Download Heg Bad - Amazon Web Services

yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

United States non-interventionism wikipedia , lookup

International relations wikipedia , lookup

2010 Nuclear Security Summit wikipedia , lookup

State (polity) wikipedia , lookup

Collective security wikipedia , lookup

USS Cole bombing wikipedia , lookup

Offensive realism wikipedia , lookup

Balance of power (international relations) wikipedia , lookup

Cold War (1962–1979) wikipedia , lookup

World War III wikipedia , lookup

Cold War (1953–1962) wikipedia , lookup

Great power wikipedia , lookup

War on Terror wikipedia , lookup

Counter-terrorism wikipedia , lookup

United States and the United Nations wikipedia , lookup

Hegemonic stability theory wikipedia , lookup

New world order (politics) wikipedia , lookup

Polarity (international relations) wikipedia , lookup

Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
Impact File – Heg Bad ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Heg Bad Frontline – 1/2 [1AR 1/1] ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Heg Bad Frontline – 2/2 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Heg Bad Ext ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Heg Bad – Unsustainable 2NC .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Heg Bad – Doesn’t Solve War ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Heg Bad – Terrorism Extns ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Heg Bad – Multipolarity Solves................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Heg Bad – AT: Bandwaggoning ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Heg Bad – AT: Benevolent Heg .............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Heg Bad – AT: Obama ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
On the heg impact –
First, we have defense
Heg is unsustainable and even if it was it won’t solve their impacts – only multipolarity solves
Haass ’10 Richard N. Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, May 27, 2010, “An over-extended United States urgently
needs partners,”
We are in a protracted period of international transition, one that began more than two decades ago with the end of the Cold War. That era of strategic rivalry between
the United States and the Soviet Union gave way to one in which Washington possessed far greater power than any other country in the world and enjoyed an
unprecedented degree of influence. That American unipolar moment has given way to a world that can be better described as non-polar, in which
power is widely distributed among nearly 200 states and tens of thousands of non-state actors ranging from Al-Qaeda to Al-Jazeera, and from Goldman Sachs to the
United Nations. But what distinguishes historical eras from one another is less the distribution of power than the degree of order between states and within states. Order
never just emerges; it is the result of conscious efforts by the most powerful entities in the world. While the United States remains the world’s most
powerful single country, it cannot maintain, much less expand, international peace and prosperity on its own. It is over-extended, dependent
upon massive daily imports of dollars and oil, and its armed forces are engaged in demanding conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The US also lacks the
means and the political consensus to take on much more in the way of global responsibility. It also lacks the means to compel other
countries to follow its lead. Moreover, contemporary problems – for example, thwarting the spread of materials and weapons of mass destruction, maintaining
an open world economy, slowing climate change, and combating terrorism – cannot be managed, much less solved, by any single country. Only collective efforts can
meet common challenges; the more global the response, the more likely that it will succeed. In short, the United States requires partners if the 21st
century is to be an era in which the majority of people around the world enjoy relative peace and satisfactory standards of living. But the partnerships that
prevailed during the Cold War – between the US, Western Europe, and several Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia – are no longer adequate.
These countries lack the resources and often the will to manage most of the world’s problems. So the old partners need new ones. Emerging powers have the potential
to fill this need. The question is what such powers, for example China, India, Brazil, and others, are prepared to do with their growing strength.
Next is the offense
First, predominance spurs a Russia-China military alliance that ends in nuclear extinction
Roberts 07 Senior Research Fellow @ the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, William E. Simon Chairin Political Economy, Center for Strategic and
International Studies (Paul Craig“US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance,”
This week the Russian and Chinese militaries are conducting a joint military exercise involving large numbers of troops and combat vehicles.
The former Soviet Republics of Tajikistan, Kyrgkyzstan, and Kazakstan are participating. Other countries appear ready to join the military alliance. This new potent
military alliance is a real world response to neoconservative delusions about US hegemony . Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world
and can dictate its course. The neoconservative idiots have actually written papers, read by Russians and Chinese, about why the US must use its military superiority to
assert hegemony over Russia and China. Cynics believe that the neocons are just shills, like Bush and Cheney, for the military-security complex and are paid to restart
the cold war for the sake of the profits of the armaments industry. But the fact is that the neocons actually believe their delusions about American hegemony. Russia
and China have now witnessed enough of the Bush administration’s unprovoked aggression in the world to take neocon intentions seriously. As the US has
proven that it cannot occupy the Iraqi city of Baghdad despite 5 years of efforts, it most certainly cannot occupy Russia or
China. That means the conflict toward which the neocons are driving will be a nuclear conflict. In an attempt to gain the advantage in a
nuclear conflict, the neocons are positioning US anti-ballistic missiles on Soviet borders in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is an idiotic provocation as the
Russians can eliminate anti-ballistic missiles with cruise missiles. Neocons are people who desire war, but know nothing about it. Thus, the US failures in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war. However, US administrations after Reagan’s have broken the agreements and understandings. The US
gratuitously brought NATO and anti-ballistic missiles to Russia’s borders. The Bush regime has initiated a propaganda war against the Russian government of V.
Putin. These are gratuitous acts of aggression. Both the Russian and Chinese governments are trying to devote resources to their
economic development, not to their militaries. Yet, both are being forced by America’s aggressive posture to revamp their
militaries. Americans need to understand what the neocon Bush regime cannot: a nuclear exchange between the US, Russia, and China would
establish the hegemony of the cockroach. In a mere 6.5 years the Bush regime has destroyed the world’s good will toward the US. Today, America’s
influence in the world is limited to its payments of tens of millions of dollars to bribed heads of foreign governments, such as Egypt’s and Pakistan’s. The Bush regime
even thinks that as it has bought and paid for Musharraf, he will stand aside and permit Bush to make air strikes inside Pakistan. Is Bush blind to the danger that he will
cause an Islamic revolution within Pakistan that will depose the US puppet and present the Middle East with an Islamic state armed with nuclear weapons? Considering
the instabilities and dangers that abound, the aggressive posture of the Bush regime goes far beyond recklessness. The Bush regime is the most irresponsibly aggressive
regime the world has seen since Hitler’s.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
AND Heg can’t solve – Russia-China alliance would be capable of defeating the US.
The Pantagraph, 97 (1/4)
It is obvious that a new alliance is being formed that will combine Russia’s vast weapons production capacity with China’s
vast industrial capacity and billion-plus population. If you add to this alliance the vast oil supplies and wealth of the Islamic world beginning with the
Islamic countries of the former Soviet Union, as the article indicates is happening, the possibilities are too frightening to imagine. The creation of a vast
Eastern alliance stretching from Russia in the north down through China and into the Middle East and Africa held together by a hatred of the West, a hatred of
Israel and a distaste for both democracy and freedom would set the stage for a war that the West would most likely lose. I personally believe that
such an alliance is inevitable, as is the war that will follow it.
AND Balancing will precede bandwagoning and cooperation – the power asymmetry that maintains a semblance of stability
will last longer without hegemony.
G. John Ikenberry and Charles A. Kupchan Fall 2004 “liberal realism: the foundations of a democratic foreign policy” The National
It is misguided, however, to assume that America′s preponderant power, when combined with an assertive unilateralism, promotes stability
as a matter of course. As the record of the past four years makes clear, the unfettered exercise of U.S. primacy has not led to
deference and bandwagoning, but to resentment and incipient balancing. The problem is not unipolarity per se, but changes in the exercise of U.S.
power that have in turn changed foreign perceptions of U.S. intentions and how the United States will use its preponderant strength. A dominant America that reassures
others and deploys its power to secure public goods induces systemic stability; unfettered primacy deployed in the exclusive pursuit of national self-interest does the
opposite. The Bush Administration′s grand strategy rests on a second geopolitical misconception: that U.S. primacy is durable. To be sure, America′s economic and
military might ensures that it will remain the world′s leading nation for decades to come. But current power asymmetries will inevitably diminish in the
years ahead. The European Union′s wealth already rivals that of the United States, and it may well forge a more independent and unified security policy as this
decade proceeds. Over the course of the next decade, Japan may tire of always following America′s lead, China will emerge as a major power, and
Russia, India and Brazil are poised to become stronger and more assertive players. It will be impossible for the United States to sustain current power
asymmetries. Indeed, if America seeks to preserve unipolarity and its attendant sway over global affairs, it will only ensure that other centers
of power, as they rise, array their strength against the United States.
NEXT, heg provokes terrorism – military, political, economic, and cultural imperialism
Muzaffar 05 (Chandra Muzaffar, political analyst and president of the International Movement for a Just World, “Hegemony,
Terrorism, and War --- Is Democracy the Antidote?”
After 9-11, U.S. global hegemony continued to provoke al-Qaeda and other terrorist outfits. Since the U.S. and its allies had invaded
Afghanistan in October 2001 in order to oust the Taliban regime that was protecting Osama, the invasion became the justification for further
terrorist attacks. The Bali bombings of October 2002, purportedly carried out by a group affiliated with al-Qaeda, the Jemaah Islamiyyah, were primarily
to avenge the Afghan invasion. Then in March 2003, the U.S. and its allies embarked upon a second military invasion. This time the target was Iraq. One year
after Iraq was conquered, al-Qaeda struck again; it was responsible for a dastardly carnage at a Madrid railway station. The unconcealed aim was to compel the Spanish
government to withdraw its soldiers from the U.S. led force in Iraq. Al-Qaeda succeeded in its objective. If we reflect upon al-Qaeda attacks, it is obvious that the
military, political, and economic dimensions of U.S. hegemony figure prominently on its radar screen. It is seldom acknowledged, however,
that the cultural dimension of hegemony has also been a consideration. For instance, during their trial, a couple of the Bali bombers inveighed against Western cultural
imperialism and how it was destroying the identity and integrity of indigenous communities. By arguing that hegemony in all its manifestations breeds terrorism, we are
in no way condoning terrorism. Al-Qaeda’s deliberate targeting of noncombatants and civilians in general—in East Africa, on 9-11, in Bali, in Madrid—has been
condemned by right-thinking people everywhere. Leading Muslim theologians and scholars have not only denounced al-Qaeda’s misdeeds from a humanitarian
perspective, but have also castigated Osama and his underlings as men who have shamelessly violated the essence of Islamic teachings.2 Nonetheless, if we fail to
recognize how hegemony— control and dominance over people—leads to acts of terror, we will be no better than the proverbial ostrich
that buries its head in the sand.
Sid-Ahmed Mohamed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/04, | SWON
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and
frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights,
tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the
awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could
lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over
another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
On the heg debate –
First you’ve got our defense –
The Haas evidence is really good on two points. First is that hegemony is unsustainable – we have multiple challengers and are
already overextended to the point that a multipolar world essentially already exists. Second is that heg alone won’t be able to
solve their impacts – multiple warrents including lack of international credibility and allies mean that we can’t maintain peace
going it alone.
Next we have the scenarios –
Heg causes the rise of a Russia-China alliance – the Roberts evidence is fantastic – it indicates that increasing hegemony causes
increasing military cooperation between Russia & China because they think the US will exert their military superiority and
attack them.
This outweighs heg –
1. Magnitude – Russia, China, and the US have the 3 biggest stockpiles in the world – thousands of nukes would be unleashed
– and Roberts says it would cause “hegemony of the cockroach.”
2. Probability – the US can’t even occupy the country of Iraq let alone contain the Russian and Chinese armies – this proves
we would have to resort to using nuclear weapons – escalating to extinction.
AND Heg won’t solve – first, our Pantagraph evidence says a Russia/China alliance would be too strong for us. Second – no
one will side with us – the Ikenberry evidence is amazing that empirical evidence proves the bandwaggoning theory is false,
and other countries will only hate us more the longer try and prolong heg – this means that we’re reading the only scenario
with uniqueness.
NEXT Heg causes terrorism – Eland evidence says that interventionism in the middle east serves as a lightning rod for hatred–
decrease in American power results in a decrease in terrorism
Terror Attack o/w
1. Magnitude – A terrorist attack would cause WWIII and extinction – that’s Sid Ahmed
2. Turns heg – we can’t create effective international policy while we’re preoccupied with terrorists biting at our ankles –
means they don’t solve their biggest impacts
AND don’t buy a word their evidence says, policymakers will exaggerate threats to justify hegemony
Layne, government professor at Texas A&M, 2006 (Christopher, “The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the
Present”, pg 177-78)
Proponents of offshore balancing are sensitive to the fact that the threat posed by potential Eurasian hegemony has often been exaggerated
deliberately and used as a pretext for intervening in conflicts where America’s security clearly has not been at risk When policymakers use
arguments about technology and a shrinking world to warn of American vulnerability, they are, as Michael S. Sherry notes, doing a lot more than simply depicting
reality. They are trying to shape public perceptions and to create a new reality which is why this narrative of US national security is “an
ideological construction, not merely a perceptual reaction.” To be blunt, US officials often have invoked the specter of a Eurasian hegemony to rationalize the pursuit of
American’s own hegemonic, Open Dorr-driven ambitions. Although it is always possible that the threat of a Eurasian hegemon justifiably might compel US
intervention, whenever the argument is made to justify a specific intervention, red lights should flash and it should be scrutinized
very carefully, because US officials have cried wolf way too many times in the past.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
History proves American hegemony is unsustainable.
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University) 2007
“American Empire: A Debate” p 63
States are ever-vigilant when it comes to maintaining their security because they want to survive as independent players in
international politics. Up to a point, therefore, it is a good thing for a state to be powerful. But when a state becomes too powerful,
it frightens others; in self-defense, they seek to offset and contain those great powers that aspire to primacy. And the ironclad
lesson of history is clear: states that bid for hegemony (primacy) invariably fail.As Henry A. Kissinger has said, "hegemonic
empires almost automatically elicit universal resistance, which is why all such claimants have sooner or later exhausted
themselves."34Indeed, the history of modern international politics is strewn with the geopolitical wreckage of states that bid
unsuccesfully for primacy: The Hapsburg Empire under Charles V, France under Louis XI V and Napoleon, Victorian Britain,
Germany under Hitler. By pursuing a strategy of primacy, the United States today risks the same fate that has befallen other great
powers that have striven to dominate the international political system.
Globalization and technological expansion.
Corocran 2k9 (Ed, Senior Fellow on national security issues at United States Global Leadership,, 6/19
European allies are declining to support various US initiatives, in particular they are reluctant to provide combat elements to the
struggle in Afghanistan. Russia, with an increasingly autocratic leadership, is developing a significant economic leverage over
Europe thanks to its large energy resources. China is becoming more and more assertive on the international stage. Even in Latin
America, the United States faces new challenges with drug wars in Mexico spilling over into the US southwest and new autocratic
regimes consolidating their position in Bolivia and Venezuela. And in the Far East, North Korea's nuclear weapons and missile
developments not only threaten stability there, but also raise the potential for nuclear materials to leak to radical elements and
complicate global nonproliferation efforts.
On top of this, globalization is presenting a whole new set of challenges to the United States. The rise of China with its vast
manufacturing capability has significantly increased the attractiveness of overseas production for many US firms and helped to
seriously undermine the US job market. But there is a deeper global transformation than just the potential for overseas production it is the potential for overseas intellectual work. The internet has suddenly put Indian managers, Chinese engineers, and Russian
programmers in direct competition with skilled US workers, often providing comparable services at a fraction of US wage and
benefit costs. Around the world, citizens are demanding an increased share of global wealth. It is no longer possible to sustain a
prosperous island of industrialized nations in a global sea of relative poverty. Increased resource competition, already seen in the
oil market, is only one manifestation of this challenge. On top of this, the effects of climate change are only beginning to be felt.
The impact in the decades ahead is unclear, but what is clear is that this impact will be negative and could be profoundly
destabilizing. And as recent outbreaks of bird flu have shown, devastating pandemics are also possible.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
Hegemony ensures U.S. involvement in overseas conflicts and nuclear war – withdrawal prevents automatic deployment to
honor alliances.
Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University) 2006 “The
Peace of Illusions” p 169
Rather than being instruments of regional pacification, today America's alliances are transmission belts for war that ensure that the
U.S. would be embroiled in Eurasian wars. In deciding whether to go war in Eurasia, the United States should not allow its hands to be
tied in advance. For example a non—great power war on the Korean Peninsula—even if nuclear weapon were not involved—would
be very costly. The dangers of being entangled in a great power war in Eurasia, of course, are even greater, and could expose the
American homeland to nuclear attack. An offshore balancing grand strategy would extricate the United States from the danger of
being entrapped in Eurasian conflicts by its alliance commitments.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
Heg causes terrorism
Layne 06 Associate Professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University (Christopher “The Peace of Illusions” (p. 190-191)
The events of 9/11 are another example of how hegemony makes the United States less secure than it would be if it followed an offshore balancing strategy. Terrorism, the RAND Corporation
terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman says, is "about power: the pursuit of power, the acquisition of power, and use of power to achieve political change."86 If we step back for a moment from our
horror and revulsion at the events of September 11, we can see that the attack was in keeping with the Clausewitzian paradigm of war: force was used against the United States by its
September 11
represented a violent counterreaction to America's geopolitical-and cultural-hegemony. As the strategy expert Richard K. Betts presciently observed in a
adversaries to advance their political objectives. As Clausewitz observed, "War is not an act of senseless passion but is controlled by its political object."88
1998 Foreign Affairs article: It is 'hardly likely that Middle Eastern radicals would be hatching schemes like the destruction of the World Trade Center if the United States had not been
U.S. hegemony fuels terrorist
groups like al Qaeda and fans Islamic fundamentalism, which is a form of "blowback" against America's preponderance and
its world role.90 As long as the United States maintains its global hegemony-and its concomitant preeminence in regions like the Persian Gulfit will be the target of politically motivated terrorist groups like al Qaeda . After 9/11, many foreign policy analysts and pundits asked the question, "Why
identified so long as the mainstay of Israel, the shah of Iran, and conservative Arab regimes and the source of a cultural assault on Islam.89
do they hate us?" This question missed the key point. No doubt, there are Islamic fundamentalists who do "hate" the United States for cultural, religious, and ideological reasons. And even
leaving aside American neoconservatives' obvious relish for making it so, to some extent the war on terror inescapably has overtones of a "clash of civilizations:' Still, this isn't-and should not
The United States may be greatly reviled
in some quarters of the Islamic world, but were the United States not so intimately involved in the affairs of the Middle East,
it's hardly likely that this detestation would have manifested itself in something like 9/11 . As Michael Scheurer, who headed the CIA analytical
be allowed to become-a replay of the Crusades. Fundamentally 9/11 was about geopolitics, specifically about U.S. hegemony.
team monitoring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, puts it, "One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe-at the urging of
senior U.S. leaders-that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do."91 It is American policies-to be precise, American
make the United States a lightning rod for Muslim anger
And heg doesn’t solve – terrorists aren’t dettered by military power because it falls out of asymmetric power calculations –
terrorists don’t fear our military
Eland 08 senior fellow at the Independent Institute (ivan, Mediterranean Quarterly Volume 19, Number 3, Summer 2008, Back to the Future: Rediscovering America’s Foreign Policy Traditions
During the Cold War, at least a plausible argument could be made for some [End Page 94] US intervention overseas to counter Soviet encroachment. But the Cold War
is long over, the Soviet rival is in the dustbin of history, and the gains from interventionism have been drastically reduced while the costs have skyrocketed. The only
type of attack that cannot be deterred by the US nuclear arsenal is that from terrorists — as was demonstrated on 9/11. Retaliation
for US interventionism in the Arab-Muslim world is al Qaeda’s primary motive for attacking the United States. Specifically, Osama bin Laden’s biggest gripes are with
US — that is, non-Muslim — occupation of Muslim lands and meddling in their politics by supporting corrupt dictators and Israel. Because conventional and
nuclear military power have very little utility in stopping terrorist attacks and because the United States has an open society, with
thousands of miles of borders and many possible targets, homeland security efforts will likely have only limited effect. Naturally,
in the short term, the utmost effort should be made to capture or kill bin Laden and eradicate al Qaeda, but in the long term the only way to effectively
deal with anti – United States terrorism is to reduce the motivation of terrorists to attack America in the first place. Poll after
poll in the Muslim world indicates that Muslims like US political and economic freedoms, technology, and even culture but hate
US meddling in their world. Thus, practicing military restraint, rather than interventionism, would make Americans safer at
home. Protecting its citizens and property should be the first goal of any government, but the US quest for an informal global empire actually undermines this
objective. Empire does not equal security — in fact, it sabotages it.
Multipolarity solves - allowing countries to have spheres of influence force them to work regionally to solve terrorism
Schwarz and Layne 02 Editor of the Atlantic, Research Fellow with the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute
(Benjamin and Christopher “A New Grand Strategy” Atlantic Monthly, January 1st)
Recognizing the legitimacy of other great powers' spheres of influence offers the United States a further strategic advantage.
The Persian Gulf and Central Asia show why. Russia and China both are profoundly concerned about the spread of Islamic fundamentalism
on their peripheries. In Chechnya, in Central Asia (where Russian troops help to defend the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), and in the Caucasus, Moscow has fought
major military campaigns to protect its southern flank against militant Islam. China, too, is combating terrorism fomented by Islamic separatists, in the Xinjiang province. Last June, Beijing
and Moscow entered into a security relationship, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (which also embraces three of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia), to coordinate efforts to
combat the common threat to their security posed by these Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups – groups linked to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Similarly, India,
a possible
future great power, has been battling Islamic terrorists who are waging a proxy war on Pakistan's behalf to wrest the disputed province of Kashmir away from New
Delhi. Simply put, for reasons of security and access to oil, Russia, China, India, Western Europe, and Japan have strong reasons – stronger than
America's – to pacify Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. By adopting an offshore balancing strategy, the United States will
compel them to do so.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
Multipolarity is coming now – the idea of sustainable American primacy is a myth – those who won’t admit the decline of the
US are merely saving face
Gray ’09 Colin S. Gray, Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading, “AFTER IRAQ: THE
Some Americans have been so smitten with the ideology of primacy, despite the experience in Iraq since 2003, that they cannot
quite sign on to the assumption that a worthy “super” enemy or coalition of enemies will emerge over the next several decades.
But such an emergence is precisely the prediction on the part of the author, and it is a current assumption of many, though by no
means all, of America’s strategic theorists and commentators. Understandably and probably wisely, the government is publicly
uncommitted on the subject of the duration of the American hegemony. Obviously, American officials do not wish to predict their
country’s decline and fall from ascendancy. Regional great powers such as China, India, Russia, possibly EU-Europe, Brazil, and
Iran, among others, must balance the value of a faraway U.S. hegemon with a distant homeland, against the political insult and
damage to local ambitions and interests that such a hegemon inflicts. Americans can assume with confidence that their current
global role as guardian of order increasingly will be opposed by rising states and coalitions, most especially in East Asia.
Their impact is silly – US heg is actually dangerous to global stability – transition to multipolarity is key
Steinberg 08 Dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and national security adviser (James B. Steinberg, "Real leaders do soft
power: Learning the lessons of Iraq", The Washington Quarterly, 2008,
Yet, the idea that these goals could be achieved through a naked assertion of U.S. primacy was fundamentally flawed . Bush and his
supporters profoundly misunderstood the significance of the "unipolar moment." Far from being a license to sweep away the prudential strictures that had long
governed the United States' use of power, this was precisely the moment for the United States to be circumspect in how it wielded its unprecedented strength. Despite
its own certainty that its power would only be used for noble ends, even allies were legitimately concerned that unchecked U.S. power could be
dangerous to global stability. This was precisely the moment when Washington needed to reassure others that its power would in fact be used
for the broader global public good and thus a moment when the United States should be most willing to listen to the voices of others.
At a time when the national confidence was shaken by the September 11 attacks and the public looked to its government to restore a sense of security, the ideology of
primacy had a certain natural appeal. Yet, it was the job of statesmen to offer a more farsighted path forward. The damaging consequences of the departure from these
truths run the risk that the United States may overcompensate for these lessons and allow the pendulum to swing back too far. The administration has placed excessive
confidence in the force of arms to defeat adversaries, but that does not mean that the United States can dispense with a well-trained, capable military. Even the
preventive use of force must remain an option when faced with mortal threats that cannot be eliminated through other means. The administration pursued a goit-alone approach to avoid the challenge of patient alliance management and deliberate institution-building, but the United States cannot
forsake a leadership role, retreat from global engagement, or be paralyzed by lack of consensus when action is necessary. Nor must the United States always go along
with judgments of others when its security is at risk. The administration has overreached in trying to impose democracy, but the United States still has a moral and
political stake in supporting the forces of freedom around the world. How can the United States undo the damage and regain the support necessary to assure its security,
liberty, and prosperity? First, it must reject playing into al Qaeda's narrative. Characterizing efforts to eliminate terrorism as an ideological crusade is exactly what bin
Laden wants. By labeling the adversary "Islamic fascism" and likening the current antiterrorist struggle to the conflicts the United States and its allies waged against
Hitler and Stalin, the United States gives credence to al Qaeda's recruiting strategy, which seeks to convince young and disaffected Muslims that the United States is
their enemy that seeks to destroy their religion and culture. 11 Second, Washington can restore the legitimacy of U.S. leadership by showing a greater
willingness to take into account the views of its necessary partners. The administration's about-face on North Korea and Iran and support for global
initiatives on HIV/AIDS and malaria are valuable steps in the right direction. Yet, more could be done, starting with a leadership role in addressing climate change,
supporting the International Criminal Court, and reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy to bolster the flagging nonproliferation regime.12 The
United States has a unique capacity to foster peace and stability in the world, but its unique role and capabilities do not justify an
unconstrained version of U.S. exceptionalism. If the United States wants others to live by the rules and be "responsible global
stakeholders," it must accept the need to do the same. Third, the United States must take seriously the need to reform international
institutions rather than disparage or ignore them. Like-minded organizations such as the proposed Community of Democracies13 have their place, but fora in
which countries with divergent views can develop strategies together are also necessary, from the UN to the World Trade Organization. The time has come to bite
the bullet on UN Security Council reform and accept that the greater legitimacy offered by a more representative Security Council
justifies the risk that action in an enlarged and more diverse council will be more cumbersome or less to Washington's liking. Similarly,
the United States should take the steps necessary to join the East Asian Summit, including ratifying the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation, which would put the United States back in the mix in the most dynamic region of the world. In short, the United States must return to the
strategies of leadership that brought it unprecedented power and security in the first place.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
Everybody is leaving America’s bandwagon – even allies are acting independently.
Charles A. Kupchan, Political Science Quarterly, 00323195, Summer 2003, Vol. 118, Issue 2 “The Rise of Europe, America's
Changing Internationalism, and the End of U.S. Primacy” Database: Academic Search Premier
Rather than rallying behind the United States, countries around the world are distancing themselves from Washington and locking
arms to resist a wayward America. France, Germany, and Russia did their best to block America's rush to war against Iraq; the
Western alliance is unlikely to survive the transatlantic rift that has opened. After North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program,
South Korea, China, and Japan all made clear they would not back Washington's refusal to negotiate bilaterally with Pyongyang. AntiAmerican sentiment has been on the rise in just about every quarter of the globe.[1] Even in countries that have for decades been close
U.S. allies — such as Germany and South Korea — politicians are winning office by running on platforms calling for independence
from Washington. America seems well on its way to compromising perhaps its most precious asset — its international legitimacy.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
No matter how “benevolent” US primacy is, the magnitude will inevitably produce counter balancing powers
Layne, 2007 [Christopher, professor, and Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at the George Bush School of Government and
Public Service at Texas A&M University, American Empire: A Debate]
The claim that others regard American primacy as benevolent because of U.S. sot power and shared values is similarly dubious.
And again, Iraq played an important role in exploding this myth. Beginning with the run-up to the invasion of Iraq to the present,
one public opinion survey after another has revealed that a vast “values gap” exists between the United States and the rest of the
world. Tellingly, this gap exists not just between the United States and East Asia and the Middle East, but between the United
States and Europe. One would think that if there is any part of the world where shared values really do cause others to view
American primacy as benevolent, Europe would be the place. Yet, a September 2004 poll of eight thousand respondents on both
sides of the Atlantic found that 83 percent of Americans, and 79 percent of Europeans, agreed that Europe and the United States
have different social and cultural values.48 On a host of issues—including the death penalty, the role of religion in everyday life,
and attitudes toward the role of international law and institutions—Europeans and Americans hold divergent views, not common
ones. he Iraq war has exposed the huge gulf in values that gradually is causing the United States and Europe to drift apart—in large
measure because Europe regards the United States as being a geopolitical rogue elephant, rather than as a “benevolent hegemon.”
the problem with rogue elephants, of course, is that when they are on the loose anyone nearby is at risk of being trampled. This is
why other states are uneasy about American primacy. For sure, many states do benefit both economically and in terms of security
from American primacy. And it also is true that not all other states will feel threatened by U.S. hard power. Eventually, however,
some of the other states in the international political system are going to believe that they are menaced by American primacy. For
example, far from being “of-shore” as the primacists claim, U.S. power is very much on shore—or lurking just beyond the
coastline—and very much in the faces of China, Russia, and the Islamic world. And, in this sense, international politics is not a lot
different than basketball: players who push others around and get in their faces are likely to be the targets of a self-defensive punch
in the nose. Doubtless, American primacy has its dimension of benevolence, but a state as powerful as the United States can never
be benevolent enough to offset the fear that other states have of its unchecked power. In international politics, benevolent
hegemons are like unicorns—there is no such animal. Hegemons love themselves, but others mistrust and fear them—and for
good reason. In today’s world, others dread both the overconcentration of geopolitical weight in America’s favor and the purposes
for which it may be used. After all, “No great power has a monopoly on virtue and, although some may have a great deal more
virtue than others, virtue imposed on others is not seen as such by them. All great powers are capable of exercising a measure of
self-restraint, but they are tempted not to and the choice to practice restraint is made easier by the existence of countervailing
power and the possibility of it being exercised.”49 While Washington’s self-proclaimed benevolence is inherently ephemeral, the
hard fist of American power is tangible. Others must worry constantly that if U.S. intentions change, bad things may happen to
them. In a one-superpower world, the overconcentration of power in America’s hands is an omnipresent challenge to other states’
security, and Washington’s ability to reassure others of its benevolence is limited by the very enormity of its power.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!
Impact File – Heg Bad
USF Debate 2010-2011
Obama will aggressively assert presidential powers – no different than Bush
Healy 08 (Gene Healy, senior editor at CATO institute, “The Cult of the Presidency,” Reason Magazine, June 2008,
Barack Obama has done more than any candidate in memory to boost expectations for the office, which were extraordinarily high to
begin with. Obama’s stated positions on civil liberties may be preferable to McCain’s, but would it matter? If and when a car bomb
goes off somewhere in America, would a President Obama be able to resist resorting to warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, and
the Bush theory of unrestrained executive power? As a Democrat without military experience, publicly perceived as weak on national
security, he’d have much more to prove. As Jack Goldsmith put it in his 2007 book, “For generations the Terror Presidency will be
characterized by an unremitting fear of attack, an obsession with preventing the attack, and a proclivity to act aggressively and
preemptively to do so.…If anything, the next Democratic President—having digested a few threat matrices, and acutely aware that he
or she alone will be wholly responsible when thousands of Americans are killed in the next attack—will be even more anxious than
the current President to thwart the threat.”
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!