONS CONSTRAIN U.S. PLOWER
Colin Gray, political scientist specializing in national security policy, THE SHERIFF: AMERICAS DEFENSE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER, 2004, pp. 89-90 Theorists such as Ikenberry fail to appreciate how inappropriate the analogy is between U.S. power institutionalized and allegedly somewhat tamed by Cold War NATO and that power disciplined by international institutions in the absence of a dominant geopolitical rivalry, In the former case, the United States could be strategically effective because the geopolitical context was so structured as to lend focus and, periodically urge a clear, principal security duty --the containment of the Soviet imperium. But in the geopolitical con text of the early twenty-first century, most states discern no real urgency about, or truly agree on, the sheriff's principal security duty. In this new geopolitical context, the international institutionalization of U.S. power is more apt to produce paralysis than the strength of which Ikenberry writes. This is not to praise, and still less is it to urge, unilateralism. However, it is to claim that the price demanded for the additional legitimacy and durability which the institutionalization of multilateralism may well convey is one which frequently would condemn the American sheriff to ineffectiveness. Manifest strategic failure as sheriff of world order would do more damage to the legitimacy and durability of U.S. power and influence than would the occasional showing of some prudent disdain for the opinions of Upper Volta, or even of France and other permanent members of the UN Security Council.

MULTILATERAL NORMS TEMPER AMERICAN POWER

Charles Krauthaumer, DEMOCRATIC REALISM: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN A UNILATERAL WORLD, April 2004, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040227_book755text.pdf Moral suasion is a farce. Why then this obsession with conventions, protocols, legalisms? Their obvious net effect is to temper American power. Who, after all, was really going to be most constrained by these treaties? The ABM amendments were aimed squarely at American advances and strategic defenses, not at Russia, which lags hopelessly behind. The Kyoto Protocol exempted India and China. The nuclear test ban would have seriously degraded the American nuclear arsenal. And the land mine treaty (which the Clinton administration spent months negotiating but, in the end, met so much Pentagon resistance that even Clinton could not initial it) would have had a devastating impact on U.S. conventional forces, particularly at the DMZ in Korea.

MULTILATERALISM REDUCES U.S. FREEDOM OF ACTION

Charles Krauthaumer, DEMOCRATIC REALISM: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN A UNILATERAL WORLD, April 2004, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040227_book755text.pdf But that, you see, is the whole point of the multilateral enterprise: To reduce American freedom of action by making it subservient to, dependent on, constricted by the willand interestsof other nations. To tie down Gulliver with a thousand strings. To domesticate the most undomesticated, most outsized, national interest on the planetours.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony

MULTILATERALISM IS USED TO TIE DOWN GREAT POWERS
Charles Krauthaumer, DEMOCRATIC REALISM: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN A UNILATERAL WORLD, April 2004, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040227_book755text.pdf Historically, multilateralism is a way for weak countries to multiply their power by attaching themselves to stronger ones. But multilateralism imposed on Great Powers, and particularly on a unipolar power, is intended to restrain that power. Which is precisely why France is an ardent multilateralist. But why should America be? Why, in the end, does liberal internationalism want to tie down Gulliver, to blunt the pursuit of American national interests by making them subordinate to a myriad of other interests? REALISM PROVES THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM CANNOT FUNCTION LIKE DOMESTIC SOCIETY Charles Krauthaumer, DEMOCRATIC REALISM: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN A UNILATERAL WORLD, April 2004, http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040227_book755text.pdf
Realism recognizes the fundamental fallacy in the whole idea of the international system being modeled on domestic society. First, what holds domestic society together is a supreme central authority wielding a monopoly of power and enforcing norms. In the international arena there is no such thing. Domestic society may look like a place of self-regulating norms, but if somebody breaks into your house, you call 911, and the police arrive with guns drawn. Thats not exactly self-enforcement. Thats law enforcement. Second, domestic society rests on the shared goodwill, civility and common values of its individual members. What values are shared by, say, Britain, Cuba, Yemen and Zimbabweall nominal members of this fiction we call the international community? Of course, you can have smaller communities of shared interests NAFTA, ANZUS, or the European Union. But the European conceit that relations with all nations regardless of ideology, regardless of culture, regardless even of open hostility should be transacted on the EU model of suasion and norms and negotiations and solemn contractual agreements is an illusion. A fisheries treaty with Canada is something real. An Agreed Framework on plutonium processing with the likes of North Korea is not worth the paper it is written on. The realist believes the definition of peace Ambrose Bierce offered in The Devils Dictionary: Peace: noun, in international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting. Hence the realist axiom: The international community is a fiction. It is not a community, it is a cacophonyof straining ambitions, disparate values and contending power

LIBERAL COMMITMENT TO MULTILATERALISM THREATENS US SECURITY INTERESTS

Kurt M. Campbell & Michael E. OHanlon, CSIS & Brookings, 2006, HARD POWER: THE NEW POLITICS OF NATIONAL SECURITYp. 214 Americas centrality in the international order is another aspect of the reason why moderates and progressives must be careful when they suggest that multilateralism will be a core element of their foreign policy, as many do. While multilateralism is desirable, it should not be taken so far as to devolve simplistically into a democratic approach to world affairs in which each nation essentially gets equal say. As Harvard professor and former Pentagon official Joseph Nye argues, the United States should not act multilaterally when doing so would contradict core American values, delay responses to immediate threats to its security, or promote poor policies that might have been improved through a tougher (and more unilateral) bargaining process. The United States will sometimes have to do things that are unpopular internationally; it will usually have to help forge consensus among nations rather than wait for it to develop; and it will generally have to act rather than hope that crises will go away on their own. On the subject at hand, this means that America needs to be ready to defend its allies without waiting for global approval or the formation of large coalitions to do so.

I need a phillie right before I get loose Poor excuse, money please, I get loose off of orange juice.

Arlington High 2009 Huge Ass Heg File

65

Links: Multilateralism Threatens Hegemony

MULTILATERALISM IS MEANT TO CONSTRAIN US POWER

Charles, Krauthammer, IR expert, "The Unipolar Moment Revisited" THE NATIONAL INTEREST, Winter 2002/2003, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_2002_Winter/ai_95841625/pg_7 Multilateralism is the liberal internationalist's means of saving us from this shameful condition. But the point of the multilateralist imperative is not merely psychological. It has a clear and coherent geopolitical objective. It is a means that defines the ends. Its means-internationalism (the moral, legal and strategic primacy of international institutions over national interests) and legalism (the belief that the sinews of stability are laws, treaties and binding international contracts)-are in service to a larger vision: remaking the international system in the image of domestic civil society. The multilateralist imperative seeks to establish an international order based not on sovereignty and power but on interdependence-a new order that, as Secretary of State Cordell Hull said upon returning from the Moscow Conference of 1943, abolishes the "need for spheres of influence, for alliances, for balance of power." Liberal internationalism seeks through multilateralism to transcend power politics, narrow national interest and, ultimately, the nation-state itself. The nation-state is seen as some kind of archaic residue of an anarchic past, an affront to the vision of a domesticated international arena. This is why liberal thinkers embrace the erosion of sovereignty promised by the new information technologies and the easy movement of capital across borders. They welcome the decline of sovereignty as the road to the new globalism of a norm-driven, legally-bound international system broken to the mold of domestic society. The greatest sovereign, of course, is the American superpower, which is why liberal internationalists feel such acute discomfort with American dominance. To achieve their vision, America too-America especially-must be domesticated. Their project is thus to restrain America by building an entangling web of interdependence, tying down Gulliver with myriad strings that diminish his overweening power. Who, after all, was the ABM treaty or a land mine treaty going to restrain? North Korea? MULTILATERAL CONSTRAINTS THREATEN TO ERODE AMERIC