forensics files nov 2012

7/28/2019 Forensics Files Nov 2012

1/52

The Forensics Files The PFD FileNovember 2012 Middle East

1

Resolved:

Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle Eastundermines our national security.

November2012

THEFORENSICSFILES THEPFDFILE


2/52


2

Table of Contents

Topic Overview 3

Definitions 5

Pro Cases 8

Con Cases 12

Pro Extensions 16

Con Extensions 31

Pro Blocks 41

Con Blocks 45

Preflows 49


3/52


3

Topic Overview

Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle Eastundermines our national security.

This topic is likely a timely topic because Mitt Romney, the Republican Candidate forPresident, has recently attacked President Obama and his administrations policies in theMiddle East. Specifically, in the past couple years, the peoples of Middle Easterncountries including Egypt have protest for more democratic processes. The US,promoting democracy, was supportive of these efforts. However, as Romney has pointedout, the people of these Arab nations have proved not to disapprove of anti-Americanpolicies, they just wanted leaders who would institute other, more effective Anti-American policies.

However, the wording of this resolution poses very significant concerns for anyone whohas any previous debate experience. Unlike prior topics that have focused on a verynarrow issue of fact, this topic is exceptionally broad. In fact, it resembles (quiteremarkably) the college policy debate topic a few years ago. Prior PFD topics from theNFL have focused on one specific U.S. policy with regard to another nation (e.g. U.S. aidto Pakistan).

The Middle East is defined as An area of southwestern Asia and northern Africa thatstretches from the Mediterranean Sea to Pakistan and includes the Arabian peninsula.The included countries are Bahrain, Cypress, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait,

Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United ArabEmirates, and Yemen; depending on the source, some of these countries might not beincluded and other countries might be included. And the United States has foreignpolicies toward all of the countries.

Unfortunately, foreign policy is also an exceptionally broad term. Foreign policy towardanother country can include immigration, economic assistance, intelligence sharing,health initiatives, and much more. And each of these areas could arguably affect the U.S.national security.

And finally, an oddity of this resolution is the use of the word our. This word is odd

because our is possessive of what belongs to we. This is distinguishable from thespecific reference to the United States. If the framers of this resolution were aware of theterm U.S. and could use U.S. as an adjective, why is our national security used insteadU.S. national security. This odd terminological choice permits another point ofargumentation, our is not United States. This point is plausible because not all NFLmembers, or schools using this topic are from the United States. For example, there areschools in Taiwan, Thailand, Korea, and Canada who are NFL members and debate the


4/52


4

NFL resolution. Its plausible, but unlikely, that the NFL intended the meaning of thetopic to change based on what country the debate is occurring or some other country.

One strategic suggestion for this topic is for the Pro side to argue specifically, and hopethat the Con side does not have specific responses to argue that the specific policy the pro

side is focusing on undermines national security. To combat such a strategy, and to havea workable strategy for arguing first, the Con side could conversely argue that there isspecific policy in a specific Middle East country that promotes national security and hopethe Pro side does not have the on-point responsive evidence. (The conflict of these twosomewhat obvious strategies, however, will create many debates lacking in clash andunsubstantiated claims of outweighing (quite similar to a typical policy debate)).

The evidence in this file attempt to tackle this exceptionally broad topic; providingevidence of U.S. foreign policy regarding the many Middle East countries. TFF wishesyou the best of luck debating in November!


5/52


5

Definitions

Current

1 Belonging to the present time: current events; current leaders.2 Being in progress now: current negotiations.3 Passing from one to another; circulating: current bills and coins.

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2012

Current

1 Of the immediate present; in progress "current events"

2 Most recent; up-to-date3. commonly known, practiced, or accepted; widespread

4.circulating and valid at present

Source: Collins English Dictionary 2012

Current

1 the current situation/climate:2 the current trend

Source: Macmillan Dictionary2012

Current

1 presently elapsing2 occurring in or existing at the present time3 most recent

Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2012

US

1 United States.Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2012

Foreign Policy

The diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations.



6/52


6

Foreign Policy

the policies of a government regarding relations with other countries


Foreign Policy

the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states

Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2012

Middle East

An area comprising the countries of southwest Asia and northeast Africa. In the 20thcentury the region has been the continuing scene of political and economic turmoil.


Middle East

1 (loosely) the area around the East Mediterranean, especially Israel and the Arabcountries from Turkey to North Africa and eastwards to Iran2 (formerly) the area extending from the Tigris and Euphrates to Myanmar


Middle East

the region of the world that consists of the countries east of the Mediterranean Sea andwest of India. It includes Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.

Macmillan Dictionary 2012

Our

The possessive form of we

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

National Security

the protection or the safety of a country's secrets and its citizens


7/52


7

Source: Macmillan Dictionary 2012

National Security

A collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations of the UnitedStates. Specifically, the condition provided by: a. a military or defense advantage overany foreign nation or group of nations; b. a favorable foreign relations position; or c. adefense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from withinor without, overt or covert.

Source: The Free Dictionary Online 2012


8/52


8

Pro Cases

PRO CASE #1

[Russia 1 of 2]

We believe that the following resolution is true: Current U.S. foreign policy in the MiddleEast threatens our national security. Currently, the U.S. remains heavily invested andinvolved, as it always has been, in Middle Eastern affairs. This involvement threatensU.S. relations with Russia because Russia views this involvement as a continuation ofU.S. cold-war containment policies. Moreover, because current U.S. efforts in the MiddleEast are failing at securing any U.S. allies, the U.S. is in critical condition and ready to bedecimated by Russia and new nuclear Middle East enemies.

The US remains heavily involved in the Middle East both militarily and

diplomatically and this wouldnt change even if we reduced our oil dependence.

Adam Wilmoth, who has a B.A. & M.A. from Oklahoma State University, wrote an

article in 2012 entitled: Energy independence: It would impact U.S. military policy,

expert says, in NewsOK Online:1

The United States military has been involved in two wars, one in the oil-rich Middle East,

and actively patrols and monitors oil choke points throughout the world. Energy

independence could change both arrangements. Even if the United States were self-

reliant, the country likely still would be heavily involved in the Middle East, Jackson

said. But the focus could be more diplomatic and less militaristic.

Despite the purported end of the Cold War, Russia is still eyeing Middle East

countries for allies to take down the U.S. This is the a big threat to national security.

An article from The Jerusalem Post entitled The US-Russia Middle East 'reset:' America

at the exit from June 12, 2012 states:

Regarding a Russian reset. Perhaps from a naive American perspective things appeared

better in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But Russia never lost sight

of its ambitions in the region. Following its 1979 replacement by the United States in

Egypt Russia remained patron to Syria waiting patiently for an Iranian opportunity to

come along. Russia is a principal military, economic, and geopolitical partner of Iran

and views its Middle Eastern policy through the prism of competition with the United

States... While Russian foreign policy in the Middle East is clearly anti-American, at

times it also appears self-defeating. Russia is backing a losing Assad regime and siding

with the isolated Shia Islamic Republic in Tehran. The policy is almost incoherent, driven

by a plethora of strategic relationships and commercial interests.The error in this line of

reasoning is the assumption that it is the Russians and Iranians, not America and its ever-

diminshing allies who are on the losing side of the conflict. No doubt this rationale

1http://newsok.com/energy-independence-it-would-impact-u.s.-military-policy-expert-

says/article/3714064?


9/52


9

PRO CASE #1

[Russia 2 of 2]

assumes that America today is identical to America emergent from the Second World

War. In actuality the United States is just emerging from two failed military conflicts, its

military leadership clearly reluctant, maybe determined, to avoid another such MiddleEast war. And unlike 1946, in 2012 the United States is slowly (hopefully) emerging

from the worst economic recession since the 1920s.America, in other words, is a

superpower in decline. In practical terms Russia has deftly blocked every effort by

Obama to finesse a decision regarding Iran and Syria onto the Security Council. Iran, for

its part, has been equally successful in engaging President Obama in endless and non-

productive negotiations by appearing to agree to American conditions, then leaving the

talks as they entered. Except, based on experience, each successive effort by the

administration to restart talks is at more favorable to Iran starting point intended to coax

the reluctant Iranians back to the negotiating table! With Russias military unchallenged

in the Mediterranean Europe, already dependent on Russia for natural gas to heat homes

in the winter and drive its industry, America will be isolated internationally. Isolationistby choice or not this time, unlike in the nineteen-teens, its oceans will prove no barrier to

the 21st century military threat by non-national terrorism, or by ballistic missile by

national enemies so armed.

Therefore, current US foreign policy in the Middle East will likely result in Russia taking

over, and finally getting its opportunity to take the United States, who is in the weakest

position its ever been in. Therefore, current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East

undermines our national security. Thank you for your time and attention.


10/52


10

PRO CASE #2

[Saudi Arabia 1 of 2]

We believe that the following resolution is true: Current U.S. foreign policy in the MiddleEast threatens our national security. Currently, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on Saudi

Arabia for oil. This makes the U.S. vulnerable to international economic instability andpromotes the nuclearization of other countries; both of these undermine US nationalsecurity .

First, the US is currently relying on Saudi Arabia for oil.

Amy Jaffe, wrote an article entitled "America's Real Strategic Petroleum Reserve" inForeign Policy Magazine on August 24, 20122:

Over the years, the United States has been surprisingly reluctant to release SPR duringtimes of crisis, preferring instead to let Saudi Arabia handle the problem by simplyincreasing its production. For decades, in fact, U.S. presidents have been able to count on

the Middle Eastern petro giant to pre-release oil in anticipation of times of war. Forexample, Riyadh flooded the market ahead of the first Gulf War and, though many do notremember, it also put extra oil on the market ahead of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.Saudi Arabia even increased its oil production after the 9/11 attacks, which badly strainedU.S.-Saudi relations. Likewise, this spring, when the Obama administration was debatingwhether or not to release the SPR ahead of the tightening of sanctions against Iran, SaudiArabia helpfully boosted its production above 10 million barrels per day, causing oilprices to fall more than $10 a barrel and eliminating the need for the White House tomake a firm decision.

Second, relying on foreign oil markets results in international economic instability.

Jaffe continues:

Oil markets might have taken solace in Saudi preparedness until rumors surfaced of anassassination attempt aimed at the kingdom's intelligence chief, a move purported to be arevenge killing by Iran for similar assassinations of senior military leaders in Syria. Therumors proved to be false, but like much of the region's murky political intrigue, it movedmarkets and served as a reminder that a tit-for-tat game of high level assassinations is notout of the realm of possibility. The oil implications of this unpredictability are clear: Itwill be hard to keep global oil markets calm in the coming weeks and months.

2www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/24/Saudi_Arabia_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserv

e


11/52


11

PRO CASE #2

[Saudi Arabia 2 of 2]

Third, the US funding of Saudi Arabia enhances its ability to acquire nuclearweapons. Jaffe concludes:

Deaths of rulers can change dynamics overnight virtually anywhere in the region, andIsrael's defense policy remains an ever-present black swan. Saudi Arabia's own rumoredpursuit of new nuclear-style ballistic missiles from China adds an additional layer ofuncertainty about a nuclear arms race in the region.

Therefore, current U.S. policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.


12/52


12

Con Cases

CON CASE #1

[Alternate Causes1 of 2]

We believe that the following resolution is false: Current U.S. foreign policy in theMiddle East threatens our national security. The US currently faces many nationalsecurity threats from the Middle East, however, none of these are caused by current USforeign policy. They are caused by U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for the pastseveral decades of support for Israel. As a result, the inherent distrust and hate thatIslamic Middle East countries are not cause by current policies, and nothing we can docan change the way that that they feel. This is especially true because the media sourcesin other countries are biased toward the U.S. and the U.S. cannot combat this. Therefore,we do face many national security threats, but the Pro Side will be unable to link them tocurrentU.S. foreign policy or show that U.S. foreign policy could be changed to solve

the national security threats.

The US is distrusted by Middle East countries; and that distrust is shared globally.

Julian Borger and Tom Clark of The Guardian write on September 11, 2012:

American influence on the world stage is being sapped by widespread distrust of USintentions, not just in the Middle East and south Asia but also among traditionalEuropean allies, according to a survey of global opinions.Suspicion of Americaoutweighed faith in its good intentions by large margins in the Arab world and Pakistan,and even its heavyweight European ally Germany was more sceptical than trusting, aYouGov survey found. British and French opinion was more positive but still deeply

divided.Negative Arab and Pakistani perceptions of America as overweening anduntrustworthy clearly pose a daunting foreign policy challenge for the Obamaadministration. The fact that 78% of Pakistanis questioned by YouGov said they did nottrust America to act responsibly underlines Washington's serious lack of soft power in theregion as it attempts to extricate itself from Afghanistan.

The Jews and Arabs hate each other; this is a result of thousands of years of fighting

each other. There is no one policy that the US can have that will undo thousands of

years of history.Zvi Bar'el, writes an article poignantly remarks on the current attitude of Jews and Arabsin the Middle East in his article entitled "A good Jew hates Arabs" from August 2012states:

Israeli "literature" promoting hate of Arabs predates the occupation. The children's bookseries "Danidin" by Shraga Gafni is full of expressions and illustrations that laid excellentinfrastructure for Arab-hatred. The "Mikraot Yisrael" (Israeli Readers ) series, whichhelped educate hundreds of thousands of Israeli children, is striking in terms of the"incitement" concealed within it.Similar books published in the Palestinian Authoritykeep those who monitor Palestinian incitement very busy. But there isn't really a need to


13/52


13

CON CASE #1

[Alternate Causes2 of 2]

list all the recipes for Arab-hatred that have been fed to us, and which we developed on

our own, in order to come up with a defense for those criminals in Jerusalem, whose"only crime" was to do what Israeli pedagogy and the "Death-to-Arabs" ethos directedthem to do.This is an ethos that will continue to be an integral part of the Israeli-Jewishnational identity, even if the occupation were to end tomorrow. Because "Death to theArabs" isn't an expression of "routine" hatred of those who are different, or the loathsomeslogan of some "price tag" gang. It does not resemble the xenophobia or the fear ofMuslims that characterizes European racism.Hatred of Arabs is part of the test of loyaltyand identity that the state gives its Jewish citizens. A good Jew hates Arabs. A loyalIsraeli will leave an Arab to die, because "he's an Arab." And someone who isn't like that,as we know, "sleeps with Arabs."

The Israel-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to the US. Bruce Riedel,Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, argue in an article entitled Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interest? How can it be achieved?Middle East Foreign Policy Council, on January 20, 2011:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to America. Indeed, Americanlives are being lost today because of the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Apeace agreement is a, if not the, key to achieving most of our goals in the greater MiddleEast. It is not the solution to everything; it is not a panacea. But that is an unrealisticstandard. "Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict won't solve every problem between Morocco

and Bangladesh" is, frankly, a stupid reason not to try to move ahead and solve it. This isa false issue, a red herring, if I've ever seen one. The reasons why this conflict is a threatto the United States are multiple. I'll start with a very simple one. If you believe thatIsrael is a national security interest of the United States and an ally and partner ofAmerica, as every American president since Harry Truman has affirmed, then a conflictthat threatens Israelis every day must be a threat to the national security interests of theUnited States as well.

Because the US cannot solve the underlying source of hatred between Jews and Arabs inthe Middle East, current US foreign policy is not responsible for undermining ournational security. Therefore, the resolution is false.


14/52


14

CON CASE #2[Israel-Palestine 1 of 2]

We believe that the following resolution is false: Current U.S. foreign policy in theMiddle East threatens our national security. The current Israeli-Palestine conflict

threatens national security. Obama is the key negotiator in the process and he has beensuccessful at opening lines of communication to help promote peace.

Failing to secure the Israel-Palestine conflict will threaten US national security.Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, argue in an article entitled Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interest? How can it be achieved?Middle East Foreign Policy Council, on January 20, 2011

Failure to find a secure, just and fair peace means that extremism and anger will festerand spread further, producing more and more threats to American national security andultimately to American citizens. To underscore this point, let me give you one more

example: Mumbai 2008, the most significant terrorist attack since 9/11 anywhere in theworld. Ten Pakistani terrorists, young men from the Punjab led by Lashkar-e-Taiba,struck key targets in the largest city in India. What was at the very top of their target listthat day in November 2008? A Jewish Chabad house in Mumbai. Mumbai is a big place;you have to look hard to find a Chabad house. They had looked hard. An Americancitizen, David Headley, had helped them look for it for months and months. It was at thetop of their list because for them, it symbolized the Zionist-Hindu-Crusader alliance. Isubmit to you that when 10 Punjabi kids have decided that killing American Jews inChabad houses in Mumbai is a holy cause, we have come to a situation in which theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to the United States of America.

Only Obama can solve the current Israel-Palestine conflict. Riedel, Anderson,Wilcox, and Katulis continue:

President Obama may take seriously his own admonition that this issue matters toAmerican strategic interests. That would translate into U.S. leadership in shaping abreakthrough, preferably with EU and Quartet support, creating real choices anddeploying new incentives and disincentives with the parties, notably Israel. Ultimately,for all the noise and speculation regarding their resumption, Israeli-Palestiniannegotiations are likely to prove rather inconsequential. Success or failure in achieving de-occupation in two states will depend primarily on the conversation between Obama andNetanyahu, their political calculations, priorities and persistence.


15/52


15

CON CASE #2[Israel & Palestine2 of 2]

Obama has been successful in engaging Israel and Palestinian authorities to work

toward peace. Riedel, Anderson, Wilcox, and Katulis conclude:

The administration's statements have steadily moved toward that sort of engagement andaway from the sterile and discredited claim that we have to accept what the parties aregoing to work out for themselves. And it's not just this administration. Let's review somehistory. It was during the Carter administration that we first heard an official mention ofthe Palestinian nation. During the Clinton administration, it was the president's wife, notthe president, who first spoke of a Palestinian state. The George W. Bush administration'sroad map, however little he did to follow it, was the first official mention of two states asa solution. The current administration, in a remarkable advance in rhetoric, has declaredthat it will end the occupation. President Obama said that it will end what began in 1967.The secretary of state recently declared, "We will not be passive." She has demanded that

both sides present their specific visions for settlements, detailing positions on borders,security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. I think we'll wait a long time for thesetwo sides to present those visions. They'll only be presented when we accept that the onlyway forward is for the United States to present its outlines and to declare itsdetermination to reach them.

Therefore, Obama and his current US foreign policy in the Middle East has promoted, notundermined our national security. Therefore, the resolution is false.


16/52


16

Pro Extensions

Debt is the biggest threat to US national security.

Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr., "Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security,Chairman Says" U.S. Department of Defense News, September 22, 2011http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65432

Debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during remarks to business executives today.Ive saidmany times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt, soI also believe we have every responsibility to help eliminate that threat, he said. Wemust, and will, do our part.

Cyberterrorism is the biggest threat to US national security.Forrest Jones, "Chertoff: Cyber Attacks on Companies Pose Biggest Threat to USNational SecurityRead more: Chertoff: Cyber Attacks on Companies Pose Biggest Threatto US National Security" May 8, 2012, www.moneynews.com/Economy/Chertoff-Cyber-Attacks-Security/2012/05/08/id/438333

Cyber attacks pose the biggest threats to national security, says former Department ofHomeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.Cyber attacks against companies likeLockheed Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Sony, Google, Visa and Mastercard, amongothers, show just how vulnerable the economy is to tech-savvy terrorists."This is thebiggest threat we currently face," Chertoff tells Yahoo's The Daily Ticker.

Loss of intellectual property rights is the biggest threat to US national security.

Forrest Jones, "Chertoff: Cyber Attacks on Companies Pose Biggest Threat to USNational SecurityRead more: Chertoff: Cyber Attacks on Companies Pose Biggest Threatto US National Security" May 8, 2012, www.moneynews.com/Economy/Chertoff-Cyber-Attacks-Security/2012/05/08/id/438333

"Not only is there a concern about our critical infrastructure but we are losing billionsof dollars of intellectual property every year that is being stolen and it is resulting in joblosses and damages to our economy." A Federal Emergency Management Agency report

estimates cyber attacks jumped 650 percent from 2006 to 2010, Yahoo adds, pointing out60 percent of U.S. companies have reported security breaches. Half of the country's so-called "high-priority facilities" like those that manage the country's electrical gridsreported having been attacked. Many attackers aren't necessarily enemies of the U.S. butrather, are looking for a leg up to compete, Chertoff adds. "For many nations, they viewthe economic well-being of the country as part of their national security strategies. Theywill use their intelligence agencies as a way to enable their companies, their nationalchampions, to compete in the market place," Chertoff says.


17/52


17

Debt from military spending is the USs biggest threat to its national security.

Andrew Parker, Editor-in-Cheif, Brooks: U.S. Debt Biggest Threat to National Security,April 11, 2012, www.aviationtoday.com/rw/public-service/government-agencies/Brooks-U-S-Debt-Biggest-Threat-to-National-Security_76143.html#.UHIoea74LOI

If the government doesnt get the debt under control in a constructive way, he said, theU.S. is looking at a series of cuts to our national defense thats going to do more harm toour national security than any enemy has been able to do in a long period of time.Brooks explained that the U.S. collected $2.3 trillion in revenues last year, but spent $3.6trillion, amounting to a $1.3-trillion deficit. He compared it to the personal finances of afamily.

The new regime in Egypt, which the US helped set up, is anti-American.

Mohamed Al-Sayaghi, Egypt, Yemen challenge some U.S. ideas, Washington Post,September 29, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/egypt-

yemen-challenge-some-us-ideas/2012/09/29/2bb61282-098d-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html

Juggling complicated coalitions and competing factions at home, both Muslim leadersmade it clear that their brands of popularly chosen government do not look like theUnited States or share all of its values. We expect from others, as they expect from us,that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references and not seek to imposeconcepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsitold the U.N. gathering Wednesday. Morsi, on the job three months, told the U.N. that theprotests outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo reflected the legitimate, and decidedlyIslamic, voice of Egyptian popular will. And he effectively told Obama he would have to

get used to new rules. Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are notacceptable, said Morsi, whose political roots lie in the Muslim Brotherhood. We willnot allow anyone to do this by word or by deed.

US efforts with Yemen have backfired.

Mohamed Al-Sayaghi, Egypt, Yemen challenge some U.S. ideas, Washington Post,September 29, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/egypt-yemen-challenge-some-us-ideas/2012/09/29/2bb61282-098d-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html

In an interview with The Washington Post on Saturday, Yemeni President Abed RabboMansour Hadi sounded a similar note, saying freedom of speech does not constitutefreedom to defame religious beliefs. It should not be understood that freedom ofexpression is freedom of attacking others faith, he said. The cultural confrontationcomes early in the U.S. relationship with a changed Middle East. Although billions ofdollars in U.S. aid are still committed to Egypt, Libya and the other countries in theregion, U.S. officials acknowledge that the money gives them less leverage than it oncedid.


18/52


18

Obamas efforts in Egypt have been ineffective and have backfired against the US

Mohamed Al-Sayaghi, Egypt, Yemen challenge some U.S. ideas, Washington Post,September 29, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/egypt-yemen-challenge-some-us-ideas/2012/09/29/2bb61282-098d-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html

Obama abandoned decades of U.S. policy when he yanked U.S. support for Mubarak, andhis administration moved quickly to support democratic movements in several Mideastnations.But the U.S. emphasis on personal liberty and tolerance rings hollow to manyEgyptians and others, who recall the former willingness of U.S. leaders to look the otherway when grievous human rights abuses occurred.Egypts secular pro-democraticopposition, with long ties to the United States, largely crumbled after the revolution. Thewell-organized Muslim Brotherhood, with practically no ties to a U.S. government,proved more sure-footed.

The US currently provides unnecessary foreign aid to Egypt.Walter Pincus,U.S. foreign aid under fire after attack on embassy in Egypt, outpost inLibya, The Washington Post, October 1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-foreign-aid-to-under-fire-after-attacks-on-embassies-in-egypt-and-libya/2012/10/01/eb677456-0b11-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html

Faced with the current fiscal crisis, U.S. politicians are looking for places to make deepcuts, and one obvious target for the general public appears to be taxpayer dollars sent toforeign countries to build their schools, roads and more recently private businesses projects that have trouble being funded here. The presidential campaign also provides aforum for debating whether the Middle East policies of the Obama administration can be

turned into votes for either candidate. A good test case for both situations turned upFriday when the State Departments plan to provide Egypt with an additional$450 million in aid went to Congress. Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.), chairman of the HouseAppropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, which handles foreign aid money,zeroed in on the plan in a statement: This proposal comes to Congress at a point whenthe U.S.-Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny, and rightly so. I am notconvinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time. Aschair of the subcommittee, I have placed a hold on these funds.


19/52


19

Anti-American is high in Middle East Islamic countries.

Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19,2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us

Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, an issue that was front and center throughout

much of the George W. Bush era, is squarely back in the news following the protests thatswept across more than 20 countries in reaction to a controversial anti-Islam film. Theall-too-familiar images of angry demonstrators burning the Stars and Stripes are adramatic reminder that, while the image of the United States has improved throughoutmany parts of the world during Barack Obama's presidency, negative views of Americaremain stubbornly persistent in key Muslim countries. Much of this animosity is due tocontinuing concerns about U.S. power and widespread opposition to major elements ofAmerican foreign policy. But it's not just about the United States -- rather, anti-Americanism needs to be seen within a broader context of distrust between Muslims andthe West.

Obamas efforts in Egypt have been massively unsuccessfulRichard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19,2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us

Following his election, Obama made it a priority to change America's dismal image in theMuslim world, most prominently in his June 2009 Cairo speech. And he has had somesuccesses; in fact, Muslim publics still generally give him more positive ratings thanBush received. For instance, in a spring 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center'sGlobal Attitudes Project, only 24 percent of Turks express confidence in Obama; still,that's a whole lot better than the 2 percent who felt this way about Bush during his finalyear in office. Also, due in part to having lived there for a few years as a child, Obama

has consistently received high marks in Indonesia, and his popularity has helped turnaround America's image in the world's most populous Muslim nation.But overall, thepicture remains grim. In Egypt, for example, despite all the tumult of the revolution,America's image remains roughly where it was four years ago -- then 22 percentexpressed a favorable opinion of the United States; in the 2012 poll, it was 19 percent.Among Pakistanis and Jordanians, America's already poor ratings have declined furthersince 2008 -- in both countries, 19 percent held a positive view of the U.S. four years ago,compared with just 12 percent in 2012.


20/52


20

US military efforts in the Middle East are unpopular and render all other policies in

effective.


Why hasn't America's image improved? In part, many Muslims around the worldcontinue to voice the same criticisms of U.S. foreign policy that were common in theBush years. U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular. America is still seen asignoring the interests of other countries. Few think Obama has been even-handed indealing with the Israelis and the Palestinians. And the current administration's increasedreliance on drone strikes to target extremists is overwhelmingly unpopular -- more than80 percent of Jordanians, Egyptians, and Turks oppose the drone campaign.

Muslim countries in the Middle East hate all aspects of US leadership.

Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19,

2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us

The opposition to drone strikes points to a broader issue: a widespread distrust ofAmerican power. This is especially true when the United States employs hard power,whether it's the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or the drone attacks in Pakistan, Somalia,and Yemen. But it is true even for elements of American soft power. PredominantlyMuslim nations are generally among the least likely to embrace U.S. popular culture orthe spread of American ideas and customs. Only 36 percent of Egyptians like Americanmusic, movies, and television, and just 11 percent believe it is good that U.S. ideas andcustoms are spreading to their country.

After US foreign policy efforts in Egypt, Egypt is on a dangerous trajectory.

James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas andSarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Greater U.S. Pressure Needed to EnsureSuccessful Egyptian Transition, Heritage Foundation,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/us-egypt-relations-greater-pressure-needed-to-ensure-successful-egyptian-transition

In recent months, EgyptianAmerican relations have severely deteriorated due to Cairospolitically motivated prosecution of several U.S.-funded nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) involved in democracy building. The fact that these civil society efforts, which

were tolerated in Egypt before the fall of President Hosni Mubarak last year, now areconsidered criminal activities reveals the dangerous trajectory taken by Egyptsrevolution.Egypts transition to democracy is threatened by an unholy alliance ofholdover bureaucrats, army officers, and newly empowered Islamist political parties. TheObama Administration should apply pressure on Egypts leaders at the highest levels tohead off show trials that would poison bilateral relations and prospects for genuinedemocracy in the largest Arab country.


21/52


21

US foreign policy has resulted in the worst crisis in Egyptian-American relations.

James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas andSarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Greater U.S. Pressure Needed to EnsureSuccessful Egyptian Transition, Heritage Foundation,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/us-egypt-relations-greater-pressure-

needed-to-ensure-successful-egyptian-transition

The worst crisis in EgyptianAmerican relations in more than 30 years was intentionallyprovoked by the transitional governments prosecution of 43 civil society workers,including 16 Americans, for offering advice to Egyptians on how to organize politicalmovements and prepare for democracy. The Americans worked for three respectedAmerican NGOs: Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, and theNational Democratic Institute. After Washington threatened to cut off aid, Cairo lifted atravel ban that had prompted seven of the Americans to seek refuge in the U.S. embassyand permitted them to leave, but Egypt has continued the prosecution, and the trial is setto resume on April 10.

Israel - Palestine

The Middle East is falling apart due to current US policy.Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark GlobalRecession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-Global-Recession

While we enjoy relative tranquility here at home, the Muslim world is erupting in aconflagration of Islamic fundamentalist protests, destruction, and murder. What started as

timed terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya on the eleventh anniversaryof the attacks of 9/11, has turned into full-scale demonstrations of destruction fueled byan amateur video purportedly critical of their prophet Mohammed.What started with theArab Spring nearly two years ago, a democratic movement which led to the ousting ofstrong-arm leaders Khadafy in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt, has evolved into an ArabFall, and likely an Arab Winter of icy relations with the Muslim world. Perhaps it isnothing more than the morphing of hope and change to despair and violence, inducedby the Islamic extremist realities of the region. Four embassy personnel were mercilesslymurdered at the consulate in Libya, including our ambassador and two former NavySeals, who weve learned remarkably, were forbidden by the State Department frombeing issued live ammunition to protect the embassy staff. The Washington Times reports

that Ambassador Chris Stevens was raped before he was murdered.


22/52


22

Obama is ignoring problems in the middle east.Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark GlobalRecession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-Global-Recession

This week U.S. embassies have been under siege in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt,Sudan, Israel, Iraq, and Yemen, and U.S. companies and interests targeted in Iran andLondon. And with all of this occurring, the president chose to skip his intelligence updateto make a campaign trip to Las Vegas. In a taped message to campaign workers inNevada, he imprudently compared them to those demonstrating in the Muslim worldstriving for a better world.

Muslim countries in the Middle East hate Obamas policies.Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark Global

Recession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-Global-Recession

There are also the aural reminders that the Muslim world has not taken kindly to thekilling of Osama bin Ladin. Raw video captured by Middle East Media Research Instituteshows the mob that attacked the Egyptian embassy was chanting, Obama, Obama, wereall Osama. Perhaps it has been ill-advised to trumpet the killing of Osama. And all ofthis animus is targeted at the U.S. in spite of billions of dollars we give in foreign aid toMuslim countries, and surprisingly, one week after the administration forgave a $1billion dollar, taxpayer funded loan to Egypt.

The Obama Doctrine is responsible for many Middle East

Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark GlobalRecession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-Global-Recession

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz this week indicated that Obamas cozyrelationship with the Muslim Brotherhood is troubling. And that due to the ObamaDoctrine, regimes and Muslim country leaders cant trust America to do the right thing,

as evidenced by leaving Iraq after deposing a dictator, and Afghanistan after toppling atotalitarian Taliban regime. The administration actively supported the toppling of theMubarak regime in Egypt, praising the democratic Arab Spring uprising, and militarilyattacked Khadafys Libya to oust him.


23/52


23

The Arab Fall is responsible for terrorist threats against US targets. Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark GlobalRecession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-Global-Recession

The violence is spreading outside of the Muslim nations. Attacks on the U.S. embassy inLondon, as well as bomb threats at North Dakota State and the University of Texas inAustin validate concerns that anti-American violence can spread quickly, jumping oceansand geographic barriers to threaten Americans and U.S. interests everywhere. The callerof the bomb threat to the University of Texas claimed to represent al-Qaida. Whatever themotivation, the threats and violence of terrorism are evil. The cozier our relationship withperpetrators of such vile acts as weve witnessed this past week is, the morecompromised and susceptible we are to manipulation by those very elements. With thecollapse of the Obama Doctrine of foreign policy, its clear that a new foreign policy isneeded, based in reality, not on something as obviously tenuous as Muslim Outreach.

A Current Middle East turmoil could throw the global economy back into a

recession.


The turmoil in the Middle East, the Federal Reserve's decision to further devalue the U.S.dollar through a third round of "quantitative easing" (QE3), and rising oil prices are

combining to create a toxic economic brew that could send the global economy intorecession.That was the assessment of International Energy Agency chief economist FatihBirol. "I see the [oil] prices today, in this economic context, as unbearable forconsumers," said Birol on Friday. "High prices together with other factors could push theglobal economy back into recession."


24/52


24

Obama plans to use his failures in the Middle East to dip into the USs oil reserve.


Industry experts believe that President Barack Obama may use the Middle East uprisingsand soaring fuel costs to justify tapping the nation's 700 million-barrel emergencyStrategic Petroleum Reserve, similar to what Mr. Obama did last year to no lastingeffect.But it was the Federal Reserve's decision to pump $40 billion so-called "stimulus"dollars a month into the U.S. economy in the form of buying mortgage-backed securitiesthat ultimately may prove to be the match that lit the economic powder keg. As the valueof the U.S. dollar goes down, oil prices go up. That means slower economic growth andhigher consumer prices.

Obama is responsible for a tsunami of negative change in the Middle East, thischange could result in an international crisis.

Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is awork in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-new-middle-east-obama-doctrine.html

Seven weeks after protests in the small North African country of Tunisia toppled thelongtime leader there and sparked what some are calling a new "Arab Awakening,"President Barack Obama, his top aides, and U.S. lawmakers are confronting a historictsunami of change in the Middle East that shows no signs of receding. With Libyateetering on the edge of civil war; Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a key

counterterrorism ally, clinging to office; and democratic transitions in Egypt and Tunisiaby no means assured, it's too soon for a full report card on Obama's first sustainedinternational crisis.

Obama has been too slow in addressing the current problems in the middle east.


But Obama has been slow and cautious in articulating an over-arching U.S. strategy to

match the moment, one that explains how the U.S. will support political change in theMiddle East and reassures nervous U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, according to manyanalysts and lawmakers.


25/52


25

The US cant afford to pay for the slow transition of other countries to democracies.Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is awork in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-new-middle-east-obama-doctrine.html

What challenges lie ahead in the Middle East can only be imagined. It will take years, atbest, for Egypt to become a functioning democracy. Gadhafi's personality has sodominated Libya for 40 years that if he goes, new institutions will have to be built fromthe ground up. Bahrain, with its Shiite Muslim majority dominated by a Sunni minority,could become the center of a proxy war between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.TheU.S. spent billions of dollars helping shepherd eastern Europe toward democracy andfree-market economies, and even gave aid to a destitute Russia, once its mortalenemy.But now, the U.S. government doesn't have the deep pockets it once did, and theWhite House hasn't announced large new democracy assistance programs for the MiddleEast.

Obama is cutting defense spending at a time when the US is the biggest security risk

in the Middle East.

Ben Shapiro, Obama Doctrine: Slashes Military Amidst Islamist Uprising, BreitbartNews, September 14, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/Obama-doctrine-slash-military-world-in-flames

With the black flag of al Qaeda flying over the American embassy in Tunisia, the murderof the American ambassador in Libya, the storming of the US embassy in Cairo, theburning of the American flag in London, and the torching of American businesses inLebanon, the Obama administration is focused like a laser on its top priority: slashing

defense.


26/52


26

The Obama Doctrine is responsible for the loss of defense spending to provide more

defense in the middle east.

Ben Shapiro, Obama Doctrine: Slashes Military Amidst Islamist Uprising, BreitbartNews, September 14, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/Obama-doctrine-slash-military-world-in-flames

This is the fault of a president so extreme that his last two budgets did not receive a singlevote in the House or Senate. This is the fault of a president so extreme that whenRepublican House Speaker John Boehner offered him $800 billion tax increases over tenyears in exchange for between $3 trillion and $3.5 trillion in spending cuts (or cuts tofuture growth) and a revision of the tax code, Obama tentatively agreed then rejected itat the last minute, insisting on another $400 billion in tax increases. That impasse led tothe creation of the Budget Control Act, which would have cut $1.5 trillion over ten yearsvia a bipartisan deficit committee but if the committee could not come to any deal, $1.2trillion in cuts would immediately take effect. President Obama insisted that about half ofthose cuts come from defense. Thats no surprise from a president who wants to

unilaterally shrink Americas nuclear arsenal and take a chainsaw to the Pentagon budget.The tide of war is receding but the question that this strategy answers is what kind ofmilitary will we need long after the wars of the last decade are over, Obama said inJanuary.

Continued reliance on Saudi Arabia for oil undermines US national security

interests.

Amy Jaffe, "America's Real Strategic Petroleum Reserve" August 24, 2012,www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/24/Saudi_Arabia_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve

But relying on Saudi Arabia, while politically convenient, is not without risks. The mostobvious is that the Saudis have come under increased pressure -- both internal andexternal -- as a result of their longstanding oil-for-security alliance with Washington. Iranhas warned its fellow Gulf producer not to make up the slack resulting from Americanand European sanctions, threatening direct retaliation if it does. Saudi Arabia isn't takingany chances. In recent months, it has arrested prominent Shiite dissidents -- alwayssuspected of possible ties to Iran -- and doubled the number of Saudi National Guardforces in the Eastern Province, home to the vast majority its 2 million-plus Shiite citizensas well as the close to 90 percent of its oil production.


27/52


27

The US is unable to fall back on Saudi Arabia.Amy Jaffe, "America's Real Strategic Petroleum Reserve" August 24, 2012,www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/24/Saudi_Arabia_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve

America's ability to fall back on the Saudis is further imperiled by the inherent instability

of the kingdom's political and economic system. Saudi Arabia is going to need more andmore oil revenue just to keep its population from growing restive. Riyadh-based JadwaInvestment predicts that Saudi Arabia will be forced to run budget deficits from 2014onwards, even at a break-even price forecast of $90.70 per barrel in 2015. Other forecastsare even bleaker in the medium term, estimating the breakeven price at $110 a barrel in2015. Either way, the kingdom's thirst for cash is likely to mean that U.S. and Saudiinterests diverge. The oil-for-security deal between the two countries has destabilized thekingdom in the past by igniting support for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and itcould be used again by agents of internal opposition groups. Moreover, the recent pro-democracy upheavals in Egypt, Syria, and above all Bahrain are bound to influence U.S.-Saudi relations over time in ways that are hard to predict.

Iran opposes current US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace:What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East ForeignPolicy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israeli-palestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest

Israel is bullying the United States over the alleged threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon,using the prospect of an Israeli military attack on Iran to force the hand of its much largerally, Irans president said Monday.President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the idea

that Israel might attack on its own, over the objections of the United States, and saidIsrael is an inconsequential interloper with no rightful place in the Middle East.


28/52


28

The US is ineffective at restraining Israel from attacking Iran.


The Obama administration is chafing under increasingly direct pressure from Israel todeclare red lines in Irans nuclear development that would trigger a U.S. attack.President Obama, who is scheduled to address the United Nations on Tuesday, has saidhe would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear bomb. He has threatened a military strike if thereis no other option to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, but he has not publicly set adeadline for diplomacy to run its course.The Obama administration opposes a unilateralIsraeli strike because it would be unlikely to finish off Irans program and could pull theUnited States into a wider Middle East war. Ahmadinejad said Iran remains open tonegotiation over the bounds of what he insisted is a peaceful nuclear developmentprogram, but he said several U.S. administrations have managed to miss opportunities

to improve relations with Iran.

Obama is failing at helping the Israel and Palestine situation.


For the last two years, the Obama administration has clung to the notion of a "peaceprocess," starting with a settlement freeze as a confidence-building measure to resume

negotiations. But settlement building continues, direct negotiations have failed, and wehave reverted to "proximity talks." The administration has challenged Israeli negotiatorsto explain their positions, so that, if necessary, the United States can offer "bridgingproposals." This incremental approach shows no signs of working. It is time for a muchbolder American approach.


29/52


29

Obamas policies in Iraq have left it a threat to US security.

Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreignaffairs analyst for radio and television, "Obamas failed Iraq policy threatens U.S.security" June 6, 2012, www.humanevents.com/2012/06/26/obamas-failed-iraq-policy-threatens-u-s-security/

The Obama administration wants Americans to believe their Iraq policy is a success evenas Baghdad is heading off a political cliff that favors Iran.President Barack Obama cameto office more interested in keeping his 2008 campaign promise to bring the troopshome than the long-term success of our efforts there, said U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). Obama withdrew most of our troops and advisers in Dec. 2010 leaving thatcountry in bad hands.Sen. Inhofe, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,continued Now, the Iraqi leader that the Obama administration supports, Prime MinisterNouri al-Maliki, threatens to turn the country away from democracy. The senator warnsIf Iraq fails; history will find it due in part to President Obamas failed foreign policythere.

There is still significant violence in Iraq.

Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreignaffairs analyst for radio and television, "Obamas failed Iraq policy threatens U.S.security" June 6, 2012, www.humanevents.com/2012/06/26/obamas-failed-iraq-policy-threatens-u-s-security/

Polls aside, there is a lot happening in Iraq that Obamas supporters dont want Americanvoters to know about. First, Iraqi sectarian violence is back with a vengeance. Last weekwas the most violent since March 2010 with almost one hundred non-suicide bomb

attacks that left more than 107 dead and hundreds more injured. Stephanie Sanok, ananalyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Associated Press theabsence of American forces combined with the government divisions and weak Iraqisecurity have emboldened the militants. Iraqs political crisis is markedly sectarian whichfuels the violence. Maliki is leading the sectarian attack by sidelining his politicalopponents and refusing to share authority such as in the case of Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.

Obamas troop surge in Afghanistan was ineffective.

CBS News September 29, 2012, "Obamas Afghan Surge Failed"

newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/29/obamas-afghan-surge-failed/

Now that President Barack Obama has ended the military surge in Afghanistan, theanalysts are taking a hard look at what was accomplished since Obama made hissurprising move in 2009 when he decided to send more troops toAfghanistan.Unfortunately, very little if anything has improved in Afghanistan. Morethan a waste of our nations time and money, it has been a waste of more Americanslives.


30/52


30

There was no justification for a troop surge in Afghanistan.CBS News September 29, 2012, "Obamas Afghan Surge Failed"newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/29/obamas-afghan-surge-failed/

Additionally, what was given as a reason for sending tens of thousands more troops to

Afghanistan in February of 2009 has fallen by the wayside as there are currentdiscussions on the effect of the United States involvement in the Taliban-laden andtroubled country.According to reports, various Taliban and related attacks against NATOpowers were approximately 2,700 in August of 2009 when Obama made his contrary-to-campaign promised-move to step up the nations military assistance in Afghanistan.Three years later, in August of 2012, there were more attacks nearly 3,000.


31/52


31

Con Extensions

Reducing military spending would not reduce US debt.

Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr., "Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security,Chairman Says" U.S. Department of Defense News, September 22, 2011http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65432

As you know, the resident has made a decision to reduce the defense budget by morethan $450 billion over the next 10 years, he said. Thats a lot of money from anyperspective, but, in fact, it only represents a little over 9 percent a year from our baseline.

There is mutual distrust between Islamic Middle Eastern countries and America.


But America's image problems are not due solely to fears of American power. In someways, the issue of anti-Americanism is part of a broader story about mutual distrustbetween Muslims and Westerners. Polling by Pew in 2006 and 2011 highlighted theextent to which Muslim and Western publics see their relations with each other as bad,and the degree to which they blame each other for the poor state of affairs.

Middle Eastern countries view the US as selfish, greedy and violent.


In the West, fears about extremism and violence continue to play a role in driving theseviews. Among Muslims, many describe Westerners as selfish, greedy, and violent, andthe 2011 poll found majorities of Muslims in Egypt, the Palestinian territories, Pakistan,and Turkey saying that both Americans and Europeans tend to be hostile towardMuslims.

Muslims in the Middle East blame US policies for their lack of prosperity.


Also, large numbers of Muslims surveyed in 2011 blamed Western policies for the lackof prosperity in Muslim nations. Just like the headlines from the past week, the surveydata paint a fairly bleak picture. The "Obama effect" that changed America's batteredimage in Europe and other parts of the globe did not register in many predominantlyMuslim nations. Even so, there are some hopeful signs.


32/52


32

US efforts have been effective at promoting US economic ideals and democracy in

the Middle East


Moreover, some aspects of American soft power are appealing to Muslim publics.American-style business is especially popular in Arab nations. Indeed, among the 21nations included in spring 2012 survey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia were theonly countries where more than half said they like American ways of doing business.And even though U.S. democracy-promotion efforts have been met with skepticism bymany Muslims over the last decade, America's democratic tradition continues to havesome appeal. Six-in-ten Tunisians and more than four-in-ten Egyptians, Jordanians, andLebanese say they like American ideas about democracy. And young people areespecially likely to embrace these ideas. Some 72 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds like U.S.-style democracy in Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began.

Although some US policies are ineffective, the US has been effective at promoting

democracy in the middle east.


Majorities or pluralities in six predominantly Muslim nations surveyed by Pew in 2012said democracy is the best form of government, and polling has consistently shown thatMuslims in countries throughout the world support specific features of democracy,including institutions such as a free press and multiparty elections that serve ascornerstones of Western democratic systems.So while many Muslims continue to oppose

U.S. policies and remain uneasy about American power, many also want to see their owncountries adopt some central features of American society. And that's, at least, a bit ofgood news.


33/52


33

Popular opinion in Egypt has become more and more favorable toward the US.

Nate Silver, "Poll: Egyptian Publics Views Toward United States Are Much Improved"The New York Times, January 31, 2011,http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/poll-egyptian-publics-views-toward-united-states-are-much-improved/

What does appear to be the case, however, is that Egyptian popular opinion toward theUnited States has substantially improved over the course of the past 2 to 3 years, to thepoint that a new leader would probably not gain any points by expressing anti-Americansentiment.The BBC World Service conducts an annual survey in 28 countries, in which itasks participants how they feel about each of the others. The BBC has interviewedEgyptians as part of its survey since 2007.Egyptian sentiment toward the United Stateshas improved dramatically since the survey began. In 2007, just 11 percent of Egyptianssaid they viewed the United States as having a mostly positive influence, versus 59percent who said it had a mostly negative influence. The numbers were even worse thenext year: 16 percent positive, but 73 percent negative.

Egypt likes Obama.Nate Silver, "Poll: Egyptian Publics Views Toward United States Are Much Improved"The New York Times, January 31, 2011,http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/poll-egyptian-publics-views-toward-united-states-are-much-improved/

The election of President Obama created a major change in opinion, however. In 2009,positive opinions about the United States rose to 40 percent against 48 percent negative.And last year the first survey conducted after Mr. Obamas well-received June 2009

speech in Cairo[, Egypt] positive opinions became the plurality, at 45 percent, against29 percent negative views, figures comparable to those for survey participants in theUnited Kingdom and France. Although opinion about the United States has alsoimproved in most other countries since Mr. Obamas election, according to the survey, inperhaps no case has the change been quite so dramatic.

US Egyptian relations have been stable; the two countries have always worked well

together.

US Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, US Relations with Egypt, FactSheet, August 22, 2012, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm

The United States established diplomatic relations with Egypt in 1922, following itsindependence from protectorate status under the United Kingdom. The United States andEgypt share a relationship based on mutual interest in Middle East peace and stability,revitalizing the Egyptian economy and strengthening trade relations, and promotingregional security. Egypt has been a key U.S. partner in ensuring regional stability and ona wide range of common security issues, including Middle East peace and counteringterrorism.


34/52


34

The US has achieved its national security objectives in Egypt.


Egypts historic transition to democracy, launched in early 2011, will have a profound

impact on the political future, not only of Egypt, but also the Middle East and NorthAfrica (MENA) region at large. Supporting a successful transition to democracy andeconomic stability in Egypt, one that protects the basic rights of its citizens and fulfillsthe aspirations of the Egyptian people, will continue to be a core objective of U.S. policytoward Egypt. A prosperous and democratic Egypt, buoyed by economic growth and astrong private sector, can be an anchor of stability for the MENA region.

US assistance to Egypt has been and will continue to be successful.


U.S. assistance to Egypt has long played a central role in Egypts economic and militarydevelopment, and in furthering the strategic partnership. With Egypt embarking on atransition to democracy, U.S. support can bolster Egypts nascent democratic system andachieve inclusive economic growth. U.S. assistance supports Egyptian efforts to protectcivil liberties and human rights, introduce transparency and accountability in government,foster economic growth and democratic institutions, and develop a robust, independentcivil society.

Obamas policies are effective at managing crises in the Middle East.


Former U.S. officials give the White House high marks so far for day-to-day crisismanagement. Obama helped shoehorn from power aging Egyptian President HosniMubarak, a U.S. partner for decades, and quietly evacuated American diplomats andother citizens from Libya before marshalling tough sanctions and other measures againstMoammar Gadhafi's regime." Despite the criticism they've gotten, they've acted deftly inmanaging the crisis in both Tunisia and Egypt, especially," after some initial stumbles,said Edward Djerejian, an assistant secretary of state for the Near East under presidents

George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.


35/52


35

Obama is approaching the Middle East with caution.Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is awork in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-new-middle-east-obama-doctrine.html

Aides say Obama is reluctant to thrust the U.S. into the center of largely peaceful peoples'revolts that are authentically Arab and, for the first time in recent memory, don't involvethe burning of U.S. and Israeli flags or other displays of anti-Americanism. "Thepresident understands that it is absolutely critical that the United States not try to, or beseen as trying to, take ownership" of the pro-democracy movements, said Daniel Shapiro,the senior director for the Near East on the White House's National Security Council.

Obama is opening lines of communication with the Middle East.

Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is awork in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-new-

middle-east-obama-doctrine.html

National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon briefs Obama multiple times each day on thecrisis, and deputy Denis McDonough leads meetings virtually daily of the inter-agencyDeputies Committee. Obama, Shapiro said, has ordered officials and diplomats to openchannels of communications wherever they can find them, not just with counterparts inArab governments, but with members of civil society and opposition groups. He called it"a very Obama approach" drawn from the president's days as a community organizer inChicago. "You go out and talk to everybody," he said, and it has helped U.S. officials geta richer understanding of what is happening in Egypt and elsewhere.

Obama is promoting peace in Israel-Palestine.


We at the Middle East Policy Council think that it is a national security interest of theUnited States to resolve this conflict. In that, we are in agreement with President Obama,General Petraeus, George Mitchell, former officials such as Brent Scowcroft and manyothers. Since 1977, when President Jimmy Carter tried to orchestrate a comprehensive

resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict with a Palestinian homeland at its core, there havebeen a number of developments: Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories haveproliferated; the United States and Israel have recognized the PLO; interim agreementshave been achieved; and limited Palestinian self-rule has been established.


36/52


36

Arab-Israeli tensions have serious national security implications for the US.Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace:What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East ForeignPolicy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israeli-palestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest

We are at a moment of truth in the Middle East, in the Arab-Israeli conflict and in theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict. We face the urgent necessity of moving forward because theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict, and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, is a national securitythreat to the United States of America. There are many reasons why America shouldpromote peace in the Middle East. Promoting peace is a good thing in and of itself, buttoday, more than ever, it is because our national security interests are at stake that weneed to promote peace. Why is it a moment of truth? Last month at the U.S.-Israel forumsponsored by the Saban Center at Brookings, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admittedwhat we all knew: the Obama administration's very brave efforts of the first two yearshad not succeeded, had not produced a breakthrough despite the hard work of SecretaryClinton and special representative George D. Mitchell. Despite the brave words of Cairo,

we had not achieved a breakthrough.

Israeli-Arab relations are at the heart of all US national security interests in the

Middle East.Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace:What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East ForeignPolicy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israeli-palestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest

There is no question to anyone who studies this conflict, anyone who has lived in theArab world, anyone who has lived in the Islamic world, that this conflict produces anger,

frustration and humiliation among Palestinians, among Arabs and among Muslims morebroadly. It is thus a driving force not the only one, but a driving force of radicalextremism throughout the Islamic world and becoming more so every day. Once again,it's not the only force; there are other things as well. But it is among the most important,if not the most important. I'm going to focus on al-Qaeda, because I've done a lot ofresearch on al-Qaeda and because al-Qaeda today is the single most dangerous threat tothe United States. President Obama made that clear in his review of policy in Afghanistanand Pakistan: our policy in this region has as its highest priority to disrupt, dismantle anddefeat al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is also important because it falls into an unusual category. It isan organization that has actually declared war on the United States of America. No onesince 1941 except al-Qaeda has declared war on the United States of America.


37/52


37

The Israeli-Palestine conflict is what drives terrorism.


My proposition, very simply, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular thelarger Arab-Israeli conflict, is at the heart and center of al-Qaeda's ideology and narrative.It is essential for its case and its declaration of war that every single American is alegitimate target to be murdered today. Some argue that al-Qaeda is a latecomer to thisissue, that it's not sincere, that this is not really what drives al-Qaeda at all, that al-Qaedais actually driven by a desire to remove American soldiers from Saudi Arabia. Rubbish.Al-Qaeda has been involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute. It has been at the center of itsideology from its inception, as I will show you. If this issue were all about Americantroops in Saudi Arabia, this war should have ended five years ago. We lost, by the way.We gave up, and we said, we're leaving. But it didn't happen; it hasn't ended one bit.

Obama is developing a Middle East plan and siding with Arabs on the Israel-

Palestine divide.CNN May 19, 2011, Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 bordershttp://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS

President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S.support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 MiddleEast war. In the past, the United States has unofficially backed a two-state solution to the

Israel-Palestinian conflict based on the borders in place prior to the war 44 years ago inwhich Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. In amajor speech Thursday, Obama became the first president to formally endorse the policy,but he also acknowledged the need for modifications through the negotiating process dueto conditions on the ground.


38/52


38

Now is the key time to create peace in Israel and Palestine.


As for the timing of a new U.S. peace initiative, I think we have to move now. There arealways domestic political reasons for delay and other competing diplomatic challenges.But the environment for peace in Israel and Palestine will continue to deteriorate, and thedanger of much greater violence, even war, is ever present. If the Obama administrationdoes decide to move, it will need deeper staffing and expertise. The president should alsocreate a clearer point of leadership, whether it's the secretary of state or someone else, inorder to avoid the kind of division among policy makers that has hurt American peaceefforts in the past.

There is a big risk of destabilization of the Israel-Palestinian region.Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace:What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East ForeignPolicy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israeli-palestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest

Second, there's a very real risk of a destabilizing conflict in the region. When you look atwhat's happened over the last four-and-a-half to five years, the region really walked up toseveral conflagrations: civil war in Iraq, the conflict between Lebanon and Israel,Hezbollah and Israel, and the conflict in Gaza. And though there's a calm now, it's a verytenuous calm. There have been flare-ups and some major bouts of violence, including the

Gaza war of 2008-09. In the absence of forward progress in either the current process orsome alternative, such as the presentation of a U.S. plan, one could see yet anotherconflict reemerging. Look at the combustible mix that exists now in Lebanon. Theabsence of momentum is deeply troubling.

Obamas policies in Iraq have improved US security.White House Press Release 2012http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy

President Obama has pursued national security policies that keep the American people

safe, while turning the page on a decade of war and restoring American leadershipabroad. Since President Obama took office, the United States has devastated al Qaedasleadership. Now, thanks to our extraordinary servicemen and women, we have reached apivotal moment as we definitively end the war in Iraq and begin to wind down the warin Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we have refocused on a broader set of priorities around theglobe that will allow the United States to be safe, strong, and prosperous in the 21stcentury.


39/52


39

America is popular in Iraq thanks to Obamas foreign policy.Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreignaffairs analyst for radio and television, "Obamas failed Iraq policy threatens U.S.security" June 6, 2012, www.humanevents.com/2012/06/26/obamas-failed-iraq-policy-

threatens-u-s-security/

Obama supporters understand the domestic political risks associated with Sen. Inhofeswarning. That prompted Democratic Party operatives to launch an Iraq public opinionsurvey to create a positive perception of Maliki, Obamas man in Baghdad.Last monthIraqi and international media took the bait and reported the surveys results as good newsfor Maliki and by association Obama. For example, the New York Times reported aplurality of Iraqis felt the country was going in the right direction and Iraq Daily Newsreported Malikis popularity has risen to 53 percent, an increase of 19 points since Oct.2011.

Obamas foreign policy in Iraq has improved Iraqs economic relationships with

other nations in the region.Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreignaffairs analyst for radio and television, "Obamas failed Iraq policy threatens U.S.security" June 6, 2012, www.humanevents.com/2012/06/26/obamas-failed-iraq-policy-threatens-u-s-security/

Iraqs economy is wide open to Iran as well. Maliki signed more than 100 economicagreements with Iran and now Iranian companies work inside Iraq on majorreconstruction projects. For example, Iraq, Iran and Syria signed a $10 billion natural gas

deal to construct a pipeline originating in Iran and extending to Syria.

Obamas Afghanistan troop surge was effective.USA Today September 21, 2012, "Obama's surge in Afghanistan ends"content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/09/21/obamas-surge-in-afghanistan-ends/70000832/1#.UHSHZa74LOJ

Very quietly, the surge of troops into Afghanistan that President Obama announced tosuch fanfare in late 2009 is now over.Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said today that33,000 troops have been withdrawn, calling the Afghan surge "a very important

milestone" in a war the Obama administration is winding down; there are sill 68,000 U.S.troops in Afghanistan.The "surge did accomplish its objectives of reversing the Talibanmomentum on the battlefield and dramatically increase the size and capability of theAfghan national security forces," Panetta said. The U.S. and its allies plan to turn over allsecurity responsibilities to the Afghans in 2014.


40/52


40

Obama has been successful at getting Afghanistan to sign peace agreements.

Joshua Foust, American Security Project, "Measuring Success: Are We Winning? 10Years in Afghanistan May 2012 Update" americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2012/measuring-success-are-we-winning-10-years-in-afghanistan-may-2012-update/

During his most recent trip to Afghanistan, President Obama signed a strategicpartnership agreement with the Afghan government, signaling a shift in bilateralrelations. While the wars overall objectives have not changed, President Obamaemphasized that the current goal of U.S. forces in the country is to successfullytransition primary responsibility for Afghanistans security from international forces tolocal ones thus allowing for a withdrawal of combat troops.

Recent attacks in Afghanistan have been unsuccessful.Joshua Foust, American Security Project, "Measuring Success: Are We Winning? 10

Years in Afghanistan May 2012 Update" americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2

forensics files nov 2012

Documents