Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: KU CD | Judge: Eric Robinson
Inherency

1. Targeted killings will increase now – low American casualty numbers, decreased expenses, WOT, and Brennan appointment all prove
   Jonathan Masters, Deputy Editor for the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for The Atlantic and Huffington Post and CNN, 5/23/13, “Targeted Killings,” http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/targeted-killings/p9627#p2

Analysts point to several factors that indicate U.S. targeted killings are likely to expand in the near term. Drone strikes and special operations raids put fewer Americans in harm's way and provide a low-cost alternative to expensive and cumbersome conventional forces, especially given likely cuts in the defense budget and a waning public appetite for long wars.
The rise of the so-called "non-state actors," operating in loose transnational networks, as the principal threat to U.S. national security also lends itself to an expansion of U.S. targeted killings, some experts say. In January 2012, the Pentagon released a fundamental strategy review that outlines defense priorities "in light of the changing geopolitical environment and our changing fiscal circumstances." The new guidance stresses the persistent threat of al-Qaeda and affiliates in South Asia and the Middle East, and commits the military to actively pursuing these threats by "directly striking the most dangerous groups and individuals when necessary."
Other experts say technological advances, including precision-guided munitions and enhanced surveillance, have given the United States a greater ability to target these particular individuals while reducing collateral damage. In July 2011, Chief Counterterrorism Adviser Brennan, provided a portent of things to come: "Going forward, we will be mindful that if our nation is threatened, our best offense won't always be deploying large armies abroad but delivering targeted, surgical pressure to the groups that threaten us."
President Obama's January 2013 selection of Brennan to take over at CIA has reinforced the notion among some analysts that targeted killings will continue to be a central component of U.S. counterterrorism policy. Brennan played a significant role in the administration's expansion of targeted killings, including overseeing the process by which suspected militants and terrorists are selected for strikes. 

2. *Lack of transparency is biggest reason war powers are expanding now – Increase in Congressional oversight key
Pearlstein 3/26/13 (Deborah, Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/congress_shouldn_t_give_president_obama_new_power _to_fight_terrorists.html)

Despite this, Leiter and others seem convinced that Congress should pass a new law authorizing force. Strangely, these calls for Congress to delegate new power to the executive branch seem animated less by an articulated security strategy or identified target than by a sense that thiswill actually help constrain the use of presidential power. As the argument goes, the president—any president—will want the option at some point of using force against some terrorist group. If Congress legislates, it can establish limits on the scope of the president’s authority by setting the rules for him to exercise it. The search for meaningful constraints on power is indeed the central challenge of our constitutional system. But Congress has an abysmal track record of successfully reining in presidential uses of force overseas. And there is little cause for hope it will succeed here. Consider the recent history. Congressdecided in the days after 9/11 to authorize the use of force against a limited set of targets responsible for the attacks of 9/11, and two presidents have now used that authority to its fullest. But such broad congressional authority has not stopped President Obama, just like his predecessors, from asserting that he retains inherent authority to use force in self-defense under Article II of theConstitution, above and beyond what Congress authorizes. Congress can authorize whatever new wars it wishes; the president can still use force against imminent threats without it. This is hardly to say the president’s decision to use force operates under no constraint at all. Using force is expensive, it is alienating, it is provocative, and it may create greater threats to the American people than it prevents. Presidents have to convince the American public that war is worthfighting. This has even been true when they respond to acts of terror in self-defense. When President Reagan ordered strikes against Libya following the bombing of the civilian airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, he made a speech from the Oval Office. Ditto for President Clinton when he bombed Sudan in response to al-Qaida’s attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Missiondetails were rightly few, but both presidents explained who we had targeted and why. And the public, if they were displeased, could hold accountable the president or his party.Today, it is this lack of transparency—not Congress’ relative apathy—that has boosted executive power and threatened the legitimacy of current drone operations. If Congress wants to do somethingabout this, it should start by beefing up its own oversight efforts. Current federal laws require the president to notify the intelligence committees of all covert actions carried out by CIA (after the fact if need be). Congress should also require the same degree of notification of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees for operations carried out by the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, an active participant in U.S. targeting operations. The much maligned War PowersResolution has been modestly effective in requiring the White House to report the introduction of military forces into hostilities. Inthe age of drones, Congress should explore strengthening that reporting requirement further.If a terrorist group poses a threat to the United States that is truly imminent, the president of course retains his power to respond with force in self-defense. If and when a new terrorist group emerges that poses the kind of profound threat to the American people al-Qaida posed in the years leading up to 9/11, the president should seek authorization from Congress to use force against thatgroup. New authority to use force is unlikely to diminish the president’s power. Neither does it ensure the public will be told who the United States attacks or why. Absent either, the case for new use-of-force legislation is impossibly thin.

 Drone Prolif

1. Drones are beginning to proliferate because of US precedent
   Stanford and NYU Law, International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic of the NYU Law School, September 2012, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/

US Targeted Killing and Drone Strike Practices May Establish Dangerous Precedents and Undermine the Rule of Law and US Democracy
The practices employed, and legal frameworks articulated, by the US today may set dangerous precedents for future engagements, including for other countries and armed non-state actors. We are in the midst of a significant period of drone proliferation, pushed forward on the one hand by governments and militaries, and on the other, by manufacturers seeking to expand markets and profit. Unchecked armed drone proliferation poses a threat to global stability, and, as more countries and non-state actors obtain access to the technology, the risk of US-style practices of cross-border targeted killing spreading are clear.
According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), “at least 76 countries” have acquired UAVs,770 including China, Pakistan, Russia, and India.771China alone has 25 types of systems currently in development; 772 Iran, whose arsenal includes the “Ambassador of Death,”773 is developing a drone with a range of more than 600 miles.774 Recently, in an unconfirmed report, it was alleged that Israel used a drone to strike and kill in the territory of Egypt.775Reportedly, Iran has supplied the Assad regime with drones, which it has apparently already employed to conduct surveillance on the opposition.776 Non-state organizations like Hezbollah have also entered the fray, reportedly deploying an Iranian-designed drone;777 the Free Syria Army also reportedly recently built a small armed drone.778 The GAO recently warned that “the United States likely faces increasing risks as additional countries of concern and terrorist organizations acquire UAV technology.”779 As Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution has observed:
I think of where the airplane was at the start of World War I: at first it was unarmed and limited to a handful of countries….Then it was armed and everywhere. That is the path we’re on.780
Drone manufacturers are heavily pushing their products internationally and into new markets,781 and global spending on drones is expected to total more than $94 billion over the next decade.782 Indeed, there “is not a single new Personed combat aircraft under research and development at any major Western aerospace company, and the Air Force is training more operators of unPersoned aerial systems than fighter and bomber pilots combined.”783
US manufacturers’ exports of drones have been limited to date because of export controls; however, significant pressure has been brought to bear on Congress, particularly by drone manufacturers, to loosen the export regime.784 In September 2012, it was reported that the Pentagon had given approval for drone exports to 66 countries.785 Representative Howard Berman (D- Los Angeles), ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, recently announced that his committee would soon review drone sales, declaring that “it’s crazy for us to shut off sales in this area while other countries push ahead.”786 The Wall Street Journal reported in July 2012 that the US plans to provide Kenya with eight hand-launched Raven drones, which, while currently unarmed, have sensors for pinpointing targets.787 The drones are part of a military assistance package aimed at helping African partners combat Al Qaeda and al Shabaab ‘militants’ in Somalia.788
Executive Director of the Arms Control Association Daryl Kimball describes how “the proliferation of this technology will mark a major shift in the way wars are waged,” warning that “we need to be very careful about who gets this technology. It could come back to hurt us.”789 John Brennan himself acknowledged that the US is “establishing precedent that other nations may follow.”790
2. Continuing un-transparent US drone policy risks that other countries will follow suit
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, 2012, “Executive Summary and Recommendations” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.

3. US led drone prolif presents the greatest threat to civilization- o/w traditional nuclear war because of lack of protocol
Jenkins 13, Simon, “Drones are fool's gold: they prolong wars we can't win,” The Guardian, 10 January 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/drones-fools-gold-prolong-wars

The drone wars seem pointless yet unstoppable. Their appeal to western leaders lies partly in their sheer novelty, partly in the hope they may make defeat less awful. They are like the USS New Jersey's shelling of Lebanon's Chouf mountains in 1984, a blood-thirsty display to cover withdrawal. The drone is not an aid to victory, but it eases the defeat its use has made more likely. The Taliban in Waziristan are no threat to London or to Washington. Al-Qaida can do no more to undermine the state than set off the occasional bomb, best prevented by domestic intelligence. Today's "wars of choice" reflect a more sinister aspect of democracy. Elected leaders seem to crave them, defying all warnings of the difficulty of ending them. Mesmerised by Margaret Thatcher's gain from the Falklands, they all want a good war. In this the drone is fool's gold. Driven by high-pressure arms salesmanship, Obama (and David Cameron) are briefed that they are the no-hands war of the future, safe, easy, clean, "precision targeted". No one on our side need get hurt. Someone else can do the dirty work on the ground. The tenuous legality of this form of combat requires the aggressor to have "declared war" on another state. But al-Qaida is no state. As a result these attacks on foreign soil are not just wars of choice, they are wars of self-invention. How soon will it be before the US finds itself "at war" with Iran and Syria, and sends over the drones? When it does, and the killing starts, it can hardly complain when the victims retaliate with suicide bombers. Nor will it just be suicide bombers. Drones are cheap and will easily proliferate. Eleven states deploy them already. The US is selling them to Japan to help against China. China is building 11 bases for its Anjian drones along its coast. The Pentagon is now training more drone operators than pilots. What happens when every nation with an air force does likewise, and every combustible border is buzzing with them? I did not fear nuclear proliferation because I believe such bombs are mere prestige acquisitions, so horrible not even lunatics would use them. Drones are different. When they were called guided missiles, they were in some degree governed by international law and protocol, as was the practice of global assassination. Obama rejects all that. He and the US are teaching the world that a pilotless aircraft is a self-justifying, self-exonerating, legal and effective weapon of war. However counter-productive a drone may be strategically, it cuts a glamorous dash on the home front. It is hard to imagine a greater danger to world peace.
4. O/W nuclear war- even nations without nukes can use UAVs to strike nuclear reactions ensuring widespread nuclear catastrophe
Mckillop 13, Andrew, “The Coming Global Drone War,” Before It’s News, March 2, 2013, http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/03/the-coming-global-drone-war-2580996.html

To date no public data or test results on simulated installations are available for the use of armed drones or other UAVW such as aerostats or balloons, kites and gliders, miniaturized rockets, and others, against the ultimate soft target: nuclear reactors, their control and core cooling systems, and other nuclear-related targets. Chernobyl and Fukushima however provide all the data needed on potential economic loss and loss of human life from worst-possible nuclear damage. Both catastrophes have resulted, or in Fukushima’s case will result in economic losses in the range of $350 – $500 billion. The death toll from the Chernobyl catastrophe remains “controversial”, but may be as high as 35 000 across Europe, to date, in the nearly 27 years since the event.   The US can in no way pretend to be surprised, although it should be alarmed at the swift pace of worldwide development, followed by deployment of UAVWs, due to the nature of the technology. Firstly, as clearly admitted but hidden inside the tortured prose of US Administration officials, drones are literally “fire and forget”, “no harm to us” weapons. They are politically expedient because they avoid using human troops on the ground or “in theatre”, and prevent any loss of these troops with its inevitable blowback on domestic public opinion in favour of, at least accepting the stated war aims.   The political cost of using drones is low. They can be made operational very fast. At least as important however, UAVWs are cheap relative to conventional military hardware and operations, and they drastically lower the “strike threshold” for causing maximum possible damage to the enemy.   Lowering this threshold will very surely and certainly create an important, possibly disastrous problem for world peace and national security in the years to come. Not only will this be driven by the shift made by the US in the 1990-2000 period, from using unarmed surveillance drones, to armed UAVWs, but by very rapid “Moore’s Law” increase of the numbers and capabilities of UAVWs worldwide.   Put another way, the US opened the Pandora’s Box of the Poor WoMans Nuke and will have to live with the consequences. The problem is that everybody else will also be forced to do so.
5. Nuclear meltdown causes extinction – 100 times the radiation of a nuclear bomb-
Lendman 7 (Stephen, Nuclear Meltdown in Japan, The People’s Voice, 13 March 2011, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/13/nuclear-meltdown-in-japan, da 8-3-13) PC

Reuters said the 1995 Kobe quake caused $100 billion in damage, up to then the most costly ever natural disaster. This time, from quake and tsunami damage alone, that figure will be dwarfed. Moreover, under a worst case core meltdown, all bets are off as the entire region and beyond will be threatened with permanent contamination, making the most affected areas unsafe to live in. On March 12, Stratfor Global Intelligence issued a "Red Alert: Nuclear Meltdown at Quake-Damaged Japanese Plant," saying: Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be....entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23 years, it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." "No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere." Stratfor explained that if Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring, "containment goes from being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized. Japanese officials said Fukushima's reactor container wasn't breached. Stratfor and others said it was, making the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima's Saiichi No. 1 facility could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors are affected or at risk. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very serious. The possibility of an extreme catastrophe can't be discounted. Moreover, independent nuclear safety analyst John Large told Al Jazeera that by venting radioactive steam from the inner reactor to the outer dome, a reaction may have occurred, causing the explosion. "When I look at the size of the explosion," he said, "it is my opinion that there could be a very large leak (because) fuel continues to generate heat." Already, Fukushima way exceeds Three Mile Island that experienced a partial core meltdown in Unit 2. Finally it was brought under control, but coverup and denial concealed full details until much later. According to anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, Japan's quake fallout may cause nuclear disaster, saying: "This is a very serious situation. If the cooling system fails (apparently it has at two or more plants), the super-heated radioactive fuel rods will melt, and (if so) you could conceivably have an explosion," that, in fact, occurred. As a result, massive radiation releases may follow, impacting the entire region. "It could be, literally, an apocalyptic event. The reactor could blow." If so, Russia, China, Korea and most parts of Western Asia will be affected. Many thousands will die, potentially millions under a worse case scenario, including far outside East Asia. Moreover, at least five reactors are at risk. Already, a 20-mile wide radius was evacuated. What happened in Japan can occur anywhere. Yet Obama's proposed budget includes $36 billion for new reactors, a shocking disregard for global safety. Calling Fukushima an "apocalyptic event," Wasserman said "(t)hese nuclear plants have to be shut," let alone budget billions for new ones. It's unthinkable, he said. If a similar disaster struck California, nuclear fallout would affect all America, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and parts of South America. Nuclear Power: A Technology from Hell Nuclear expert Helen Caldicott agrees, telling this writer by phone that a potential regional catastrophe is unfolding. Over 30 years ago, she warned of its inevitability. Her 2006 book titled, "Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" explained that contrary to government and industry propaganda, even during normal operations, nuclear power generation causes significant discharges of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as hundreds of thousands of curies of deadly radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every year. Moreover, nuclear plants are atom bomb factories. A 1000 megawatt reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium annually. Only 10 are needed for a bomb able to devastate a large city, besides causing permanent radiation contamination. Nuclear Power not Cleaner and Greener Just the opposite, in fact. Although a nuclear power plant releases no carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, a vast infrastructure is required. Called the nuclear fuel cycle, it uses large amounts of fossil fuels. Each cycle stage exacerbates the problem, starting with the enormous cost of mining and milling uranium, needing fossil fuel to do it. How then to dispose of mill tailings, produced in the extraction process. It requires great amounts of greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate.
Scenario 2 is Armenia Azerbaijan war- Recent drone prolif threatens Ammenia Azerbaijan war that causes international drawn in
Global Post 12, “Drone violence along Armenian-Azerbaijani border could lead to war,” Global Post, Oct 23rd, 2012, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/121022/drone-violence-along-armenian-azerbaijani-border-could-lead-war?page=0,1
According to SIPRI, Azerbaijan had acquired about 30 drones from Israeli firms Aeronautics Ltd. and Elbit Systems by the end of 2011, including at least 25 medium-sized Hermes-450 and Aerostar drones. In October 2011, Azerbaijan signed a deal to license and domestically produce an additional 60 Aerostar and Orbiter 2M drones. Its most recent purchase from Israel Aeronautics Industries (IAI) in March reportedly included 10 high altitude Heron-TP drones — the most advanced Israeli drone in service — according to Oxford Analytica. Collectively, these purchases have netted Azerbaijan 50 or more drones that are similar in class, size and capabilities to American Predator and Reaper-type drones, which are the workhorses of the United States’ campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.  Although Israel may have sold the drones to Azerbaijan with Iran in mind, Baku has said publicly that it intends to use its new hardware to retake territory it lost to Armenia. So far, Azerbaijan’s drone fleet is not armed, but industry experts say the models it employs could carry munitions and be programmed to strike targets. Drones are a tempting tool to use in frozen conflicts, because, while their presence raises tensions, international law remains vague at best on the legality of using them. In 2008, several Georgian drones were shot down over its rebel region of Abkhazia. A UN investigation found that at least one of the drones was downed by a fighter jet from Russia, which maintained a peacekeeping presence in the territory. While it was ruled that Russia violated the terms of the ceasefire by entering aircraft into the conflict zone, Georgia also violated the ceasefire for sending the drone on a “military operation” into the conflict zone.  The incident spiked tensions between Russia and Georgia, both of which saw it as evidence the other was preparing to attack. Three months later, they fought a brief, but destructive war that killed hundreds. The legality of drones in Nagorno-Karabakh is even less clear because the conflict was stopped in 1994 by a simple ceasefire that halted hostilities but did not stipulate a withdrawal of military forces from the area. Furthermore, analysts believe that all-out war between Armenia and Azerbaijan would be longer and more difficult to contain than the five-day Russian-Georgian conflict. While Russia was able to quickly rout the Georgian army with a much superior force, analysts say that Armenia and Azerbaijan are much more evenly matched and therefore the conflict would be prolonged and costly in lives and resources.  Blank said that renewed war would be “a very catastrophic event” with “a recipe for a very quick escalation to the international level.” Armenia is militarily allied with Russia and hosts a base of 5,000 Russian troops on its territory. After the summer’s border clashes, Russia announced it was stepping up its patrols of Armenian airspace by 20 percent. Iran also supports Armenia and has important business ties in the country, which analysts say Tehran uses as a “proxy” to circumvent international sanctions. Blank said Israel has made a risky move by supplying Azerbaijan with drones and other high tech equipment, given the tenuous balance of power between the heavily fortified Armenian positions and the more numerous and technologically superior Azerbaijani forces. If ignited, he said, “an Armenian-Azerbaijani war will not be small. That’s the one thing I’m sure of.”
Middle East conflict triggers nuclear warfare—end of the Cold War increased the risk of escalation
Primakov 9 (September, Yevgeny, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation; Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; member of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs. This article is based on the scientific report for which the author was awarded the Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008, “The Middle East Problem in the Context of International Relations”) 

The Middle East conflict is unparalleled in terms of its potential for spreading globally. During the Cold War, amid which the Arab-Israeli conflict evolved, the two opposing superpowers directly supported the conflicting parties: the Soviet Union supported Arab countries, while the United States supported Israel. On the one hand, the bipolar world order which existed at that time objectively played in favor of the escalation of the Middle East conflict into a global confrontation. On the other hand, the Soviet Union and the United States were not interested in such developments and they managed to keep the situation under control. The behavior of both superpowers in the course of all the wars in the Middle East proves that. In 1956, during the Anglo-French-Israeli military invasion of Egypt (which followed Cairo’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal Company) the United States – contrary to the widespread belief in various countries, including Russia – not only refrained from supporting its allies but insistently pressed – along with the Soviet Union – for the cessation of the armed action. Washington feared that the tripartite aggression would undermine the positions of the West in the Arab world and would result in a direct clash with the Soviet Union. Fears that hostilities in the Middle East might acquire a global dimension could materialize also during the Six-Day War of 1967. On its eve, Moscow and Washington urged each other to cool down their “clients.” When the war began, both superpowers assured each other that they did not intend to get involved in the crisis militarily and that that they would make efforts at the United Nations to negotiate terms for a ceasefire. On July 5, the Chairman of the Soviet Government, Alexei Kosygin, who was authorized by the Politburo to conduct negotiations on behalf of the Soviet leadership, for the first time ever used a hot line for this purpose. After the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli forces, which later claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson immediately notified Kosygin that the movement of the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean Sea was only intended to help the crew of the attacked ship and to investigate the incident. The situation repeated itself during the hostilities of October 1973. Russian publications of those years argued that it was the Soviet Union that prevented U.S. military involvement in those events. In contrast, many U.S. authors claimed that a U.S. reaction thwarted Soviet plans to send troops to the Middle East. Neither statement is true. The atmosphere was really quite tense. Sentiments both in Washington and Moscow were in favor of interference, yet both capitals were far from taking real action. When U.S. troops were put on high alert, Henry Kissinger assured Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin that this was done largely for domestic considerations and should not be seen by Moscow as a hostile act. In a private conversation with Dobrynin, President Richard Nixon said the same, adding that he might have overreacted but that this had been done amidst a hostile campaign against him over Watergate. Meanwhile, Kosygin and Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko at a Politburo meeting in Moscow strongly rejected a proposal by Defense Minister Marshal Andrei Grechko to “demonstrate” Soviet military presence in Egypt in response to Israel’s refusal to comply with a UN Security Council resolution. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev took the side of Kosygin and Gromyko, saying that he was against any Soviet involvement in the conflict.  The above suggests an unequivocal conclusion that control by the superpowers in the bipolar world did not allow the Middle East conflict to escalate into a global confrontation. After the end of the Cold War, some scholars and political observers concluded that a real threat of the Arab-Israeli conflict going beyond regional frameworks ceased to exist. However, in the 21st century this conclusion no longer conforms to the reality. The U.S. military operation in Iraq has changed the balance of forces in the Middle East. The disappearance of the Iraqi counterbalance has brought Iran to the fore as a regional power claiming a direct role in various Middle East processes. I do not belong to those who believe that the Iranian leadership has already made a political decision to create nuclear weapons of its own. Yet Tehran seems to have set itself the goal of achieving a technological level that would let it make such a decision (the “Japanese model”) under unfavorable circumstances. Israel already possesses nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. In such circumstances, the absence of a Middle East settlement opens a dangerous prospect of a nuclear collision in the region, which would have catastrophic consequences for the whole world. The transition to a multipolar world has objectively strengthened the role of states and organizations that are directly involved in regional conflicts, which increases the latter’s danger and reduces the possibility of controlling them. This refers, above all, to the Middle East conflict. The coming of Barack Obama to the presidency has allayed fears that the United States could deliver a preventive strike against Iran (under George W. Bush, it was one of the most discussed topics in the United States). However, fears have increased that such a strike can be launched Yevgeny Primakov 1 3 2 RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS VOL. 7 • No. 3 • JULY – SEPTEMBER• 2009 by Israel, which would have unpredictable consequences for the region and beyond. It seems that President Obama’s position does not completely rule out such a possibility.

Middle East war causes extinction—escalation of WMDs
Nassar  2 (Bahig, Arab Co-ordinating Centre of Non-Governmental Organizations, and Afro-Asian People’s Solidary Organization, 11/25/02, keynote paper for Cordoba Dialogue on Peace and Human Rights in Europe and the Middle East, http://www.inesglobal.org/BahigNassar.htm)

Wars in the Middle East are of a new type. Formerly, the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union had prevented them, under the balance of the nuclear terror, from launching war against each other. In the Middle East, the possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction leads to military clashes and wars. Instead of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the United States and Israel are using military force to prevent others from acquiring them, while they insist on maintaining their own weapons to pose deadly threats to other nations. But the production, proliferation and threat or uses of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear chemical and biological) are among the major global problems which could lead, if left unchecked, to the extinction of life on earth. Different from the limited character of former wars, the current wars in the Middle East manipulate global problems and escalate their dangers instead of solving them

Hegemony
Drones undermine American influence - Hard power alone cant solve
Younger 13, Caleb , “Drones: Is the Loss of Soft Power Worth It?,” The Georgetown Progressive, 2/15/13 http://guprogressive.com/?p=5803

At the Progressive, we have talked about the constitutionality of drone strokes.  We have discussed whether or not the President even has the authority to continue the UAV (unPersoned aerial vehicle) strikes.  The other question is whether the US is making a foreign policy mistake by continuing the controversial program. The loss of political capital in the US is bad enough, but the loss of soft power abroad creates the risk of undoing the drones’ missions.  Drones are exceedingly unpopular abroad, seen as another case of American overreaching.  Even when these attacks succeed in getting their target, they offer the risk of collateral damage and loss of innocent life.  According to Pakistan, 700 civilians were killed by drone strikes from 2007 to 2009.  Better technology and increased precision can decrease the probability of killing more civilians, but there will always be a risk. In a Gallup poll released yesterday, Pakistani approval of the US leadership sunk to a staggering 4.  The rest of the Middle East has similarly experienced a lack of trust in the Obama administration.  This is particularly troubling because US foreign policy cannot only be built on the use of hard power.  Not all issues can be solved by drone strikes and the use of force.  When these issues arise, the US may find they have sacrificed their influence away. It is absurd to suggest tailoring foreign policy to fit only foreign interests, but it seems equally short-sighted to completely ignore legitimate concerns.  Obama is sacrificing the moral upper-hand, a valuable position to hold.  In a discussion about human rights, he will not be as effective.  Obama is giving up a tremendous amount of soft power and persuasive influence for the use of drone strikes.  In my opinion he is making a mistake.  Obama is gambling that his increased hard power will make up for it.
 Multiple Internal Links
1) Alliances- Drones risk US foreign military alliances because of legitimacy issues
Kennedy 13 (Greg, a Professor of Strategic Foreign Policy at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, based at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, “Drones: Legitimacy and Anti-Americanism,” Parameters 42(4)/43(1) Winter-Spring 2013, Strategic Studies Institute at the United States Army War College
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/WinterSpring_2013/3_Article_Kennedy.pdf
p. 26)
The current debate over the legitimacy of America’s use of drones to deliver deadly force is taking place in both public and official domains in the United States and many other countries.5 The four key features at  the heart of the debate revolve around: who is controlling the weapon system; does the system of control and oversight violate international law governing the use of force; are the drone strikes proportionate acts that provide military effectiveness given the circumstances of the conflict they are being used in; and does their use violate the sovereignty of other nations and allow the United States to disregard formal national boundaries? Unless these four questions are dealt with in the near future the impact of the unresolved legitimacy issues will have a number of repercussions for American foreign and military policies: “Without a new doctrine for the use of drones that is understandable to friends and foes, the United States risks achieving near-term tactical benefits in killing terrorists while incurring potentially significant longer-term costs to its alliances, global public opinion, the war on terrorism and international stability.”6This article will address only the first three critical questions. 

These alliances are key to cooperative engagement
Kreisher 12 (Otto Kreisher, Former Naval Officer/veteran Washington correspondent and defense journalist, “Chuck Hagel, Touted As Next SecDef, Argues For Soft Power, Allies”,  December 10 2012, Breaking Defense, http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/10/chuck-hagel-touted-as-next-secdef-argues-for-soft-power-allie/   )

Perhaps with an eye toward America losing its preeminent military position, Hagel argued that “engagement” is the key to address many international problems. In the national security world, engagement generally encompasses negotiations or multinational efforts. It has never been a popular tactic among most Republicans and some pro-military Democrats. However, Hagel insisted that “engagement is not surrender, it’s not appeasement,” clearly taking on some of his GOP colleagues, who have slung around appeasement — associated with the foolish actions of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as he tried to avert war with Germany — to describe some of President Barack Obama’s efforts to prevent international tensions from flaring into conflict. Engagement is “an opportunity to better understand” others, Hagel said, and to bring “mutual self respect” among contesting parties. As the U.S. faces a litany of problems and potential crises in the future, he said, “we will need to turn our receivers on and our transmitters off.” The emerging issues, Hagel said, “are beyond the control of any great power” and the U.S. “cannot solve them alone.” Instead, they must be addressed through alliances, through “joint thinking,” he said.

2) Drone strikes as is hurt U.S. credibility – lack of congressional oversight means we get blamed for all bombings
Zenko 13, (Micah, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, with expertise in Conflict Prevention; US national security policy, military planning and operations and nuclear weapons policy. “Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies”, Council on Foerign Relations Special Report no. 65, January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736, pg15)

The problem with maintaining that drone strikes are covert is that both the American and international publics often misunderstand how drones are used. And in affected states, citizens often blame the United States for collateral damage that could have been caused by the host states’ own weapon systems. According to a recent report from Yemen: It’s extremely difficult to figure out who is responsible for any given strike. . . . It could be a Personed plane from the Yemeni Air Force or the U.S. military. Or it could be an unPersoned drone flown by the U.S. military or the CIA. . . . But no matter who launches a particular strike, Yemenis are likely to blame it on the Americans. What’s more, we found that many more civilians are being killed than officials acknowledge.37 Congressional oversight of drone strikes varies depending on whether the CIA or the U.S. military is the lead executive authority. The CIA, according to the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Dianne Feinstein, meets its “fully and currently informed” legal obligations through “monthly in-depth oversight meetings to review strike records and question every aspect of the program.” 38 Individual JSOC strikes are not reported to the relevant armed services committees, but are covered under the broad special access program biannual reporting to Congress. According to senior staff members on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, many of their peers have little understanding of how drone strikes are conducted within the countries for which they are responsible for exercising oversight. Even serving White House officials and members of Congress repeatedly make inaccurate statements about U.S. targeted killings and appear to be unaware of how policies have changed over the past decade.39 At the same time, the judiciary committees have been repeatedly denied access to the June 2010 Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that presented the legal basis for the drone strike that killed U.S. citizen and alleged leader of AQAP Anwar al-Awlaki in September 2011.40 Finally, despite nearly ten years of nonbattlefield targeted killings, no congressional committee has conducted a hearing on any aspect of them.

Credibility is key to hard power
APSA 9 (American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Association is the leading professional organization for the study of political science and serves more than 15,000 members in over 80 countries. With a range of programs and services for individuals, departments and institutions, APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors within and outside academe in order to expand awareness and understanding of politics, “ U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and the Future,” Task Force Report, October 2009,
http://www.apsanet.org/media/PDFs/APSAUSStandingShortFinal.pdf
p. 3-4)

Unlike something a nation possesses and can easily measure, like wealth or military might, standing is an attribute assigned to the United States by actors beyond its borders—such as foreign leaders and peoples, international organizations, and transnational groups—and assessed by citizens within them. U.S. standing has both an absolute and a relative quality. It is absolute in the sense that it can be high or low and can vary over time. It is relative in that U.S. standing could be better or worse than that of other countries or actors, such as China or the European Union.Standing has two major facets: credibility and esteem. Credibility refers to the U.S. government’s ability to do what it says it is going to do—to “stand up” for what it believes, and to “stand against” threats to its interests and ideals. Esteem refers to America’s stature, or what America is perceived to “stand for” in the hearts and minds of foreign publics and policymakers. Credibility and esteem can be mutually reinforcing, but they can also be difficult to pursue in tandem—a trade-off implied by Machiavelli’s famous dictum: “it is much safer to be feared than loved.” Standing is densely interwoven with U.S. “hard power”—the nation’s material military and economic capabilities. U.S. capabilities help the nation realize its interests, and a modern military and robust economy breed appeal and respect. Power and standing, however, are not the same thing. U.S. standing may vary even if U.S. hard power does not, as we have seen since 2000: standing has declined (see Figure 3), but relative American power has been steady (see Figure 5 below).. Likewise with “soft power”: a country’s standing can rise and fall even as the attractiveness of its system remains relatively constant. And unlike pro- or anti-Americanism, standing is not about whether others are for or against the United States, but instead whether they view the United States as a credible actor with traits that should be admired or emulated. Why should policymakers—or political scientists—care about standing at all?First, recent history suggests that standing can play a fundamental role in the shaping of strategy. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush initiated a new national strategy for the United States that favored the credibility dimension of standing—emphasizing a policy package of assertive unilateralism, preventive use of force, and aggressive democratization. The administration achieved some initial successes, swiftly toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, securing dismantlement of Libya’s nuclear program, and encouraging an apparent halt or slow-down in Iran’s nuclear program. Yet, over time, despite the lack of further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, American standing declined. The Bush administration’s single-minded approach lost significant support at home and abroad, as the United States grew mired in Iraq, was accused of violations of international law, and drew international criticism and resentment—even as Osama bin Laden remained at large. This decline in standing only made it harder for the United States to be effective in foreign affairs—prompting the Bush administration to take what some saw as a reverse course after 2005 and return to the typical pattern of American internationalism since World War II. More distant history speaks to the significance of standing as well. In the long competition with the Soviet Union, the United States was anxious that its reputation to protect its allies, especially those in Europe, be seen as credible by both Soviet leaders and Europeans. U.S. participation in the Korean and Viet Nam wars was spurred by the fear that a perception of diminished U.S. credibility would lead others to join a rising Communist tide. As Lyndon Johnson explained to Martin Luther King, Jr. in early 1965, “If I pulled out of Vietnam ... I think the Germans would be scared to death that our commitment to them was no good, and God knows what we’d have in other places in the world....”Standing is the everyday currency of America’s existence in the world. Political standing is akin to long-term political capital (or “goodwill” in accounting). It has intrinsic value, including in the self-understanding of Americans, even when it has no readily observable behavioral implications.
Soft power is key to solve multiple extinction scenarios
Nye 8 (Joseph, professor of International Relations at Harvard University, “American Power After the Financial Crises,” Foresight Project, 2008, http://www.foresightproject.net/publications/articles/article.asp?p=3533)
Power always depends on context, and in today's world, it is distributed in a pattern that resembles a complex three-dimensional chess game. On the top chessboard, military power is largely unipolar and likely to remain so for some time. But on the middle chessboard, economic power is already multi-polar, with the US, Europe, Japan and China as the major players, and others gaining in importance. The bottom chessboard is the realm of transnational relations that cross borders outside of government control, and it includes actors as diverse as bankers electronically transferring sums larger than most national budgets at one extreme, and terrorists transferring weapons or hackers disrupting Internet operations at the other. It also includes new challenges like pandemics and climate change. On this bottom board, power is widely dispersed, and it makes no sense to speak of unipolarity, multi-polarity or hegemony. Even in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the giddy pace of technological change is likely to continue to drive globalisation, but the political effects will be quite different for the world of nation states and the world of non-state actors. In inter-state politics, the most important factor will be the continuing "return of Asia". In 1750, Asia had three-fifths of the world population and three-fifths of the world's product. By 1900, after the industrial revolution in Europe and America, Asia's share shrank to one-fifth of the world product. By 2040, Asia will be well on its way back to its historical share. The "rise" in the power of China and India may create instability, but it is a problem with precedents, and we can learn from history about how our policies can affect the outcome. A century ago, Britain managed the rise of American power without conflict, but the world's failure to manage the rise of German power led to two devastating world wars. In transnational politics, the information revolution is dramatically reducing the costs of computing and communication. Forty years ago, instantaneous global communication was possible but costly, and restricted to governments and corporations. Today it is virtually free to anyone with the means to enter an internet café. The barriers to entry into world politics have been lowered, and non-state actors now crowd the stage. In 2001, a non-state group killed more Americans than the government of Japan killed at Pearl Harbor. A pandemic spread by birds or travelers on jet aircraft could kill more people than perished in the first or second world wars. This is a new world politics with which we have less experience. The problems of power diffusion (away from states) may turn out to be more difficult than power transition among states. The problem for American power in the 21st century is that there are more and more things outside the control of even the most powerful state. Although the United States does well on the traditional measures, there is increasingly more going on in the world that those measures fail to capture. Under the influence of the information revolution and globalisation, world politics is changing in a way that means Americans cannot achieve all their international goals acting alone. For example, international financial stability is vital to the prosperity of Americans, but the United States needs the cooperation of others to ensure it. Global climate change too will affect the quality of life, but the United States cannot manage the problem alone. And in a world where borders are becoming more porous than ever to everything from drugs to infectious diseases to terrorism, America must mobilise international coalitions to address shared threats and challenges. As the largest country, American leadership will remain crucial. The problem of American power after this crisis is not one of decline, but realisation that even the largest country cannot achieve its aims without the help of others

Soft power is key to sustain hegemony – solves a laundry list of impacts
Thayer 6 (Bradley A. is an associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, “In Defense of Primacy,” November/December 2006, Issue 86, National Interest, p.32, EBSCOHost, Accessed Date: 5-7-13 y2k) 

A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power--the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment.(FN1)¶ Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests.¶ But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy.¶ There are two critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this.¶ So the debate revolves around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action--but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not.¶ A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor.¶ In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats.¶ And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing.¶ Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased.(FN2) This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly.¶ 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.¶ U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation.¶ You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington.¶ Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States.¶ China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates.¶ The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations.¶ THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.¶ Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)."¶ Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars.¶ Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.(FN3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. Thi
s is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States.¶ Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted.¶ Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive.¶ Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess.¶ Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.(FN4) As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides.¶ Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces.¶ American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg.¶ THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.¶ While the benefits of American primacy are considerable, no country can ever escape from the iron law of Economics 101--there is no free lunch. American primacy is no exception. Leadership requires that the United States incur costs and run risks not borne by other countries. These costs can be stark and brutal, and they have to be faced directly by proponents of primacy. It means that some Americans will die in the service of their country. These are the costs, and they are significant. Americans should be conscious of them and use them in their contemplation of the value of primacy. Additionally, the costs of primacy must impose upon American policy-makers a sharp focus and prudence concerning how they wield American power. Equally, all Americans should be aware of the benefits that flow from primacy and that they enjoy.¶ While primacy's advantages and costs must be weighed objectively and solemnly, the scholars who are proclaiming that the sky is falling, primacy is doomed and America must retrench have to confront the reality of U.S. power. The world is a long way from seeing the end of American primacy, and it is in America's interest--and the world's--to have it last as long as possible.¶ 

Terrorism 

1. Ambiguous strikes with little justification means drone strikes causes terrorism by increasing anti-American sentiment
   Stanford and NYU Law, International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic of the NYU Law School, September 2012, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/

The central justification for US drone strikes is that they are necessary to make the US safer by disrupting militant activity. Proponents argue that they are an effective, accurate, and precise tool to that end. However, serious questions have been raised about the accuracy and efficacy of strikes, and the publicly available evidence that they have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. Considerable costs also have been documented. The under-accounted-for harm to civilians–injuries, killings, and broad impacts on daily life, education, and mental health–was analyzed in detail above, and must be factored as a severe cost of the US program.687In addition, it is clear that US strikes in Pakistan foster anti-American sentiment and undermine US credibility not only in Pakistan but throughout the region. There is strong evidence to suggest that US drone strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivate attacks against both US military and civilian targets. Further, current US targeted killing and drone strike practices may set dangerous global legal precedents, erode the rule of law, and facilitate recourse to lethal force.
A significant rethinking of current policies, in light of all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and short and long-term costs and benefits, is long overdue.

3. Transparency solves terrorism by releasing justifications and real civilian casualties to Pakistani people
Robbins 13, Carla, “Drones: Transparency on Rules for Their Use Is a Must,” Business Week, 2/14/13, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-14/drones-transparency-on-rules-for-their-use-is-a-must#p2

The New America Foundation has compiled a database on drone strikes from news accounts. It estimates that since 2004, between 1,963 and 3,293 people have been killed in Pakistan, of whom 430 to 635 were civilians. Peter Bergen, who oversees the project, says that with improvements in intelligence and munitions, the percentage of civilian deaths has dropped from about 40 percent in the Bush years, to “low single digits” now. Bergen says the administration’s refusal to discuss the program has “allowed conspiracy theories to flourish” and made it harder to refute claims of massive civilian deaths. “If you had a less covert program,” he says, you could openly tell the Pakistani people: “We killed Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud, who had the blood of hundreds or even thousands of Pakistanis on his hands.” Zenko calls the silence “the worst strategic communications strategy in the world.” If the administration wants to maintain some freedom of action—and calm international anxiety—it needs to come up with a clear and proportionate set of rules for drone use. Among Zenko’s recommendations: The president should follow his declared policy and limit targeted killings to the leadership of al-Qaeda and related forces or individuals directly involved in past or current terrorist plots. The administration should explain its procedures for preventing harm to civilians and investigating errant strikes and commit to providing restitution for families of civilian victims. And the U.S. should begin talking to other countries about the principles and limits of drone warfare. The Brookings Institution’s Singer says 76 other countries and an ever-wider group of nonstate actors have or are seeking drones, which makes the need to come up with international norms even more urgent. The U.S. has used drone strikes against militants in Pakistan and Yemen whom it deems “terrorists.” But, Singer asks, what if it’s Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad “asking Iran to use drones against Syrian rebels? Would we have a leg to stand on?” Before last fall’s election, Obama aides scrambled to come up with a set of formal rules for the use of drones, just in case Mitt Romney won. Among the ideas now being discussed are a secret court to review kill orders for U.S. citizens (an official says that may be too hard to organize) and shifting more of the program from the CIA to the military, which could raise accountability and transparency. “The president trusts himself … to do this the right way, but he doesn’t know about the next government,” the U.S. official says with no apparent irony. “He also knows that in 5, 10 years, the Russians and Chinese will be using drones. The only way we can influence their use is by being as public and transparent as possible.” Better late than never.

7. Terrorism causes miscalculation that draws in Russia and China and culminates in extinction- also causes rising alert levels
Ayson 2010 (Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

Plan Text
Plan: The United States Congress should require the President to release the United States Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis and justifications for drone attacks.

Solvency
Releasing the DOJ memoranda solves transparency with other nations, targeting criteria, and civilian data
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, 2012, “Executive Summary and Recommendations” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

In light of these concerns, this report recommends that the US conduct a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices, taking into account all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and the short and long-term costs and benefits. A significant rethinking of current US targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue. US policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of US targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.
This report also supports and reiterates the calls consistently made by rights groups and others for legality, accountability, and transparency in US drone strike policies:

The US should fulfill its international obligations with respect to accountability and transparency, and ensure proper democratic debate about key policies. The US should:
Release the US Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis for US targeted killing in Pakistan; Make public critical information concerning US drone strike policies, including as previously and repeatedly reques¬ted by various groups and officials:7 the tar-geting criteria for so-called “signature” strikes; the mechanisms in place to ensure that targeting complies with international law; which laws are being applied; the nature of investigations into civilian death and injury; and mechanisms in place to track, analyze and publicly recognize civilian casualties;8
Ensure independent investigations into drone strike deaths, consistent with the call made by Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in August 2012;9
In conjunction with robust investigations and, where appropriate, prosecutions, establish compensation programs for civilians harmed by US strikes in Pakistan.
The US should fulfill its international humanitarian and human rights law obligations with respect to the use of force, including by not using lethal force against individuals who are not members of armed groups with whom the US is in an armed conflict, or otherwise against individuals not posing an imminent threat to life. This includes not double-striking targets as first responders arrive.

Tournament: 2013babyjo | Round: 5 | Opponent: UT Dallas Gonzales-Loehr | Judge: Osborn
Plan: The United States Congress should statutorily require the President to release the United States Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis and justifications for drone strikes in the area of targeted killing.

Inherency

1. As drone strikes increase lack of transparency is biggest reason war powers are expanding – Increase in Congressional oversight key
   Pearlstein 3/26/13 (Deborah, Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/congress_shouldn_t_give_president_obama_new_power _to_fight_terrorists.html)

Despite this, Leiter and others seem convinced
AND
-of-force legislation is impossibly thin.

 Drone Prolif

1. Drones are beginning to proliferate because of US precedent
   Stanford and NYU Law, International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic of the NYU Law School, September 2012, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/

US Targeted Killing and Drone Strike Practices May
AND
precedent that other nations may follow.”790
2. Continuing un-transparent US drone policy risks that other countries will follow suit
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, 2012, “Executive Summary and Recommendations” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone
AND
develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.

3. US led drone prolif presents the greatest threat to civilization- o/w traditional nuclear war because of lack of protocol
Jenkins 13, Simon, “Drones are fool's gold: they prolong wars we can't win,” The Guardian, 10 January 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/drones-fools-gold-prolong-wars

The drone wars seem pointless yet unstoppable.
AND
to imagine a greater danger to world peace.
4. O/W nuclear war- even nations without nukes can use UAVs to strike nuclear reactions ensuring widespread nuclear catastrophe
Mckillop 13, Andrew, “The Coming Global Drone War,” Before It’s News, March 2, 2013, http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/03/the-coming-global-drone-war-2580996.html

To date no public data or test results
AND
else will also be forced to do so.
5. Nuclear meltdown causes extinction – 100 times the radiation of a nuclear bomb-
Lendman 7 (Stephen, Nuclear Meltdown in Japan, The People’s Voice, 13 March 2011, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/13/nuclear-meltdown-in-japan, da 8-3-13) PC

Reuters said the 1995 Kobe quake caused $
AND
great amounts of greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate.
Scenario 2 is Armenia Azerbaijan war- Recent drone prolif threatens Ammenia Azerbaijan war that causes international drawn in
Global Post 12, “Drone violence along Armenian-Azerbaijani border could lead to war,” Global Post, Oct 23rd, 2012, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/121022/drone-violence-along-armenian-azerbaijani-border-could-lead-war?page=0,1
According to SIPRI, Azerbaijan had acquired about
AND
. That’s the one thing I’m sure of.”
Middle East conflict triggers nuclear warfare—end of the Cold War increased the risk of escalation
Primakov 9 (September, Yevgeny, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation; Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; member of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs. This article is based on the scientific report for which the author was awarded the Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008, “The Middle East Problem in the Context of International Relations”) 

The Middle East conflict is unparalleled in terms
AND
does not completely rule out such a possibility.

Middle East war causes extinction—escalation of WMDs
Nassar  2 (Bahig, Arab Co-ordinating Centre of Non-Governmental Organizations, and Afro-Asian People’s Solidary Organization, 11/25/02, keynote paper for Cordoba Dialogue on Peace and Human Rights in Europe and the Middle East, http://www.inesglobal.org/BahigNassar.htm)

Wars in the Middle East are of a
AND
problems and escalate their dangers instead of solving them

Hegemony

 Drones Hurt Hegemony- Multiple Internal Links
1) Alliances- Drones risk US foreign military alliances because of legitimacy issues
Kennedy 13 (Greg, a Professor of Strategic Foreign Policy at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, based at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, “Drones: Legitimacy and Anti-Americanism,” Parameters 42(4)/43(1) Winter-Spring 2013, Strategic Studies Institute at the United States Army War College
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/WinterSpring_2013/3_Article_Kennedy.pdf
p. 26)
The current debate over the legitimacy of America’s
AND
will address only the first three critical questions. 

2) These alliances are key to cooperative engagement
Kreisher 12 (Otto Kreisher, Former Naval Officer/veteran Washington correspondent and defense journalist, “Chuck Hagel, Touted As Next SecDef, Argues For Soft Power, Allies”,  December 10 2012, Breaking Defense, http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/10/chuck-hagel-touted-as-next-secdef-argues-for-soft-power-allie/   )

Perhaps with an eye toward America losing its
AND
, through “joint thinking,” he said.

3) Drone strikes as is hurt U.S. credibility – lack of transparency means we get blamed for all bombings
Zenko 13, (Micah, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, with expertise in Conflict Prevention; US national security policy, military planning and operations and nuclear weapons policy. “Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies”, Council on Foerign Relations Special Report no. 65, January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736, pg15)

The problem with maintaining that drone strikes are
AND
conducted a hearing on any aspect of them.

4) Credibility is key to hard power
APSA 9 (American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Association is the leading professional organization for the study of political science and serves more than 15,000 members in over 80 countries. With a range of programs and services for individuals, departments and institutions, APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors within and outside academe in order to expand awareness and understanding of politics, “ U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and the Future,” Task Force Report, October 2009,
http://www.apsanet.org/media/PDFs/APSAUSStandingShortFinal.pdf
p. 3-4)

Unlike something a nation possesses and can easily
AND
when it has no readily observable behavioral implications.
5) Soft power is key to solve multiple extinction scenarios
Nye 8 (Joseph, professor of International Relations at Harvard University, “American Power After the Financial Crises,” Foresight Project, 2008, http://www.foresightproject.net/publications/articles/article.asp?p=3533)
Power always depends on context, and in
AND
cannot achieve its aims without the help of others

Soft power is key to exercise hard power
Nye 2004 (Joseph S. Nye, political scientist and former Harvard school of government dean, “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy” Vol. 119, No. 2, Summer 2004 , http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20202345.pdf,p. 260-261)

In the global information age, the attractiveness
AND
the information age. We cannot afford that.
Soft power is key to sustain hegemony – solves a laundry list of impacts
Thayer 6 (Bradley A. is an associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, “In Defense of Primacy,” November/December 2006, Issue 86, National Interest, p.32, EBSCOHost, Accessed Date: 5-7-13 y2k) 

A grand strategy based on American primacy means
AND
to have it last as long as possible.¶ 

Transparent drone procedures solve perception of legitimacy
Machon 2006 (Maj. Matthew J., US Army Major and investigor for the School of Advanced Military Studies, “Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror”, 5/25/06, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/machon.pdf, p. 57)

To maintain international legitimacy and retain the moral
AND
thus far in the war on ¶ terror.

Terrorism 

1. Ambiguous strikes with little justification means drone strikes causes terrorism by increasing anti-American sentiment
   Stanford and NYU Law, International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic of the NYU Law School, September 2012, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/

The central justification for US drone strikes is
AND
law, and facilitate recourse to lethal force.
A significant rethinking of current policies, in light of all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and short and long-term costs and benefits, is long overdue.

2. Transparency solves terrorism by releasing justifications and real civilian casualties to Pakistani people
Robbins 13, Carla, “Drones: Transparency on Rules for Their Use Is a Must,” Business Week, 2/14/13, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-14/drones-transparency-on-rules-for-their-use-is-a-must#p2

The New America Foundation has compiled a database
AND
transparent as possible.” Better late than never.
3. US drone policies alienate the cooperation of the international community that’s k2 solve terrorism—only restrictions on targeted killing solve.
Elliot 9, (Michael Elliot, Georgetown University Law Center, International School of Islamabad, Pakistan, Where Precision Is the Aim: Locating the Targeted Killing Policies of the United States and Israel within International Humanitarian Law, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 47, 2009, http://books.google.com/books/about/Canadian_Yearbook_of_International_Law.html?id=s2HRlVwkfc8C)

Where that general compliance is no longer certain
AND
but, rather, of unrestrained state practice.¶ 

4. Terrorism causes miscalculation that draws in Russia and China and culminates in extinction- also causes rising alert levels
Ayson 2010 (Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the
AND
might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

Plan Text
Plan: The United States Congress should statutorily require the President to release the United States Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis and justifications for drone strikes in the area of targeted killing.

Solvency
Releasing the DOJ memoranda solves transparency with other nations, targeting criteria, and civilian data
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, 2012, “Executive Summary and Recommendations” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

In light of these concerns, this report
AND
double-striking targets as first responders arrive.

*Increasing congressional visibility is the only way to stop drone proliferation that prevents instability.
Roberts 13 (Kristin, When the Whole World Has Drones, National Journal, 21 March 2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321, da 8-1-13) PC

The proliferation of drone technology has moved well
AND
most awesome military robotics capabilities of this generation.

US will set the precedent for the next 50 Nations to get drones
Rall 13, Ted, “9/11 via Drone? Drone wars set a dangerous precedent,” Urban Tulsa Weekly, FEBRUARY 13, 2013, http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid3A56847

The trouble isn't just the drones themselves.
AND
any Americans or anyone else they felt like?
*Transparent drone procedures key to perception of legitimacy
Machon 2006 (Maj. Matthew J., US Army Major and investigor for the School of Advanced Military Studies, “Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror”, 5/25/06, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/machon.pdf, p. 57)

To maintain international legitimacy and retain the moral
AND
thus far in the war on ¶ terror.

Transparency standards are key – executive restraint does not allow the US to restore credibility
Alston 2011 (Philip, professor of law at NYU School of Law and former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, “The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders”, Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 2) PY
This Article has not sought to spell out
AND
invoked by other states with highly problematic agendas.

Tournament: 2013babyjo | Round: 8 | Opponent: California, Berkeley Wimsatt-Sergent-Leventhal | Judge: Samuels
Plan: The United States Congress should statutorily require the President to release the United States Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis and justifications for drone strikes in the area of targeted killing.

Inherency

1. As drone strikes increase lack of transparency is biggest reason war powers are expanding – Increase in Congressional oversight key
   Pearlstein 3/26/13 (Deborah, Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/congress_shouldn_t_give_president_obama_new_power _to_fight_terrorists.html)

Despite this, Leiter and others seem convinced
AND
-of-force legislation is impossibly thin.

 Drone Prolif

1. Drones are beginning to proliferate because of US precedent
   Stanford and NYU Law, International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic of the NYU Law School, September 2012, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/

US Targeted Killing and Drone Strike Practices May
AND
precedent that other nations may follow.”790
2. Continuing un-transparent US drone policy risks that other countries will follow suit
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, 2012, “Executive Summary and Recommendations” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone
AND
develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.

3. US led drone prolif presents the greatest threat to civilization- o/w traditional nuclear war because of lack of protocol
Jenkins 13, Simon, “Drones are fool's gold: they prolong wars we can't win,” The Guardian, 10 January 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/drones-fools-gold-prolong-wars

The drone wars seem pointless yet unstoppable.
AND
to imagine a greater danger to world peace.
4. O/W nuclear war- even nations without nukes can use UAVs to strike nuclear reactions ensuring widespread nuclear catastrophe
Mckillop 13, Andrew, “The Coming Global Drone War,” Before It’s News, March 2, 2013, http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/03/the-coming-global-drone-war-2580996.html

To date no public data or test results
AND
else will also be forced to do so.
5. Nuclear meltdown causes extinction – 100 times the radiation of a nuclear bomb-
Lendman 7 (Stephen, Nuclear Meltdown in Japan, The People’s Voice, 13 March 2011, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/13/nuclear-meltdown-in-japan, da 8-3-13) PC

Reuters said the 1995 Kobe quake caused $
AND
great amounts of greenhouse emitting fuels to remediate.
Scenario 2 is Armenia Azerbaijan war- Recent drone prolif threatens Ammenia Azerbaijan war that causes international drawn in
Global Post 12, “Drone violence along Armenian-Azerbaijani border could lead to war,” Global Post, Oct 23rd, 2012, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/121022/drone-violence-along-armenian-azerbaijani-border-could-lead-war?page=0,1
According to SIPRI, Azerbaijan had acquired about
AND
. That’s the one thing I’m sure of.”
Middle East conflict triggers nuclear warfare—end of the Cold War increased the risk of escalation
Primakov 9 (September, Yevgeny, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation; Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; member of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs. This article is based on the scientific report for which the author was awarded the Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008, “The Middle East Problem in the Context of International Relations”) 

The Middle East conflict is unparalleled in terms
AND
does not completely rule out such a possibility.

Middle East war causes extinction—escalation of WMDs
Nassar  2 (Bahig, Arab Co-ordinating Centre of Non-Governmental Organizations, and Afro-Asian People’s Solidary Organization, 11/25/02, keynote paper for Cordoba Dialogue on Peace and Human Rights in Europe and the Middle East, http://www.inesglobal.org/BahigNassar.htm)

Wars in the Middle East are of a
AND
problems and escalate their dangers instead of solving them

Hegemony

 Drones Hurt Hegemony- Multiple Internal Links
1) Alliances- Drones risk US foreign military alliances because of legitimacy issues
Kennedy 13 (Greg, a Professor of Strategic Foreign Policy at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, based at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, “Drones: Legitimacy and Anti-Americanism,” Parameters 42(4)/43(1) Winter-Spring 2013, Strategic Studies Institute at the United States Army War College
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/WinterSpring_2013/3_Article_Kennedy.pdf
p. 26)
The current debate over the legitimacy of America’s
AND
will address only the first three critical questions. 

2) These alliances are key to cooperative engagement
Kreisher 12 (Otto Kreisher, Former Naval Officer/veteran Washington correspondent and defense journalist, “Chuck Hagel, Touted As Next SecDef, Argues For Soft Power, Allies”,  December 10 2012, Breaking Defense, http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/10/chuck-hagel-touted-as-next-secdef-argues-for-soft-power-allie/   )

Perhaps with an eye toward America losing its
AND
, through “joint thinking,” he said.

3) Drone strikes as is hurt U.S. credibility – lack of transparency means we get blamed for all bombings
Zenko 13, (Micah, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, with expertise in Conflict Prevention; US national security policy, military planning and operations and nuclear weapons policy. “Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies”, Council on Foerign Relations Special Report no. 65, January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736, pg15)

The problem with maintaining that drone strikes are
AND
conducted a hearing on any aspect of them.

4) Credibility is key to hard power
APSA 9 (American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Association is the leading professional organization for the study of political science and serves more than 15,000 members in over 80 countries. With a range of programs and services for individuals, departments and institutions, APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors within and outside academe in order to expand awareness and understanding of politics, “ U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and the Future,” Task Force Report, October 2009,
http://www.apsanet.org/media/PDFs/APSAUSStandingShortFinal.pdf
p. 3-4)

Unlike something a nation possesses and can easily
AND
when it has no readily observable behavioral implications.
5) Soft power is key to solve multiple extinction scenarios
Nye 8 (Joseph, professor of International Relations at Harvard University, “American Power After the Financial Crises,” Foresight Project, 2008, http://www.foresightproject.net/publications/articles/article.asp?p=3533)
Power always depends on context, and in
AND
cannot achieve its aims without the help of others

Soft power is key to exercise hard power
Nye 2004 (Joseph S. Nye, political scientist and former Harvard school of government dean, “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy” Vol. 119, No. 2, Summer 2004 , http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20202345.pdf,p. 260-261)

In the global information age, the attractiveness
AND
the information age. We cannot afford that.
Soft power is key to sustain hegemony – solves a laundry list of impacts
Thayer 6 (Bradley A. is an associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, “In Defense of Primacy,” November/December 2006, Issue 86, National Interest, p.32, EBSCOHost, Accessed Date: 5-7-13 y2k) 

A grand strategy based on American primacy means
AND
to have it last as long as possible.¶ 

Transparent drone procedures solve perception of legitimacy
Machon 2006 (Maj. Matthew J., US Army Major and investigor for the School of Advanced Military Studies, “Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror”, 5/25/06, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/machon.pdf, p. 57)

To maintain international legitimacy and retain the moral
AND
thus far in the war on ¶ terror.

Terrorism 

1. Ambiguous strikes with little justification means drone strikes causes terrorism by increasing anti-American sentiment
   Stanford and NYU Law, International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic of the NYU Law School, September 2012, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/

The central justification for US drone strikes is
AND
law, and facilitate recourse to lethal force.
A significant rethinking of current policies, in light of all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and short and long-term costs and benefits, is long overdue.

2. Transparency solves terrorism by releasing justifications and real civilian casualties to Pakistani people
Robbins 13, Carla, “Drones: Transparency on Rules for Their Use Is a Must,” Business Week, 2/14/13, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-14/drones-transparency-on-rules-for-their-use-is-a-must#p2

The New America Foundation has compiled a database
AND
transparent as possible.” Better late than never.
3. US drone policies alienate the cooperation of the international community that’s k2 solve terrorism—only restrictions on targeted killing solve.
Elliot 9, (Michael Elliot, Georgetown University Law Center, International School of Islamabad, Pakistan, Where Precision Is the Aim: Locating the Targeted Killing Policies of the United States and Israel within International Humanitarian Law, The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 47, 2009, http://books.google.com/books/about/Canadian_Yearbook_of_International_Law.html?id=s2HRlVwkfc8C)

Where that general compliance is no longer certain
AND
but, rather, of unrestrained state practice.¶ 

4. Terrorism causes miscalculation that draws in Russia and China and culminates in extinction- also causes rising alert levels
Ayson 2010 (Robert Ayson, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via InformaWorld)

A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the
AND
might not help the chances of nuclear restraint.

Plan Text
Plan: The United States Congress should statutorily require the President to release the United States Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis and justifications for drone strikes in the area of targeted killing.

Solvency
Releasing the DOJ memoranda solves transparency with other nations, targeting criteria, and civilian data
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, 2012, “Executive Summary and Recommendations” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

In light of these concerns, this report
AND
double-striking targets as first responders arrive.

*Increasing congressional visibility is the only way to stop drone proliferation that prevents instability.
Roberts 13 (Kristin, When the Whole World Has Drones, National Journal, 21 March 2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321, da 8-1-13) PC

The proliferation of drone technology has moved well
AND
most awesome military robotics capabilities of this generation.

US will set the precedent for the next 50 Nations to get drones
Rall 13, Ted, “9/11 via Drone? Drone wars set a dangerous precedent,” Urban Tulsa Weekly, FEBRUARY 13, 2013, http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid3A56847

The trouble isn't just the drones themselves.
AND
any Americans or anyone else they felt like?
*Transparent drone procedures key to perception of legitimacy
Machon 2006 (Maj. Matthew J., US Army Major and investigor for the School of Advanced Military Studies, “Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror”, 5/25/06, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/machon.pdf, p. 57)

To maintain international legitimacy and retain the moral
AND
thus far in the war on ¶ terror.

Transparency standards are key – executive restraint does not allow the US to restore credibility
Alston 2011 (Philip, professor of law at NYU School of Law and former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, “The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders”, Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 2) PY
This Article has not sought to spell out
AND
invoked by other states with highly problematic agendas.

Tournament: 2013babyjo | Round: 4 | Opponent: Oklahoma Maddy-Massey | Judge: Fifelski
Inherency
Huge lack of transparency in US drone policy now – it’s the biggest reason war powers are increasing – Congressional oversight is key.
Pearlstein 3/26/13 (Deborah, Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/congress_shouldn_t_give_president_obama_new_power _to_fight_terrorists.html)

Despite this, Leiter and others seem convinced
AND
-of-force legislation is impossibly thin.

Hegemony
Drones undermine American influence
Younger 13, Caleb , “Drones: Is the Loss of Soft Power Worth It?,” The Georgetown Progressive, 2/15/13 http://guprogressive.com/?p=5803

At the Progressive, we have talked about
AND
increased hard power will make up for it.
 Multiple Internal Links
1) Alliances- Drones risk US foreign military alliances because of legitimacy issues
Kennedy 13 (Greg, a Professor of Strategic Foreign Policy at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, based at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, “Drones: Legitimacy and Anti-Americanism,” Parameters 42(4)/43(1) Winter-Spring 2013, Strategic Studies Institute at the United States Army War College
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/WinterSpring_2013/3_Article_Kennedy.pdf
p. 26)
The current debate over the legitimacy of America’s
AND
will address only the first three critical questions. 

These alliances are key to cooperative engagement
Kreisher 12 (Otto Kreisher, Former Naval Officer/veteran Washington correspondent and defense journalist, “Chuck Hagel, Touted As Next SecDef, Argues For Soft Power, Allies”,  December 10 2012, Breaking Defense, http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/10/chuck-hagel-touted-as-next-secdef-argues-for-soft-power-allie/   )

Perhaps with an eye toward America losing its
AND
, through “joint thinking,” he said.

2) Drone strikes as is hurt U.S. credibility – lack of congressional oversight means we get blamed for all bombings
Zenko 13, (Micah, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, with expertise in Conflict Prevention; US national security policy, military planning and operations and nuclear weapons policy. “Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies”, Council on Foerign Relations Special Report no. 65, January 2013 http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736, pg15)

The problem with maintaining that drone strikes are
AND
conducted a hearing on any aspect of them.

Credibility is key to hard power
APSA 9 (American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Association is the leading professional organization for the study of political science and serves more than 15,000 members in over 80 countries. With a range of programs and services for individuals, departments and institutions, APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors within and outside academe in order to expand awareness and understanding of politics, “ U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and the Future,” Task Force Report, October 2009,
http://www.apsanet.org/media/PDFs/APSAUSStandingShortFinal.pdf
p. 3-4)

Unlike something a nation possesses and can easily
AND
when it has no readily observable behavioral implications.
Soft power is key to exercise hegemony
Nye 2004 (Joseph S. Nye, political scientist and former Harvard school of government dean, “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy” Vol. 119, No. 2, Summer 2004 , http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20202345.pdf,p. 260-261)

In the global information age, the attractiveness
AND
the information age. We cannot afford that.
Decline in hegemony causes escalation of multiple global flashpoints for violence—there is no sustainable alternative to American leadership
Kagan 11 (Robert, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and and a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, “The Price of Power,” 1/24, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533696.html?page=3)

Today the international situation is also one of
AND
immoral and contrary to the nation’s true ideals.

Even if hegemony is bad—transition to another system causes a multipolar vacuum leading to multiple scenarios for extinction-- there is no alternative to US leadership
Ferguson 4 (Niall, Professor of History at New York University's Stern School of Business and Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, “A world without power,” Foreign Policy 143, p. 32-39, July-August)

So what is left? Waning empires.
AND
a not-so-new world disorder.

Heg sustainable—military superiority
Beckley 12— research fellow in the International Security Program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Michael, “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure” International Security, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Winter 2011/12), pp. 41–78

Seen in this light, the United States
AND
is futile, so no one tries.”43

Transition will be violent – regional balancing escalates to global conflicts
Khalilzad 11 (Zahlmay was the United States Ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush. He has been involved with U.S. policy makers at the White House,State Department and Pentagon since the mid-1980s. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-khalilzad?page=2)

American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without
AND
most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.

We can accurately identify patterns (economics, IR, etc.) even if we can’t explain the entire system
Walt 5 – Professor @ Harvard
Stephen, “The relationship between theory and policy in international relations” Annual review of political science, 23-48

Policy decisions can be in?uenced by several types
AND
statistical analysis, and hermeneutical or interpretivist approaches.

Violence is decreasing due to US hegemony
Daniel W. Drezner Associate Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University May 25, 2005 “Gregg Easterbrook, war, and the dangers of extrapolation” http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002087.html
The University of Maryland studies find the number
AND
spread of democracy are right out the window. 

US engagement as a superpower creates the preconditions for peace- statistical data proves wars have been in decline since American became the superpower
Owen 11 John M. Owen Professor of Politics at University of Virginia PhD from Harvard "DON’T DISCOUNT HEGEMONY" Feb 11 www.cato-unbound.org/2011/02/11/john-owen/dont-discount-hegemony/

Andrew Mack and his colleagues at the Human
AND
and moral support for liberal democracy remains strong. 

Longitudinal empirical analysis supports our impacts
Drezner 5 – Professor of IR @ Tufts
Daniel, Gregg Easterbrook, Associate Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, “War, and the dangers of extrapolation”
Daily explosions in Iraq, massacres in Sudan
AND
, because of the minimization of spillover effects.

A totalizing rejection of hegemony is fails – the alternative is reactionary, ineffective, and ignores the very real contributions western political thought has made to combat oppression
Thompson ‘3 Michael J., Founder and Editor of Logos and teaches Political Theory at Hunter College CUNY., “Iraq, Hegemony, and the Question of American Empire”, Logos Vol. 2 Issue 4, www.logosjournal.com/thompson_iraq.htm 

Hegemony in international terms without some kind of
AND
dictatorships are the norm and remain stubbornly intact. 

Plan Text
Plan: The United States Congress should require the President to release the United States Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis and justifications for drone attacks in the area of targeted killing.

Solvency

Transparent drone procedures key to perception of legitimacy
Machon 2006 (Maj. Matthew J., US Army Major and investigor for the School of Advanced Military Studies, “Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror”, 5/25/06, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/machon.pdf, p. 57)

To maintain international legitimacy and retain the moral
AND
thus far in the war on ¶ terror.

Releasing the DOJ memoranda solves transparency with other nations, targeting criteria, and civilian data
Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, 2012, “Executive Summary and Recommendations” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

In light of these concerns, this report
AND
double-striking targets as first responders arrive.

Transparency standards are key – executive restraint does not allow the US to restore credibility
Alston 2011 (Philip, professor of law at NYU School of Law and former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, “The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders”, Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 2) PY
This Article has not sought to spell out
AND
invoked by other states with highly problematic agendas.

Tournament: tournament | Round: 5 | Opponent: California, Berkeley Martin-Epner | Judge: Herndon
1AC

PLAN: The United States Congress should establish statutory requirements for drone strikes in the area of targeted killing based on relevant executive documents outlining the legal basis and justifications for drone strikes. 

CONTENTION 1: DRONE PROLIFERATION
Current US drone policy causes unchecked drone proliferation around the world
Stanford and NYU Law, International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic of the NYU Law School, September 2012, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/

US Targeted Killing and Drone Strike Practices May
AND
precedent that other nations may follow.”790

This has two impacts
A. This drone proliferation escalates to extinction absent US government action – Obama action alone won’t be enough, treaties don’t solve, and DOD shift isn’t sufficient – only Congress can set the necessary precedent
Kristen Roberts 13, news editor for the National Journal, master in security studies from Georgetown, “When the Whole World Has Drones”, March 22, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321

The proliferation of drone technology has moved well
AND
but a legal and moral one as well.
*This outweighs nuclear war because MAD doesn’t apply
Jenkins 13, Simon, “Drones are fool's gold: they prolong wars we can't win,” The Guardian, 10 January 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/10/drones-fools-gold-prolong-wars
The greatest threat to world peace is not
AND
to imagine a greater danger to world peace.

B. Armenia-Azerbaijan War
Unrestricted drone use causes nuclear war in the Caucuses
Clayton 12 (Nick Clayton, Worked in several publications, including the Washington Times the Asia Times and Washington Diplomat. He is currently the senior editor of Kanal PIK TV's English Service (a Russian-language channel), lived in the Caucuses for several years,10/23/2012, "Drone violence along Armenian-Azerbaijani border could lead to war", www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/121022/drone-violence-along-armenian-azerbaijani-border-could-lead-war)

Armenia and Azerbaijan could soon be at war
AND
. That’s the one thing I’m sure of.”
That causes extinction
Blank 2k
(Stephen, Prof. Research at Strategic Studies Inst. @ US Army War College, “U.S. Military Engagement with Transcaucasia and Central Asia”, www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub113.pdf)  

Washington’s burgeoning military-political-economic involvement
AND
do absent a strong and lasting regional commitment.

CONTENTION: HEGEMONY
Drone strikes hurts US soft power and hegemony
Stanford and NYU Law, International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of Stanford Law School and the Global Justice Clinic of the NYU Law School, September 2012, “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan” http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/

The significant global opposition to drone strikes also
AND
build multilateral alliances to tackle pressing global challenges.

Two ways the plan solves
A. Legitimacy
Drones risk US alliances because of legitimacy issues that exist due to a lack of transparency and codified law
Kennedy 13 (Greg, a Professor of Strategic Foreign Policy at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London, based at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, “Drones: Legitimacy and Anti-Americanism,” Parameters 42(4)/43(1) Winter-Spring 2013, Strategic Studies Institute at the United States Army War College
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/WinterSpring_2013/3_Article_Kennedy.pdf
p. 26)
The current debate over the legitimacy of America’s
AND
will address only the first three critical questions. 

Plan solves – clarified drone procedures solve perception of legitimacy
Machon 2006 (Maj. Matthew J., US Army Major and investigor for the School of Advanced Military Studies, “Targeted Killing as an Element of U.S. Foreign Policy in the War on Terror”, 5/25/06, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/machon.pdf, p. 57)

To maintain international legitimacy and retain the moral
AND
thus far in the war on ¶ terror.

Lack of transparency and Congressional support now kills soft power
Jack Goldsmith, the Henry L. Shattuck Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a member of the Hoover Institution’s Jean Perkins Task Force on National Security and Law and served in the Bush administration as assistant attorney general at the Office of Legal Counsel and as special counsel to the general counsel, 5/1/13, “How Obama Undermined the War on Terror”
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112964/obamas-secrecy-destroying-american-support-counterterrorism

As a result, much of what the
AND
he would need sustained domestic and international support." 

Soft power is key to solve multiple extinction scenarios
Nye 8 (Joseph, professor of International Relations at Harvard University, “American Power After the Financial Crises,” Foresight Project, 2008, http://www.foresightproject.net/publications/articles/article.asp?p=3533)
Power always depends on context, and in
AND
cannot achieve its aims without the help of others

B. Democratic hypocrisy
Lack of transparency and codification makes the US seem like it is not following its own ideals – this hurts our standing in the world
John Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff under Clinton and Chair for the Center for American Progress and previously served on the National Security Council and is a graduate of Georgetown Law, 3/13/13, “Obama should lift secrecy on drones” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-podesta-obama-should-lift-secrecy-on-drones/2013/03/13/7e98d7ca-8a9b-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html
From Attorney General
AND
or tragedy; or, perhaps, both.”

That kills hegemony
APSA 9 (American Political Science Association, The American Political Science Association is the leading professional organization for the study of political science and serves more than 15,000 members in over 80 countries. With a range of programs and services for individuals, departments and institutions, APSA brings together political scientists from all fields of inquiry, regions, and occupational endeavors within and outside academe in order to expand awareness and understanding of politics, “ U.S. Standing in the World: Causes, Consequences, and the Future,” Task Force Report, October 2009,
http://www.apsanet.org/media/PDFs/APSAUSStandingShortFinal.pdf
p. 3-4)

Unlike something a nation possesses and can easily
AND
when it has no readily observable behavioral implications.

Decline in hegemony causes escalation of multiple global flashpoints for violence—there is no sustainable alternative to American leadership
Kagan 11 (Robert, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and and a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, “The Price of Power,” 1/24, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/price-power_533696.html?page=3)

Today the international situation is also one of
AND
immoral and contrary to the nation’s true ideals.

CONTENTION 3: SOLVENCY
Leaks about the program make a certain level of transparency inevitable – controlling them and codifying requirements into law is key to maintaining legitimacy of the program
Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and a nonresident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution and a distinguished scholar at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law and is cofounder and contributor to the Lawfare Blog and writes frequently on topics relating to US counterterrorism policy and law, 6/18/13, “Trust, but Codify: Metadata, Drones, and Legal Transparency” http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/06/trust-but-codify-metadata-drones/
There is a subtle connection between the unfolding
AND
brought into the light and entrenched in statute.

And, there is existing Congressional oversight now, but legally codifying it is key
Washington Post, 5/8/13, “Lawmaker wants military to promptly alert Congress about drone strikes” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-08/world/39114073_1_drone-strikes-operations-oversight
Rep. Mac Thornberry (Tex.), the
AND
so everybody knows,’ ” he said.
Drone strikes are legal now but only Congressional codification puts them on stronger political and diplomatic standing
Washington Post, 2/6/13, “A time to explain the drone campaign” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-06/opinions/36948039_1_drone-strikes-legal-memos-obama-administration
THURSDAY’S CONFIRMATION hearing for John O.
AND
be a first step in the right direction.