Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Top Level
1NC ISIS DA
Time is of the essence Congress shifted the agenda and only
has a week to act on ISISObama is key
Espo and Klapper 9/11 (David Espo and Bradley Klapper, writers for the Associatged Press,
President's request to combat militants draws bipartisan support
http://www.columbian.com/news/2014/sep/11/presidents-request-combat-militants-draws-support/) swap
too tepid to crush militants who have overrun parts of Iraq and Syria and beheaded two American journalists. On
lawmakers hope to wrap up their work and go home to campaign for re-election. Congress' two other top officials,
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, also said Obama would likely
get the support he seeks. Congress is in the midst of a two-week session that had been expected
to focus on domestic issues, principally legislation to extend routine government funding beyond the end of the
simultaneously trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad and defeat militants seeking to create an Islamist
caliphate in the heart of the Middle East. Obama says he already has the authority to order airstrikes against
lawmakers, including Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
and Secretary of State John Kerry are expected to testify next week at public hearings in advance of any votes in
Congress. There was a strong political subtext to the developments, eight weeks before voters pick a new House
and settle a struggle for Senate control. Asked whether the topic would be part of the campaign now unfolding, Sen.
Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who is on the November ballot, said, "Everything is going to be an issue." " We
do not
want to go home without voting on some measure that goes toward destroying and
defeating ISIS wherever it exists," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, using an alternate acronym for the
militants. Reid accused Republicans of taking cheap political shots at the president, and said, "This is a time for the
rhetoric of campaign commercials to go away." At the same time, candidates seeking re-election will be required to
vote on the president's request, and challengers will be on the spot to state their positions. Broader debate
Republicans served notice they will seek a broader debate, although not before
Congress leaves Washington next week. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican
leader and a frequent critic of Obama, said Congress will work quickly on the White House's immediate request.
Beyond that, he said Congress must consider "what this multiyear campaign will mean for the overall defense
program" from U.S. nuclear forces on land, sea and air, to a need to "retain dominance" in the Pacific. Boehner,
the leader of the Republican-controlled House, said it could take years to train and equip rebel forces, yet "ISIL's
momentum and territorial gains must be halted and reversed immediately." He added, "An F-16 (warplane) is not a
strategy, and airstrikes alone will not accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. And the president's made clear
that he doesn't want U.S. boots on the ground. Well, somebody's boots have to be on the ground." As a president
who came to office promising to end wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama has been adamant that he is not now
leading the nation into a new ground conflict. Even so, one Democratic supporter of the president, Sen. Bill Nelson
of Florida, said Wednesday night, "The U.S. will probably put boots on the ground, but it will be more commando
<Link>
October 7th will determine the link congresss agenda is
TIGHT any new legislation will force a war powers battle that
collapses support for strikes.
Logiurato 9/3/14 (Brett, Political Analysit Congress Is Frustrated With Obama, And They're Beating
The Drums For A War With ISIS Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-to-obama-go-to-warwith-isis-2014-9#ixzz3CSCtixAh)
Obama first notified Congress of military action in Iraq on Aug. 8 under the
1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives the president a 60-day window to
carry out military operations before coming to Congress for approval. The administration hasn't specified whether it
he pushes for it, congressional aides say, Obama will likely get his authorization though many members of
Congress want that long-awaited strategy to be laid out. Obama will need to come to Congress with defined goals
and objectives.
and crossed into Jordan and Lebanon had the world heeded our warnings earlier this yearand formed a regional
strategy to combat this threat by supporting those of us who have been fighting these terrorists for months with
little to no outside support. We agree with America's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey,
on the eradication of all who oppose it. The slaughtermore than 160,000 Syrians have been killedis being
conducted on an industrial scale. Recent evidence presented by defectors has revealed how meticulously the killing
has been planned by Assad and his Iranian backers. Yet we have enemies in common with the U.S. and other
potential allies. Before al Qaeda spawned ISIS, Assad's security services provided a haven for al Qaeda on Syrian
territorylong before our revolution against the Assad regime began in 2011. We have fought ISIS and are fighting
to be the most effective force in fighting against ISIS and al Qaeda affiliates. On May 16, Free Syrian Army units in
Aleppo province announced the launch of an anti-al Qaeda offensive titled Operation Earthquake of the North. On
May 19, five powerful rebel coalitions signed a "Revolutionary Covenant" denouncing "fundamentalism and
extremism." On June 12, the Free Syrian Army's Southern Front Command released a statement reiterating the
rebels' commitment to democratic principles. We have put forth a blueprint for stabilizing and freeing Syria from the
threats that endanger both the Syrian people, regional allies and the West. We have proposed a scalable Syrian
Rapid Deployment Force, which would form the nucleus of a larger stabilization force of more than 10,000 vetted
and trained fighterscritical to defeating ISIS and Assad's killing machine. We are also in the process of establishing
offices and services in the liberated areas of Syria to support a political framework that will oversee and coordinate
with a military chain of command. We welcome President Obama's recent initiative to support us as the genuine
This
military support will be helpful in the battle against ISIS, and it will save
lives and prevent further spread of the conflict regionally. But this support
will not be enough if it does not arrive quickly and match the pace of the ISIS advance.
Opposition forces will also need to be enabled with an air-defense
capability. We need man-portable air-defense systems (Manpads) to defend
homes and towns and villages from the incessant air bombardment and
regime military assaults. These weapon systems will not fall into extremist hands because our forces
and vetted Syrian opposition with a proposed package of $500 million for military training and equipment.
are actively fighting those very extremists. We also know this because the Free Syrian Army has already benefited
from lethal support from the U.S., demonstrating on the battlefield that it can effectively and responsibly use U.S.-
The
Free Syrian Army is the tip of the spear in the fight against ISIS terrorism.
If properly enabled, our opposition forces have the experience and personnel to
turn the tide on the ground. Together with the U.S., we can end the
suffering in Syria. In partnership, we can deal a mortal blow to the terrorist
threat facing both our peoples. But time is of the essence, as ISIS and Assad will
made advanced-weapon systems such as the T.O.W. antitank guided missile. Manpads must be the next step.
exploit any delay to destroy those who stand against them. The U.S.
State Department recently referred to ISIS as "worse than al Qaeda."
Given the dire threat, what could be worse than complacency?
Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is
closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to preemptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United
States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation
among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all
suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the
pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors , it is disturbingly easy to imagine
scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional
antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It
would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep
nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic
framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the
probability of war a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants.
Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and
decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this
possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be
an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the
entire world.
UQ
about funding the strategy against ISIS, they stated it was too soon to be speculating about the cost, but estimated
that the fighter training could be $500 million alone. If Democrats and Republicans cant come together to keep us
safe from terrorism, I dont know what will bring us together, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) told reporters.
The
House is expected to vote in favor of the proposal next week . Democrats in the upper
chamber said they will be involved in briefings in the next few days to understand the challenges and ask questions
regarding the Presidents strategy.
Republicans were on very opposite pages with the Democratic president. Look a little
closer and youll see some similarities. Part of the reason for the signs of
agreement over fighting the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is that Obama is getting more
aggressive, which is what many Republicans wanted . Another reason is that they got a strategy
against ISIS from Obamas speech, which theyve been demanding, even if it fell short of their hopes. And Obama
has been trying to win over the Hill in his anti-ISIS activities, something theyve complained he doesnt do enough
of generally. So many Republicans are expressing some measure of agreement, couched in criticism. CQ Now
reports Thursday, for instance, for CQ.com subscribers: Sen. Rob Portman [R-Ohio @senrobportman] said he
supports the strategy Obama laid out to fight Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria, but said there had been a vacuum
of leadership on the issue: The president may wish it away, but this threat continues, Portman said. Republican
Sens. John McCain of Arizona (@SenJohnMcCain) and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina (@GrahamBlog) have been
some of Obamas chief critics over ISIS. While we are eager to receive additional information on all of the
R-Ohio (@SpeakerBoehner) among them arent challenging his claim of authority to go it alone. And while
Obamas late request for inclusion in a stopgap funding bill of authorization to ramp up arming Syrian rebels might
have given House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky. (@HouseAppropsGOP), heartburn, a vote on the bill
support doing so. This doesnt mean they agree with everything about what Obama is doing, of course. Many of
them want him to be doing even more, and not just McCain and Graham. Its just that
Lawder and Zengerle 9/11 (David Lawder and Patricia Zengerle, writers for Haaretz,
Republicans mull ISIS plan as Obama invites Congressional support http://www.haaretz.com/1.615246) swap
lawmakers say they are on the verge of taking a "war vote" as they
consider whether to back President Barack Obama's campaign to destroy Islamic State, and
REUTERS - U.S.
despite broad support for action many fear being drawn into a quagmire. The White House wants Congress to
approve $500 million to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels to battle Islamic State militants, a show of confidence
for administration officials as they try to form an international coalition. The beheadings of two U.S. captives by
But some Republicans in particular say they want more information from the administration about its wider strategy
to combat global terrorism, and many would prefer a broad vote rather than one focused on funding. "This could be
taken by some as a war vote," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, adding that he has
reservations about providing weapons that could fall into enemy hands. "There are so many unknowns that we are
dealing with here, it's too early to make any decisions," the Kentucky Republican told reporters shortly before
Obama told Americans in a speech on Wednesday night that he had authorized an escalation of his campaign
lawmakers recoiled at the thought of military strikes against Syria's government for using chemical weapons. They
handed Obama an embarrassing foreign policy defeat as anti-war Democrats joined isolationist Republicans in a
rare show of bi-partisanship that killed his request for strikes. Democrats are crossing the aisle again ,
this time as they voice strong support for attacking Islamic State, though the overwhelming majority of lawmakers
from both parties oppose the idea of sending in any U.S. ground troops. " I
winds seem to have shifted. While the week started with congressional leaders taking a pass on the
issue, a new consensus started to come together: Congress cant just do nothing. Jake Sherman has the
latest from the Hill: [I]nternally, senior aides to Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority
Whip Steve Scalise recognize that theres a significant enough outcry from lawmakers to have an up-or-down vote
on Obamas plan. The issue came up at a closed House briefing Thursday, and W hite
House officials
reiterated that its their strong preference to have the language included in the government-
funding bill, in order to orchestrate a quick passage. The Republican leadership is considering a few
options. Theres a pending measure to fund the government through mid-December the continuing resolution,
or CR that Congress must pass to avoid a shutdown. As far as the White House is concerned, that creates an
opportunity: add the anti-ISIS provisions to the spending measure and lawmakers can tackle two important tasks at
once. But for many lawmakers, in both parties, its not that simple. Some want to keep the governments lights on,
but have real concerns about the counter-terrorism strategy. Others arent comfortable with combining these two
obligation to weigh in, the fact that lawmakers are debating how, and not whether, to move forward is itself a sign
of unexpected progress. But that doesnt mean the road ahead will be easy. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), a member of
didnt figure it out. Some support Obamas requestJohn Boehner does, and the relevant committee chairmen.
Others, of course, dont trust Obama. Some want to keep the Syria money in the CR. Others want to pry it out and
have two votes, one on government funding and one on the Syria dough.
dealing with a dangerous adversaryCongress needs to play a vital role and we are determined that the House
Foreign Affairs Committee will lead the way, said Rep. Eliot Engel, ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee. We believe that before the president can continue beyond 60 days of doing airstrikes in Iraq or
anyplace else, he would have to come to Congress and get Congresss authority to continue. Engel and the
committees chairman, Rep. Ed Royce, spoke to reporters via conference call from Israel on Tuesday. Royce said
Secretary of State John Kerry, who will travel to the region this week, must come before Congress and present a
strategy for defeating ISIS and put it up for a vote by the beginning of next month. We are scheduling a hearing
upon our return and requesting the secretary of state to present a plan, a strategy focused on rolling back ISIS,
defeating ISIS through the use of airstrikes and the support of those with common interests, Royce said. We
anticipate there will be a vote on authorization of the use of force for such a plan. That would come within the 60day window. Shortly after beginning airstrikes against ISIS in early August, Obama notified Congress of the
military action consistent with the War Powers Resolution, which gives the executive branch 60 days to wage war
before coming to Congress for authorization. That notification said Obama was striking ISIS in Iraq to protect U.S.
personnel in Erbil and prevent a potential act of genocide against the Yazidi minorities. That 60-day window would
expire in early October. Congress returns from recess next week and has two weeks of session before adjourning
again until after the election. The
but he did start the process for congressional approval last year to strike the Assad regime in Syria before calling off
those strikes at the last minute. Still reeling from Obamas August 28 declaration that the White House lacks a
then not participate, Wolf told Breitbart News in a phone interview. He continued: The Congress has the ability to
declare war under the Constitution. I think the Congress has to be involved in this. I think you also almost have to
do what President [George H.W.] Bush did with regard to Desert Storm. If you put together a coalition of regional
powersthey had the Saudis, even Syria was involved. You had all the countries out in the region involved. You had
all of NATO involvedAmericans cannot do this alone. We need to bring in all of this regional power.
Wolfs
bill, which he will introduce when Congress returns from recess next week, wouldaccording to Wolfs office
authorize U.S. military force against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
and al Qaeda and its affiliates, like al Nusra, Ansar al Sharia, al Shabaab and Boko Haram, while
encouraging close coordination with NATO and regional allies on any action. Wolf, in his interview with Breitbart
News about the forthcoming bill, said hes puzzled that the president at first did not have any strategy yet to deal
with ISIS, and that now the president thinks ISIS can be a manageable problem. I dont know what the word
manageable means, Wolf said. I saw the comment. How do you manage it? They have spread now from Syria
to the suburbs of Baghdad. They have Mosul. You have 140 Americans, at least, with American passports who have
gone over there to fight with them. We have never had this happen before. 9/11 were mainly Saudis and some
other nations. Wolf said
Obama is unlikely to put U.S. combat troops on the ground, as he is concerned about his
will likely ramp up
the U.S. air campaign. "When the Iraqi and Kurdish ground component of an overall anti-ISIS military
However, experts say
legacy, and wants to be known as the president who ended the war in Iraq. Instead, he
package has been better prepared and armed, the tempo of U.S. and possibly other NATO airstrikes against ISIS will
Xinhua. "Congress is pretty much prepared to authorize him to use more force," O'Connell said.
Internal Link
I think under existing authorizations from the Congress, he has the ability to do this in Iraq, Boehner said Tuesday
night in a phone interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitts fill-in, California Rep. John Campbell. The
interview occurred shortly after ISIS released a video showing its beheading of a second American journalist.
president, asked the president what is your strategy to deal with Syria. And clearly, theres no strategy thats
developed there.
Until
the president is willing to lay out a plan, the Congress has very few
options ahead of it, Boehner said.
the president has provided the notification of some of these strikes ,
theres some ambiguity there in terms of how much
authority in Iraq did he have. But if hes going after ISIS, he would have, I think he
would have to provide a war powers notification to the Congress. And then
it would be up to the House to make a decision about whether we dealt
with the issue or not, Boehner added.
Well,
the Congress," he said. "And then it would be up to the House to make a decision about whether we dealt with the issue or not."
The threat extends further than Iraq and Syria, Boehner warned. He noted it touches from "Libya
to Gaza to Lebanon to Syria and Iraq." Obama vowed to degrade and destroy ISIS Wednesday
morning, after the administration authenticated a video Tuesday showing the
second beheading of a U.S. journalist by the group.
candor that resulted in ongoing criticism from every corner of the political spectrum and provide another
opportunity for critics to define his foreign policy as feckless and aimless? Dr. Nussaibah Younis, senior researcher at
the Project on Middle East Democracy, said Obama's slow response to his critics is characteristic of his approach to
foreign policy. "Slowly he's getting there," said Younis, an Iraq expert who has been warning about the growing
threat of ISIS and is critical of the President's "cautious" approach to ISIS in Iraq. He wants strategic, limited and
immediate airstrikes in Syria. "The gravity of the situation is filtering through and I think that's progress." The
President again fell victim to that perception again Wednesday. During that same news conference in Estonia,
Obama gave mixed messages of U.S. goals against the group that effectively erased the border between Iraq and
Syria. On one hand he said the goal is to "degrade and destroy," then appeared to move back from the "destroy"
part of the phrase by saying the goal against ISIS is to ensure the group is "manageable." It is another instance that
opens him up to criticism from those who want aggressive military action as well as confusion on the part of an
American public that wants answers. "He left a little ambiguous what the goal is today," David Gergen, a former
adviser to four presidents, said Wednesday on CNN. An administration official defended the President, saying he did
not deliver two conflicting messages, but noted that this is going to be a time-consuming fight that will begin with
managing ISIS's threat and eventually lead to its destruction. Now that this is the second messaging problem the
President has had in less than a week when talking about the terrorist group, Major Gen. James "Spider" Marks said
the President's missives must be more clear. "Words are very, very important," Marks said on CNN, adding that his
messages are mixed because the U.S.'s lack of a strategy. Regardless of messaging, the President's restrained
strategy does have its defenders. Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "GPS," said that the President's response to ISIS in
Syria, which is embroiled in a three-year long civil war, is appropriate. He said one important consideration is
whether the brutal regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would be strengthened if ISIS is defeated there. "In
the Middle East, the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy," Zakaria said on CNN's "New Day" on Wednesday.
The external pressure put on Obama to act is harmful, Zakaria said. "This is where the media pressure actually is
unhelpful to having a strong foreign policy," he said. After ISIS beheaded American journalist Steve Sotloff, the
second American in less than one month, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that caution is the
As President Barack Obama addressed the world from Talinn, Estonia, on Wednesday, saying
that the U.S. and its allies would "degrade and destroy" ISIS, members of
Congress were calling for more direct action against the Sunni militant group that has
horrified the world with its atrocities in recent months. The bipartisan outrage over the beheading of
Steven Sotloff, the second American journalist to be beheaded by ISIS in as many weeks, has prompted
Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, to introduce legislation that would
grant Obama congressional authority to strike ISIS, aka the Islamic State, in Syria. This
will ensure theres no question that the president has the legal authority he needs to use airstrikes in Syria, Nelson
said. We must go after ISIS right away because the U.S. is the only one that can put together a coalition to stop
chilling that this type of madness is now part of their operation as they take cities across the area, Foreign Affairs
Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-California, said on CNN in a joint interview with his committees ranking
Democrat, Eliot Engel of New York. Both
Whenever American air power has been employed, in coordination with reliable partners on the ground, ISIL has
been devastated. Its a tactic that should be aggressively pursued in both Syria and Iraq, said Sen. Lindsey
Graham, a South Carolina Republican, on Tuesday.
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political
newsletters go out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic
will happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution.
The political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any
serious progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the
forefront of people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon.
recommendations for executive actions developed by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson. "I suspect that on my flight back this will be part of my reading, taking a look at some of the
specifics we've looked at, and I will be making an announcement soon," Obama told reporters at a press conference
following the NATO summit in Wales. Obama said his actions would include efforts to move resources to better
address the surge of child migrants who have flooded across the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as finding a way to
encourage legal immigration. High-tech companies and immigration groups have been lobbying the
administration to expand the number of green cards available to specialized workers and the relatives of permanent
residents. The president said he also hoped his administration could find a way "to encourage legal immigration
and give people some path so that they can start paying taxes and pay a fine and learn English, and be able to not
look over their shoulder, but be legal since theyve been living here for quite some time." Advocates have
suggested that the president could expand his deferred action program which allows certain children brought to
the country illegally to work legally and avoid deportation proceedings to cover a broader group of individuals.
"My intention is, in the absence of action by Congress, Im going to do what I can do within the legal constraints of
my office, because its the right thing to do for the country," Obama said. But while Obama said he'd be considering
those steps "fairly soon," he did not say whether the announcement would come ahead of the midterm elections.
pushback from Senate Democrats up for reelection in red states. They do not want the president to do this before
Election Day.
The White House request in July for $3.7 billion in emergency spending to deal with a surge
of undocumented minors has fallen to the wayside and may not get a vote
at all as lawmakers return to Capitol Hill for a three-week legislative sprint before Election Day. Aides to House
and Senate leaders and the Appropriations committees said the number of undocumented
minors at the border has been dropping and existing funds are likely to
cover the immediate needs. The aides spoke on background because negotiations are ongoing.
With control of both chambers of Congress within reach for the first time in years,
GOP leaders will try to clear the way for Republican candidates as they head into
the final campaign stretch. They want to avoid another bruising government
shutdown when fiscal 2014 funding runs out after Sept. 30, and minimize awkward votes
that could disadvantage incumbents. That means leaders will work to keep
a CR free of too many spending anomalies to avoid sapping Republican support and
fend off policy riders that could jeopardize Democratic votes needed to
move it through the Senate.
Strikes Core
the president has relied upon the Article II powers that are granted to his office by
the U.S. Constitution, such as the ability of the Commander-in- Chief to take limited military
action when U.S. citizens are at risk. Just this past weekend, President Obama ordered the U.S. Air
Force to pummel Islamic State checkpoints, armored trucks, and mortar positions to break a
date,
two-month siege of a small, agricultural Turkomen town that was cut off nearly all attempts to bring in food, water,
and medical supplies to the people who lived there. In this case, the need to ensure that a genocide didn't occur
was given as the sole explanation for the latest bombing.
U.S. Central Command has conducted nearly 120 airstrikes as of August 31, 2014. The number may seem high, but
the military force that President Obama has used thus far is confined to
specific geographical areas in northern Iraq in danger of being taken over by the jihadists,
such as Irbil, the Mosul Dam, and now the Iraqi village of Amerli. As long as the U.S. Air Force is employed in this
way, the White House can claim that it has all of the legal authority it needs under Article II to defend U.S. national
security interests and the safety of American citizens and facilities in the region. Indeed, members of Congress have
been relatively quiet on the president's decision to launch the full weight of the U.S. Armed Forces, and when they
have spoken about it, they tend to support the president's legal argument.
If the Obama administration, on the other hand, finds it necessary to expand U.S.
military activity against the Islamic State into Syria (a choice it will have to make if there is any
possibility of degrading the organization's military capability in the short-term), President Obama will
quickly face a wave of pressure on Capitol Hill on the need to submit a new
Authorization for the Use of Military Force for congressional debate and
approval. In fact, the push for greater congressional buy-in is already there, with Senators Tim Kaine (D - VA),
Chris Murphy (D - CT) and Bob Corker (R - TN) lobbying for a vote.
Constitution intended, and Congress and the Executive have a responsibility to do the hard work to build a political
consensus in support of our military missions." Sen. Murphy was even more blunt in an interview with Yahoo News
on Sunday, August 31: "We
enemy. The 2001 AUMF, which was a mere 60 words passed overwhelmingly three days after the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks, has been on the books for nearly thirteen years and has been stretched to the breaking point
in order to accommodate threats emanating from al Qaeda associates and affiliates. Although the Islamic State may
have been the spawn of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the very public breakup between Ayman alZawahiri and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi means that the 2001 AUMF cannot be used as the domestic legal basis of an
anti-IS military campaign (it's difficult for even the most clever constitution lawyer to argue that a document
Only a new
authorization could resolve the outstanding questions that legal scholars
and lawmakers continue to have on the war powers issue post-9/11.
justifying the targeting of al Qaeda could be used to target a group that wasn't formed until 2004).
lawmakers to have an open, objective and healthy national debate before voting is only appropriate.
a new AUMF directed solely against the Islamic State would serve an
incredibly useful political function for the White House. Instead of being the one actor
tied to the success or failure of a military operation , the administration would spread the
responsibility and costs across two, co-equal branches of government. If things go bad for U.S. personnel or
Finally,
if the strategy is too slow to produce lasting damage on the terrorist group, members of Congress who clamor for
action but fail to step up and vote will not be able to sit back, go on national television and engage in the familiar
Monday-morning quarterbacking that has come to define contemporary Washington politics. Both branches,
Congress and the White House, will own the successes and shortfalls of the operation.
a confrontation between
America and the Islamic State is probably inevitableif not now, then at
some point in the future. ISISs gains profoundly destabilized the region,
Going back into Iraq will be a tough sell for Obama at any scale. But
with diplomatic alignments put under pressure, vital infrastructure captured and large refugee flows. Kurdish
politics have grown even rougher; externally, Iran and Russia have increased their influence in Baghdad. An effort to
contain or push back ISIS, in this light, is certainly worth considering. What factors should shape Americas
approach?
it is hard to see
how military involvement could have made the situation worse. Now, it is
hard to see how the situation will get better without it.
Although Obama has kept the U.S. out of the conflict on the basis of dont do stupid stuff,
has sought for years. The Islamic State group is headquartered in the Syrian city of Raqqah and has been fighting
the Assad government, though it is also at war with moderate rebels who have received arms and funding from the
The group, which controls a large part of eastern Syria, crossed into Iraq earlier this year and
has captured much of the Sunni sections of northern and western Iraq,
prompting U.S. airstrikes to protect American personnel in that region. U.S.
officials say that surveillance drones and spy planes had begun flying over Syria
U.S.
on the orders of President Barack Obama, who is considering a series of military options against the extremist group
that also killed an American, journalist James Foley, and is holding an American woman hostage. In recent months,
the threat from the Islamic State has eclipsed the issue of Assad, who escaped
U.S. military action after Obama pulled back planned airstrikes one year ago in order to consult with Congress.
ground communications. The U.S. is not cooperating or sharing intelligence with the Assad government, Pentagon
and State Department spokesmen said. But the U.S. flights are occurring in eastern Syria, away from most of Syria's
air defenses. And experts expressed doubt that Syria would attempt to shoot down American aircraft that are
paving the way for a possible bombing campaign against Assad's enemies. As Obama contemplates options,
military officials are sorting through what kind of campaign it would take to defeat or contain the Islamic State
drove the Taliban from power after the Sept. 11 attacks, using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State group.
"You could kick their butt if you had the right kind of campaign ." It would require
the insertion of special operations troops or CIA officers on the ground helping direct the bombing, as happened in
late 2001, Wald said. It would also require a sustained, massive air campaign, said David Deptula, who planned the
bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein's forces in the 1991 Gulf War. " Air
power needs to be
overwatch with
force application on every move of ISIL personnel." One senior congressional official
said intelligence suggests that such an approach has its limits, because the Islamic State militants would be likely to
melt into civilian areas as soon as the U.S. began bombing. Such a move by militants would complicate further
bombing efforts, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss intelligence matters by name and spoke on
condition of anonymity. But if the Islamic State group hides among civilians in cities, Wald said, that may constitute
at the beginning of the meeting, referring to the militant group by another acronym, the Islamic State in Iraq and
the Levant. Theyre an ambitious, avowed, genocidal, territorial-grabbing, caliphate-desiring quasi-state with an
irregular army, and leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that will
ultimately come back to haunt us. But he and other officials made clear that at the moment, any ground combat
troops would come from either Iraqi security forces and Kurdish fighters in Iraq, or moderate Syrian rebels opposed
to the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Obviously I think thats a red line for everybody here: no
boots on the ground, Mr. Kerry said. Britain said that no military requests had been made of it as part of the talks.
We are not at the stage for this type of conversation, said an aide to Prime Minister David Cameron. Discussions
focused mainly on a political-led strategy, said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in accordance
with diplomatic practice. The discussion, the aide said, was about how we put together the best support and help
for those countries in the region which are in the front of squeezing the threat that is posed by ISIL. Privately, one
diplomat said that the meetings participants, at the level of foreign ministers rather than leaders, indicated that
the United States was still fleshing out its strategy against ISIS. The Americans also are eager to maintain pressure
on Iraq to form an inclusive government as a prerequisite for closer engagement. But some diplomats were also
uncomfortable using a summit meeting of the 28-nation alliance as a backdrop for a smaller group with no NATO
addition to the countries that attended the meeting Friday morning, the United States was hoping to acquire
intelligence help about the Sunni militants from Jordan, whose leader, King Abdullah, was attending the Wales
meeting. United States officials said they also expect Saudi Arabia to contribute to financing and building up
moderate Syrian rebel groups. In addition, Yousef al-Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United
States, said in a statement earlier this week that his country stood ready to join the fight against ISIS. No one has
more at stake than the U.A.E. and other moderate countries in the region that have rejected the regressive Islamist
creed and embraced a different, forward-looking path, the ambassador said. The Emiratis, he said, are ready to
join the international community in an urgent, coordinated and sustained effort to confront a threat that will, if
I wish there were some way to roll back ISISs advances without greater
American military involvement. But there isnt. Again, I stress I am not advocating fighting
another ground war. What I am advocating is a prudent and limited deployment of
American trainers, special operators, air controllers and intelligence
agents whose primary job will be to mobilize indigenous opposition to ISIS .
Such opposition exists because in every country where Islamist
fundamentalists have come to power their Draconian decrees have
triggered a backlash from ordinary people who want to be left alone to live their lives. The
job of our armed forces, our diplomats, and our intelligence community is
to catalyze and channel that backlash to prevent Al Qaedaaligned
extremists from winning their most significant victory since 9/11 . The good
news is that the battle is far from lost. The situation in Iraq may seem hopeless today. But remember
that the outlook appeared even more pessimistic in late 2006 when the senior Marine intelligence officer was
writing off Anbar province and the widespread assumption was that the war was lost. But as General David Petraeus
said back then, Hard is not hopeless. Petraeus and the troops under his command proved that with the success of
the surge which dismantled Al Qaeda in Iraq, brought violence down by 90%, and allowed Iraqi politics to function
again. Similar success can be possible today and without nearly as big a troop commitment as long as we are
skillful in mobilizing and enabling indigenous opposition in both Syria and Iraq to the violent fanatics of ISIS.
with self-proclaimed emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in charge. President Obama has "limited" action to protect
American personnel and selected refugees, but even his tactical air strikes to help reclaim the Mosul Dam and the
deny ISIS freedom of movement, take away its initiative to attack at will in
Iraq, and dramatically reduce its sanctuary in Syria. Political and military leaders must
recognize that Iraq and Syria are indivisible in this conflict. The group must be defeated in both places. Chairman of
the Free Syrian Army needs heavy weapons, ammunition and supplies. And Washington is also blocking the delivery
of much-needed weapons and equipment already purchased by the Iraqi military. Arming allies to fight a common
are also needed by the thousands, not hundreds, to assist the Peshmerga, reconstitute the Iraqi army, and assist
Sunni tribes now opposing ISIS who must join this fight. Close air support will also be vital. Baghdadi and his senior
in Iraq and still do in Afghanistan and elsewhere. ISIS should be no different, particularly after its brutal murder of
Foley. None of these steps are sufficient by themselves to defeat a capable, motivated and well-armed terrorist
group. Much will depend on the effectiveness of the combined ground force backed by consistent air power. But
failure means the destabilization of the Middle East, terrible bloodshed and, ultimately,
the murder of more Americans. A comprehensive strategy is the only realistic choice to defeat ISIS, and the time is
long past to get serious.
legislation within the next few weeks, House leaders told their members in a
will
have a plan, and we will have an unfettered and determined approach to make
sure we stop this process that is growing like a cancer in the Middle East,"
That could include
conference call on Wednesday. "The overwhelming consensus was that not only do we need a plan, but we
said Rep. Mark Meadows, a junior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. On the call, Speaker John Boehner told
members that, while traveling the country on behalf of candidates over the past several weeks, leaders heard
considerable anxiety from the public about the militant group and the limited U.S. response thus far. Majority
anarticle on a U.S. Forest Service blogproviding safety tips for making s'mores. Intelligence Committee Chairman
Mike Rogers briefed members on ISIS's growing ranks, noting that Qaida affiliates have been joining the group over
the past several weeks. His committee, along with Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security, and Armed Services, will hold
hearings next week about the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the threat it poses to U.S. interests, and the
appropriate U.S. response. That all will likely lead to legislative language, if only in an
attempt to force Obama's hand, said Rep. John Fleming, who sits on the Armed Services Committee. "There was
There have
been increasing calls from within Congress for Obama to act, especially after ISIS
nothing described, but I just got the sense that leadership wants to do something on that."
released a gruesome video showing the beheading of journalist Steven Sotloffthe second such video in as many
weeks. The administration started airstrikes in Iraq last month, and for the action to continue beyond 60 days, an
authorizing resolution might be necessary under the War Powers Act. Leaders of the Foreign Affairs Committee have
already said they want Congress to pass an authorizing bill by the beginning of next month. But with so much
uncertainty about the U.S. strategy and little information coming out of the administration, many lawmakers remain
unclear about the need for such legislation. "For far too long, the Obama administration and the Congress have
been debating whether or not authority exists for action to address this threat," said Republican Rep. Frank Wolf,
who is offering a bill authorizing action. "This
"rooting out" the cancer that is ISIS "won't be quick" implies that
considerable time is necessary to accomplish certain tasks . What, exactly, might
those tasks be? Is the idea to protect the Kurdish region in the Iraqi northeast,
assume the Shiites in the south will defend themselves, degrade ISIS to the
degree possible with airstrikes alone and wait for the Sunnis in the west
to have another "awakening" and turn against this group of jihadists the way they turned against al-Qaida?
To say that
Why wouldn't time be on the side of ISIS as it digs in? Doesn't the "rooting out" of the
group become more difficult if it becomes more rooted day by day?
In
it was a huge concern that ISIS training camps in Syria are preparing
people to go back to their home countries and conduct terrorist acts.
Just days before breaking for August vacation, Congress was alerted again. On July 29, security expert Max Boot
warned that ISIS is a
other expert witnesses.
The White House has argued that under the War Powers Resolution,
Obama has the ability to intervene for a maximum of 90 days without
congressional approval if he deems there is an imminent threat to the U.S. Yet, while
many members of Congress have urged Obama to take more aggressive action in
Iraq, the prospect of strikes against Islamic State fighters in Syria has drawn the ire
of some within the presidents own party.
I do not believe that our expanded military operations against [the
Islamic State] are covered under existing authorizations from Congress,
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said in a statement last month.
To clear things up, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., plans to introduce a bill when
Congress returns from its August recess that would authorize the
president to intervene in the region against the Islamic State.
Theres a legitimate question as to whether the president has the legal
authority to go into Syria, unless he determines that American lives are directly
threatened, Nelson told a group of local reporters in Florida this week.
2NC Overview
DA o/w and short circuits the case
1) Horizontal v. vertical escalation middle east war is
protracted by ISIS the tense situation and hostitility will
only get worse if ISIS is allowed to continue their turmoil
2) Timeframe any delay increases the risk of middle east
escalation
Immediate action on ISIS key congress is already mad at
Obamas inaction
Morissey 9/3 /14 (Ed, Bipartisan call in returning congress for Obama to take on ISIS, hotair.com,
September 3, 2014, http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/03/bipartisan-call-in-returning-congress-for-obama-to-takeon-isis/)
strike ISIS in Syria. This will ensure theres no question that the president
has the legal authority he needs, Nelson said.
Intent, miscalculation, technical failure, cyber attack, or accident could cause the
nuclear escalation of a conflict between India and Pakistan, in the Middle East
(embroiling Israels nuclear weapons), or on the Korean Peninsula. Such outcomes are at least
as plausible or likely if not more so than a massive earthquake and tsunami causing widespread damage to
four Japanese nuclear reactors and their adjacent spent-fuel ponds.
which stands on the precipice of being pulled headfirst into the fighting. The most powerful force in the country,
Hezbollah, no longer hides that it is actively fighting for the regime inside
Syria.59 The FSA has responded by launching artillery strikes on Hezbollah
positions inside Lebanon,60 while fighting between Hezbollah and Syrian
rebels within Lebanese territory remains widespread. Furthermore, the regime
has shown a willingness to commit violent acts inside Lebanon. In February
2013, former Lebanese Information Minister Michel Samaha was caught plotting to assassinate Lebanese religious
the
regime has bombed the Sunni Muslim town of Arsal in Eastern Lebanon. 62
figures and admitted that a senior Syrian intelligence official had given him the explosives.61 More recently
been no strategy for capitalizing on the opportunity that the Arab Spring presented, or for containing its fallout
the Syrian crisis being the worst case to date. The president rewarded Burmese generals with a six-hour visit for
their willingness to embrace reform, but he has not visited a single Arab country that went through the Arab Spring.
When the president visited the region last month he chose to focus on
the Arab-Israeli peace process rather than Syria. The peace process is now at the top of
Secretary of State John Kerrys agenda. The plight of Palestinians is a perennial concern, but it is in Syria
that the future of the region hangs in the balance. Choosing the peace process over
January.
Syria underscores not the administrations interest in the Middle East but its determination to look past it.
Sectarian tensions stretch from Lebanon and Iraq through the Gulf
Terror Overview
massive and unprecedented eavesdropping operations, and intelligence services of leading European nations
were blind to the magnitude of the ISIS threat until the most barbaric terrorists in modern
history had taken over almost a third of Iraq and are on the brink of creating a terrorist super-state that dwarfs al
Qaedas efforts prior to 9/11. I vehemently opposed the misguided Iraq War from the moment it was proposed by
former President George W. Bush and have never been a neoconservative, warmonger or super-hawk. But
aggressive action against ISIS is urgently needed. ISIS has stated its
intention to attack the United States and Europe to advance its evil, messianic and
genocidal ideology and ambitions. ISIS has the money to purchase the most
deadly weapons in the world, and has recruited American and European traitors with above-average
capability to execute an attack. The odds that ISIS can obtain nuclear, chemical,
biological or other forms of mass destruction weapons are impossible to ascertain but
in a world of vast illegal arms trafficking, with so many corrupt officials in
nations possessing arsenals of destruction, the danger is real. The fact that
WMD scares prior to the Iraq War ranged from mistaken to deceitful does
not mean that the WMD danger does not exist today. It does. I applaud the recent
actions taken by President Obama. Obamas airstrikes saved tens of thousands of Yazidis
from genocide, took back the Mosul Dam from ISIS and saved countless Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians from slaughter.
The airstrikes inflicted material damage to ISIS. The diplomacy of Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry
contributed mightily to the replacement of a disastrous Iraqi government by a government can unite Iraqi Sunnis,
Shiites and Kurds. The Obama-Kerry initiatives will lead to the creation of a stable Afghan government and avoid the
collapse that was possible after the recent controversial Afghan elections. These are real successes. In the current
political climate, Obama seems to get credit for nothing, but he deserves great credit for some important successes
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those
from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing the number of nuclear
weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war
and a resulting nuclear winter. We may face even greater risks from emerging
technologies. Advances in synthetic biology might make it possible to engineer
pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics. The knowledge, equipment,
and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than
those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons,
pathogens are self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to become
exponentially destructive. Pathogens have been implicated in the
extinctions of many wild species. Although most pandemics "fade out" by
reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens with wide host ranges in
multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional
release of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and
lethality might be capable of causing human extinction. While such an event seems
unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies continue to
improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.
national named Muhammed S. who joined ISIS in Syria and who studied chemistry and physics at two universities in
real difficulty in all of these weapons ... [is] to actually have a workable distribution system that will kill a lot of
people," said Magnus Ranstorp, research director of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish
National Defence College. "But
2NC Overview
Bioweapons outweigh
Magnitudeself-replicating pathogens are easy to build and
have been implicated in past extinctions. Pathogens with wide
host ranges, latency, and lethality can be engineered for
human extinctionthats Sandberg. Bioweapons cause
extinctionnuclear weapons dont.
Singer 1Clifford Singer, Director of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament,
and International Security at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign [Spring
2001, Will Mankind Survive the Millennium? The Bulletin of the Program in Arms
Control, Disarmament, and International Security, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, 13.1, http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/research/S&Ps/2001Sp/S&P_XIII/Singer.htm]
In recent years the fear of the apocalypse (or religious hope for it) has been in part a child of the Cold War, but its
seeds in Western culture go back to the Black Death and earlier. Recent polls suggest that the majority in the United
States that believe man would survive into the future for substantially less than a millennium was about 10 percent
whole has weathered a number of mind-boggling disasters in the past fifty thousand years even if older cultures or
There are, however, two technologies currently under development that may pose a
more serious threat to human survival. The first and most immediate is
biological warfare combined with genetic engineering. Smallpox is the
most fearsome of natural biological warfare agents in existence. By the end of
the next decade, global immunity to smallpox will likely be at a low
unprecedented since the emergence of this disease in the distant past,
while the opportunity for it to spread rapidly across the globe will be at an
all time high. In the absence of other complications such as nuclear war
near the peak of an epidemic, developed countries may respond with
quarantine and vaccination to limit the damage. Otherwise mortality there may match
the rate of 30 percent or more expected in unprepared developing countries. With respect to genetic
engineering using currently available knowledge and technology, the simple expedient of
spreading an ample mixture of coat protein variants could render a
vaccination response largely ineffective, but this would otherwise not be expected to substantially
increase overall mortality rates. With development of new biological technology, however,
there is a possibility that a variety of infectious agents may be engineered
for combinations of greater than natural virulence and mortality, rather than
just to overwhelm currently available antibiotics or vaccines. There is no a priori known upper
limit to the power of this type of technology base, and thus the survival of a
globally connected human family may be in question when and if this is 1achieved.
Natural pandemics have killed more people than wars. However, natural
pandemics are unlikely to be existential threats : there are usually some people resistant
to the pathogen, and the offspring of survivors would be more resistant. Evolution also does not favor parasites that
wipe out their hosts, which is why syphilis went from a virulent killer to a chronic disease as it spread in Europe.
Unfortunately we can now make diseases nastier. One of the more famous examples
is how the introduction of an extra gene in mousepox the mouse version of smallpox
made it far more lethal and able to infect vaccinated individuals. Recent
work on bird flu has demonstrated that the contagiousness of a disease can
be deliberately boosted.
But as biotechnology
gets better and cheaper, more groups will be able to make diseases worse .
Right now the risk of somebody deliberately releasing something devastating is low.
AT: No Bioweapons
Yes bioweapons
Advances in synthetic biology make it much easier to engineer pathogens capable
of extinction. The knowledge and material is highly accessiblethats Sandberg.
All that is needed to spread an epidemic of botulism, for example, or mad cow disease is to hang around a truck
stop for a few hours until a semi pulling a load of cattle on its way to market drives in. Wait until the driver leaves
his load unattended, then shortage scrub a previously infected rag around the railings and the mouths of a few of
the cattle, and let nature do the rest. The disadvantage, for the terrorist, is that the person carrying the rag is likely
to become infected. However, with no of jihadists queuing up to become martyrs, finding two or three volunteers
willing to die a horrible, slow and excruciatingly painful death should be no problem.
A biological agent can cause far more deaths than a nuclear weapon,
because it is not limited geographically, unlike a nuclear bomb. For
example, an infected truck driver in Omaha, Neb., infects an Army
sergeant he meets in a diner outside Tulsa, Okla.
The sergeant travels by plane to New York, where he changes planes, boarding one bound for Frankfurt, Germany.
Again, he changes planes, this time flying to Kuwait, where he joins up with several members of his unit heading
into Iraq. Along the way, the sergeant has infected scores of people at every airport between Omaha and Baghdad.
Those people in turn would have traveled on to Australia, South America, Canada, European cities and other parts
A nuclear device, on the other hand, would devastate the immediate area and,
depending on its size, contaminate everything in a radius of several miles, but the
damage would be confined to the immediate area of detonation, plus the fallout
zone. In addition, depending on the wind direction and speed, radioactive particles could be carried hundreds, if not
thousands, of miles. But the image of a nuclear blast carries greater impact psychologically.
The Ebola virus might be manipulated so that it kills more slowly, allowing
it to be spread farther before its debilitating effects altogether consume its carrier. A bit further off is
genetic manipulation of the measles virusone of the great killers in human historyrendering useless the
laboratory re-synthesis of
smallpox may be possible. Advanced drug delivery systems can be used to
disseminate lethal agents to broad populations. Bio-regulatorssmall organic
immunizations that most of us receive in early childhood. Soon,
compounds that modify body systems could enhance targeted delivery technologies. Some experts are concerned
that new weapons could be aimed at the immune, neurological, and neuroendocrine systems. Nanotechnology that
lends itself to mechanisms for advanced disease detection and drug deliverysuch as gold nanotubes that can
administer drugs directly into a tumorcould also deliver weaponized agents deep into the body, substantially
raising the weapons effectiveness. Altogether, techniques that were on the frontiers of science only a decade or
two ago are rapidly mutating. A looming danger confronts the worldthe threat of bioviolence. It is a danger that
will only grow in the future, yet we are increasingly failing to confront it. With every passing day, committing a biocatastrophe becomes a bit easier, and this condition will perpetuate for as long as science progresses. Biological
warfare is as old as conflict, of course, but in terms of the objectives of traditional warfare gaining territory or
resources, compelling the surrender of an opposing armybiological weapons werent very effective. If the
objective is to inflict mass death and panic on a mixed population, however, emerging bioweapons offer remarkable
potential. We would be irresponsible to presume that radical jihadists like al Qaeda have ignored said potential.
massive and unprecedented eavesdropping operations, and intelligence services of leading European nations
were blind to the magnitude of the ISIS threat until the most barbaric terrorists in modern
history had taken over almost a third of Iraq and are on the brink of creating a terrorist super-state that dwarfs al
Qaedas efforts prior to 9/11. I vehemently opposed the misguided Iraq War from the moment it was proposed by
former President George W. Bush and have never been a neoconservative, warmonger or super-hawk. But
aggressive action against ISIS is urgently needed. ISIS has stated its
intention to attack the United States and Europe to advance its evil, messianic and
genocidal ideology and ambitions. ISIS has the money to purchase the most
deadly weapons in the world, and has recruited American and European traitors with above-average
capability to execute an attack. The odds that ISIS can obtain nuclear, chemical,
biological or other forms of mass destruction weapons are impossible to ascertain but
in a world of vast illegal arms trafficking, with so many corrupt officials in
nations possessing arsenals of destruction, the danger is real. The fact that
WMD scares prior to the Iraq War ranged from mistaken to deceitful does
not mean that the WMD danger does not exist today. It does. I applaud the recent
actions taken by President Obama. Obamas airstrikes saved tens of thousands of Yazidis
from genocide, took back the Mosul Dam from ISIS and saved countless Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians from slaughter.
The airstrikes inflicted material damage to ISIS. The diplomacy of Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry
contributed mightily to the replacement of a disastrous Iraqi government by a government can unite Iraqi Sunnis,
Shiites and Kurds. The Obama-Kerry initiatives will lead to the creation of a stable Afghan government and avoid the
collapse that was possible after the recent controversial Afghan elections. These are real successes. In the current
political climate, Obama seems to get credit for nothing, but he deserves great credit for some important successes
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the publics mind than the threat of a fullscale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before
a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic
The likelihood
of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has
estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be
roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates
damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever. [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix].
those odds at less than one percent, but notes, We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major
nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability
In a
survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median
estimate of 20 percent for the probability of an attack involving a nuclear explosion
occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years, with 79 percent
of the respondents believing it more likely to be carried out by
terrorists than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce
event, but we cant live in a world where its anything but extremely low-probability. [Hegland 2005].
the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because
terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war,
the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one component of the
overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would
be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats
(e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with
the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable,
societys
almost total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying
that risk all the more important. The cosT of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear
an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact,
deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of
nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible,
this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the
U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the
first World War. World War IIs fatalities were double or triple that numberchaos prevented a more precise determination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of those
two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an
extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something
that humanity may just have to face and from which it will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most
qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of the Philippine
Con- gress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. If
Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagans belief that
nuclear weapons were totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life
on earth and civilization. [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the
horrendous toll that World War III would exact: The
wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet
striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a
even
a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and
Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the
nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that
large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how
destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that
saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that
preventing World
2NC Overview
And the threat of nuclear terror is realthey have access to
the tech now and are willing to use it because of ideological
motivesthats Beres and Dvorkin.
Nuclear use is an existential threatthats Toon. It would
produce over a million urban casualties and would result in an
immense amount of global, climate perturbations.
Terrorism causes extinction---hard-line responses are key
Nathan Myhrvold '13, Phd in theoretical and mathematical physics from
Princeton, and founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and
chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation , July 2013, "Stratgic Terrorism: A
Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-TerrorismMyhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf
powerful trends have aligned to profoundly change the way that the
world works. Technology now allows stateless groups to organize, recruit,
and fund themselves in an unprecedented fashion. That, coupled with the
extreme difficulty of finding and punishing a stateless group, means that
stateless groups are positioned to be lead players on the world stage.
They may act on their own, or they may act as proxies for nation-states that
wish to duck responsibility. Either way, stateless groups are forces to be reckoned with. At the same
time, a different set of technology trends means that small numbers of people can
obtain incredibly lethal power. Now, for the first time in human history, a small group can
be as lethal as the largest superpower. Such a group could execute an attack that could kill
millions of people. It is technically feasible for such a group to kill billions of people,
to end modern civilizationperhaps even to drive the human race to extinction. Our defense
Several
establishment was shaped over decades to address what was, for a long time, the only strategic threat our nation
faced: Soviet or Chinese missiles. More recently, it has started retooling to address tactical terror attacks like those
A real defense
will require rebuilding our military and intelligence capabilities from the ground
up. Yet, so far, strategic terrorism has received relatively little attention in
defense agencies, and the efforts that have been launched to combat this
existential threat seem fragmented. History suggests what will happen.
The only thing that shakes America out of complacency is a direct threat
from a determined adversary that confronts us with our shortcomings by
repeatedly attacking us or hectoring us for decades.
launched on the morning of 9/11, but the reform process is incomplete and inconsistent.
But these two nuclear worldsa non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchangeare
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, todays and
not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially
tomorrows 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)
would shift
suspicion
to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United
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
immediately
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 Washingtons relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had
already been traded between these major powers, would
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?
Technology contains no inherent moral directiveit empowers people, whatever their intent, good or evil. This fact,
of course, has always been true: when bronze implements supplanted those made of stone, the ancient world got
swords and battle-axes as well as scythes and awls. Every technology has violent applications because that is one
modern
technology can provide small groups of people with much greater lethality
than ever before. We now have to worry that private parties might gain
access to weapons that are as destructive asor possibly even more
destructive thanthose held by any nation-state. A handful of people,
perhaps even a single individual, now have the ability to kill millions or even billions. Indeed, it is
perfectly feasible, from a technological standpoint, to kill every man,
woman, and child on earth. The gravity of the situation is so extreme that
getting the concept across without seeming silly or alarmist is challenging .
of the first things we humans ask of our tools. The novelty of our present situation is that
Just thinking about the subject with any degree of seriousness numbs the mind. Worries about the future of the
human race are hardly novel. Indeed, the notion that terrorists or others might use weapons of mass destruction is
so commonplace as to be almost pass. Spy novels, movies, and television dramas explore this plot frequently. We
have become desensitized to this entire genre, in part because James Bond always manages to save the world in
the end. Reality may be different. In my estimation ,
our political
leaders have had neither the vision to see the enormity of the problem nor
the will to combat it. These weaknesses are not surprising: bureaucracies change only under extreme
ultimately require large structural changes in many parts of the government. So far, however,
duress. And despite what some may say, the shocking attacks of September 11th, 2001, have not served as a
wake-up call to get serious.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. He recently remarked that ISIS is: Beyond
anything that we've seen...As sophisticated and well-funded as any
[terrorist] group that we've seen." And "They're beyond just a terrorist
group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical
military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded." In fact, many counterterrorism experts have reportedly said that ISIS dwarfs al Qaeda in terms of military
might, money and recruiting power, as Secretary Hagel pointed out. Moreover, ISIS is
attracting Westerners who are radicalized by the terrorist group's
extremist ideology and grand plan to conquer the Middle East and the
world via a so-called caliphate. U.S. and British citizens recruited by ISIS have
international passports to travel to America and other Western countries
undetected. This may result in egregious mass terrorist attacks on our
homeland through the use of chemical or biological weapons, a crude
nuclear device, or so-called dirty bombs, among other weapons of mass
destruction. It's bad enough that ISIS wasn't contained and eliminated at the outset when Syria was engulfed
by civil war. However, the ISIS threat will certainly grow worse if America
sheepishly stands on the sidelines in Syria. Do Americans want to wait for
decisive U.S. military action against ISIS until another 9/11-style mass
terrorist attack hits the homeland like a sucker punch to the gut?
spoken
away from U.S. shores, Aug. 24). The 9/11 terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center
twin towers in New York City and the Pentagon wanted to strike at the heart of Americas financial and military
in Hollywood or Disneyland where, from ISISs perspective, U.S. hedonism infects Mideast fundamentalism daily.
Dirty bombs probably would be the ISIS weapon of choice in either case.
However, there is another scenario to consider. What if the Colorado River is
poisoned? It carries water across seven states to 40 million people daily . If
ISIS could pull that off, it would be an international, geopolitical game-
changer. Imagine the panic that would set in if just 5 percent 2 million
of the people in California, where I live, all of a sudden became violently ill
or worse? Local physicians, hospitals and morgues would be quickly
overwhelmed by the sick and the dead. Homeland Security, along with the CIA, NSA, FBI and local law
enforcement agencies, all do a terrific job protecting us daily from such calamities. That said , no one
person or security plan is perfect. ISIS not only knows this, it is planning
on it. Any breach of American sovereignty by ISIS would be viewed as a
victory in their eyes. We cannot allow this to happen. Lets stop whispering in the shadows about a
possible attack. Rogers is correct when he says its time to confront this potential crisis now.
ISIS created the worlds largest terrorist safe haven its the
largest risk of nuclear terrorism
Bunn 7/11/14 (Matthew Bunn, a professor of practice at the Harvard Kennedy Schools Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, is a former adviser on nonproliferation in the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, where he focused on control of nuclear weapons and materials, Matthew, ISIS Seizes Nuclear
Materialbut Thats Not the Reason to Worry 7/11, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/isis-seizes-nuclear-material
%E2%80%94-that%E2%80%99s-not-the-reason-worry-10849)
But while this particular uranium is not much of a worry, the larger picture is starting to make me bite my nails a
bomb material is effectively secured and to be grateful that past efforts eliminated such material from Iraq long
before the Islamic State came on the scene.
ISIS will become the staging ground for new global terrorist
attacks
OMalley 9/6/14 (Nick, The Age, Obama struggles to hold the centre in maelstrom factiva) ISIL =
Islamic State in the Levant (alternate name for ISIS)
cog in the US national security machine. Simply put, its job is to assess the seriousness of specific terrorist threats
and terrorist groups. When the President meets with homeland security advisers, it is Olsen's job to open the
"complex and adaptive, employing a mix of terrorist operations, hit-andrun tactics, and paramilitary assaults to enable the group's rapid gains ". It
viewed itself as the new leader of the global jihad and had a strategic goal
of establishing a caliphate through armed conflict with governments it
considered to be apostate, including those of Syria, Iraq and the United
States. Olsen noted that in January its leader "warned that the US will soon 'be in
direct conflict' with the group, and there's little doubt that ISIL views the
US as a strategic enemy". He said that ISIL's territorial control gave it safe
havens from which it could plan and prepare for attacks on its enemies .
indoctrined. Some, it is true, never leavethey become martyrs while fighting against local enemies. But some
small portion travels abroad in the hope of attacking targets in proWestern countries or in the West itself.
nuclear material
that Iraq says was stolen from a university by the insurgent group known as ISIS. The Iraqi
ambassador to the U.N., in a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon earlier this week, said that ISIS
had gotten its hands on 88 pounds of uranium compounds from Mosul University. Iraq
said the material had been intended for scientific research. The letter, obtained by Reuters, appealed for
help to stave off the threat of their use by terrorists in Iraq or abroad.
The United Nations and outside experts cast doubt Thursday on the danger posed by
2NC Impacts
after the 2007 Red Mosque attack but later released. Although there were some 27 charges pending against him at
one time, the Pakistani courts dismissed all of them. The government then asked Aziz to be part of a negotiating
team of the Taliban, which are an instrument of Pakistans Inter-Service Intelligence Group, or ISI. The Pakistani
government enlisted Aziz in an effort to have a militant interlocutor to negotiate with the TTP, which seeks the
overthrow of the Pakistani government. However, Aziz pulled out as a negotiator with the government, insisting
Shariah must replace Pakistans constitutional law. His recent move comes despite what sources say are his strong
Aziz has vowed that Islam will spread all over Pakistan, then all
over the world. As an apparent supporter of the TTP as well, Aziz backs groups that are actively training
ties to the ISI.
jihadists, including Uzbeks, who would give jihadist fighters access to all of Central Asia. He also is supportive of the
training in jihadist Pakistani camps of Chinese Uighurs, who seek to separate the westernmost Xinjiang province
from the rest of China and declare an independent Islamic state of Turkestan. Sources say Pakistans ISI has been
complicit in such training. The development has also created problems in Beijing, which sources say Aziz blames for
the reported death of his mother and brother in the July 2007 siege of Red Mosque. According to sources, Red
Mosque jihadists had targeted Chinese sex workers as part of a purification effort. The Pakistani government, then
led by President Pervez Musharraf, bent to Chinese demands and sent in Pakistani troops to storm the mosque,
which resulted in the death of hundreds of Muslims, including Aziz mother and brother. Aziz, who was at the Red
Mosque at the time of the siege, had disguised himself in a womans burka from head to toe, but he was discovered
and paraded in a humiliating fashion, sources say. Nevertheless, the Red Mosque encounter showed that
Islamic militancy, which has acted as a proxy for the Pakistani policy, especially toward India,
was becoming a threat to the government itself. Azizs backing of ISIS puts
Baghdadi and his Sunni radical caliphate in direct contact with the TTP,
Chinas Uighurs and the Afghan Taliban, which was created by the ISI. With
the Afghan Taliban biding its time until U.S. forces completely leave
Afghanistan in 2016, ISIS has the opportunity to extend its influence in
that country as well.
But a suicide bomber in Pakistan rammed a car packed with explosives into a jeep filled with troops today, killing five and wounding as many as 21, including several children who were waiting for a ride to school. Residents of the
region where the attack took place are fleeing in terror as gunfire rings out around them, and government forces have been unable to quell the violence. Two regional government officials were beheaded by militants in retaliation for
the killing of other militants by government forces. As familiar as this sounds, it did not take place where we have come to expect such terrible events. This, unfortunately, is a whole new ballgame. It is part of another conflict that is
brewing, one which puts what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan in deep shade, and which represents a grave and growing threat to us all. Pakistan is now trembling on the edge of violent chaos, and is doing so with nuclear
weapons in its hip pocket, right in the middle of one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world. The situation in brief: Pakistan for years has been a nation in turmoil, run by a shaky government supported by a corrupted
system, dominated by a blatantly criminal security service, and threatened by a large fundamentalist Islamic population with deep ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan. All this is piled atop an ongoing standoff with neighboring India
ongoing or escalating
and
over there
and
very
. Recently, the Taliban made a military push into the northwest Pakistani region around the Swat Valley. According to a recent Reuters report: The (Pakistani) army deployed troops in Swat in October 2007 and use d
artillery and gunship helicopters to reassert control. But insecurity mounted after a civilian government came to power last year and tried to reach a negotiated settlement. A peace accord fell apart in May 2008. After that, hundreds
including soldiers, militants and civilians died in battles. Militants unleashed a reign of terror, killing and beheading politicians, singers, soldiers and opponents. They banned female education and destroyed nearly 200 girls'
schools. About 1,200 people were killed since late 2007 and 250,000 to 500,000 fled, leaving the militants in virtual control. Pakistan offered on February 16 to introduce Islamic law in the Swat valley and neighboring areas in a bid to
take the steam out of the insurgency. The militants announced an indefinite cease-fire after the army said it was halting operations in the region. President Asif Ali Zardari signed a regulation imposing sharia in the area last month.
But the Taliban refused to give up their guns and pushed into Buner and another district adjacent to Swat, intent on spreading their rule. The United States, already embroiled in a war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan, must now
face the possibility that Pakistan could collapse under the mounting threat of Taliban forces there. Military and diplomatic advisers to President Obama, uncertain how best to proceed, now face one of the great nightmare scenarios of
our time. "Recent militant gains in Pakistan," reported The New York Times on Monday, "have so alarmed the White House that the national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, described the situation as 'one of the very most
serious problems we face.'" "Security was deteriorating rapidly," reported The Washington Post on Monday, "particularly in the mountains along the Afghan border that harbor al-Qaeda and the Taliban, intelligence chiefs reported,
and there were signs that those groups were working with indigenous extremists in Pakistan's populous Punjabi heartland. The Pakistani government was mired in political bickering. The army, still fixated on its historical adversary
India, remained ill-equipped and unwilling to throw its full weight into the counterinsurgency fight. But despite the threat the intelligence conveyed, Obama has only limited options for dealing with it. Anti-American feeling in Pakistan
is high, and a U.S. combat presence is prohibited. The United States is fighting Pakistan-based extremists by proxy, through an army over which it has little control, in alliance with a government in which it has little confidence." It is
believed Pakistan is currently in possession of between 60 and 100 nuclear weapons. Because Pakistan's stability is threatened by the wide swath of its population that shares ethnic, cultural and religious connections to the
fundamentalist Islamic populace of Afghanistan, fears over what could happen to those nuclear weapons if the Pakistani government collapses are very real. "As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan,"
reported the Times last week, "senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert
sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities. In public, the administration has only hinted at those concerns, repeating the formulation that the Bush administration used: that it has faith in the Pakistani Army. But that
cooperation, according to officials who would not speak for attribution because of the sensitivity surrounding the exchanges between Washington and Islamabad, has been sharply limited when the subject has turned to the
vulnerabilities in the Pakistani nuclear infrastructure." "The prospect of turmoil in Pakistan sends shivers up the spines of those U.S. officials charged with keeping tabs on foreign nuclear weapons," reported Time Magazine last
month. "Pakistan is thought to possess about 100 the U.S. isn't sure of the total, and may not know where all of them are. Still, if Pakistan collapses, the U.S. military is primed to enter the country and secure as many of those
weapons as it can, according to U.S. officials. Pakistani officials insist their personnel safeguards are stringent, but a sleeper cell could cause big trouble, U.S. officials say." In other words, a shaky Pakistan spells trouble for everyone,
government does fall, and all those Pakistani nukes are not immediately accounted for and secured, the specter (or reality) of
nuclear-armed
nuclear-armed
If the Pakistani
. We have all
been paying a great deal of attention to Iraq and Afghanistan, and rightly so. The developing situation in Pakistan, however, needs to be placed immediately on the front burner. The Obama administration appears to be gravely
serious about addressing the situation. So should we all.
billion people. A full-scale war, fought with the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, would so
utterly devastate Earths environment that most humans and other complex forms of life would not survive. Yet no
Nuclear Weapon State has ever evaluated the environmental, ecological or agricultural consequences of the
detonation of its nuclear arsenals in conflict. Military and political leaders in these nations thus remain dangerously
unaware of the existential danger which their weapons present to the entire human race. Consequently, nuclear
weapons remain as the cornerstone of the military arsenals in the Nuclear Weapon States, where nuclear
deterrence guides political and military strategy.
Those who actively support nuclear deterrence are trained to
believe that deterrence cannot fail, so long as their doctrines are observed, and their weapons systems are
maintained and continuously modernized. They insist that their nuclear forces will remain forever under their
complete control, immune from cyberwarfare, sabotage, terrorism, human or technical error. They deny that the
short 12-to-30 minute flight times of nuclear missiles would not leave a President enough time to make rational
decisions following a tactical, electronic warning of nuclear attack. The U.S. and Russia continue to keep a total of
2000 strategic nuclear weapons at launch-ready status ready to launch with only a few minutes warning. Yet
both nations are remarkably unable to acknowledge that this high-alert status in any way increases the probability
that these weapons will someday be used in conflict. How can strategic nuclear arsenals truly be safe from
accidental or unauthorized use, when they can be launched literally at a moments notice? A cocked and loaded
weapon is infinitely easier to fire than one which is unloaded and stored in a locked safe. The mere existence of
immense nuclear arsenals, in whatever status they are maintained, makes possible their eventual use in a nuclear
war.
Our best scientists now tell us that such a war would mean the end of
human history . We need to ask our leaders: Exactly what political or national goals could possibly justify
risking a nuclear war that would likely cause the extinction of the human race ? However, in
arsenals and will remain both unwilling and unable to discuss the real consequences of failure of deterrence. We
can and must end the silence, and awaken the peoples of all nations to the realization that nuclear war means
* The deaths of 20 to 50 million people as a result of the prompt effects of these nuclear detonations (blast, fire and
radioactive fallout);
* Massive firestorms covering many hundreds of square miles/kilometers (created by nuclear
detonations that produce temperatures hotter than those believed to exist at the center of the sun), that would
engulf these cities and produce 6 to 7 million tons of thick, black smoke;
* About 5 million tons of smoke that
would quickly rise above cloud level into the stratosphere, where strong winds would carry it around the Earth in 10
days;
* A stratospheric smoke layer surrounding the Earth, which would remain in place for 10 years;
* The
dense smoke would heat the upper atmosphere, destroy Earths protective ozone layer, and block 7-10% of
warming sunlight from reaching Earths surface;
* 25% to 40% of the protective ozone layer would be destroyed
at the mid-latitudes, and 50-70% would be destroyed at northern and southern high latitudes;
* Ozone
destruction would cause the average UV Index to increase to 16-22 in the U.S, Europe, Eurasia and China, with even
higher readings towards the poles (readings of 11 or higher are classified as extreme by the U.S. EPA). It would
take 7-8 minutes for a fair skinned person to receive a painful sunburn at mid-day;
* Loss of warming sunlight
would quickly produce average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere colder than any experienced in
the last 1000 years;
* Hemispheric drops in temperature would be about twice as large and last ten times longer
then those which followed the largest volcanic eruption in the last 500 years, Mt. Tambora in 1816. The following
year, 1817, was called The Year Without Summer, which saw famine in Europe from massive crop failures;
*
Growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere would be significantly shortened. It would be too cold to grow wheat
in most of Canada for at least several years;
* World grain stocks, which already are at historically low levels,
would be completely depleted; grain exporting nations would likely cease exports in order to meet their own food
needs;
* The one billion already hungry people, who currently depend upon grain imports, would likely starve to
death in the years following this nuclear war;
* The total explosive power in these 100 Hiroshima-size weapons is
less than 1% of the total explosive power contained in the currently operational and deployed U.S. and Russian
nuclear forces.
Impact Israel
Causes Israel war
Cefaratti 6/23/14(Todd, ISIS Says they Have Nuclear Weapons to Wipe-Out Israel,
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/23/isis-says-they-have-nuclear-weapons-to-wipe-out-israel/)
the Middle East and North Africa is rapidly destabilizing, all thanks to the complete dearth of leadership emanating
Israel
may one day be a memory as ISIS claims to have access to nuclear weapons
and intends to use those weapons to obliterate Israel in order to secure
victory for Palestine. According to a report from the World Net Daily, a source claims that the Islamic
from Washington. Now, with our stature in freefall thanks to the amateurs running the State Department,
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is working with an organized group whose efforts are focused exclusively on
destroying the Zionist regime occupying Palestine. The source quoted an ISIS fighter who said, Zionists call us
masked, sociopathic murderers, but we are much more complicated and representative of those seeking justice
than they portray us. Are we more barbaric than the Zionist terrorists who massacred at Dier Yassin, Shatila, twice
The ISIS
fighter claimed to be eager to fight Israel in order to reclaim the land for
Palestine. Acknowledging that Israel has nuclear weapons, the fighter
claimed that they, too, had access to such weapons.
at Qana, and committed dozens of other massacres? History will judge us after we free Palestine.
Escalates
Russell 09 (James, Senior lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs at NPS, Strategic Stability
Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East. Proliferation Papers, 2009)
Americas disapproval of Israeli pre-emption may reflect a reduced national appetite for military action in general,
and for unilateral strategic action. However ,
there are escalation scenarios involving state and nonstate actors in the coercive bargaining framework that could conceivably
lead to nuclear weapons use by Israel and/or the United States. Irans response to
what would initially start as a sustained stand-off bombardment (Desert Fox Heavy) could take a number of
different forms that might lead to escalation by the United States and Israel, surrounding states, and non-state
ISIS (Islamic
State of Iraq and al-Sham) is an offshoot organization of al Qaeda that seems to be
well-financed and well-organized. The fighters of ISIS have, over a two-day
period, overrun the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit. For those counting, Mosul has a
civilian population equal to that of Philadelphia. ISIS apparently is planning on attacking
other cities, continuing to move south toward Baghdad. Four Iraqi army divisions have
melted before the ISIS onslaught. The apparent goal of ISIS? To establish a
Muslim state in the heart of the Middle East, which would directly affect
Persian Gulf stability, politics and economic activity (oil). This would
provide a safe harbor for future terrorist activitie s something the
United States and other nations fear. As noted above, I am a student of history. Lets take a
look at other unsettling historical events in the Middle East and how they have affected oil prices. Oil was
trading at $106 per barrel late last week, up from a low of $91 per barrel earlier this year.
Over the last week, oil prices have risen by about $4 per barrel , a slight reaction
We have a new organization in the Middle East, of which many in our country havent been aware.
to the events occurring in Iraq. Since 1990, there have been 21 destabilizing events that have occurred in the
Middle East. From Operation Desert Storm in 1990 to the Anbar Clashes in 2013, the area has had both major and
minor political/military disruptions. Over the last 23 years, on average, oil prices have risen by 5.4% 30 days
following the beginning of a disruption as compared to the current oil price increase of 3.9% (to date). It is
interesting to note that, on average, oil prices havent simply risen over the first week of a Middle East crisis.
countries now consume 51% of the worlds energy output. The negative
economic impact of rising oil prices has historically hurt the developed
world more dramatically than the emerging economies . No more. The situation in
Iraq is constantly changing. Nonetheless, the fragility of the political/military
environment in Iraq is so high that we expect oil prices to remain volatile
during this period of unsettlement. As highlighted above, disturbance in our national economic
environment due to an upward push in oil supply disruptions isnt as high as it has been in the past. Nonetheless,
oil price volatility when extreme can lead to overall financial market
unsettlement.
The real problem posed by the offensive unleashed by the Islamic State of Iraq and alSham (ISIS) is not what happens to Iraqi oil production this week, but whether OPEC's secondbiggest producer can meet outsized production-growth expectations for the
rest of the decade. If it can't, energy analysts say, the world's inexorable thirst for oil
could soon collide with limited growth in supply, leading to higher prices
and lower economic growth in the United States and around the world. Iraqi forces
in Baghdad braced for the possible arrival of ISIS fighters on Tuesday, June 17, and the
southward spread of violent insurgents forced the closure of Iraq's biggest
oil refinery and the evacuation of foreign personnel working there. The shutdown and evacuation of the Baiji
refinery -- prompted by fears of ISIS mortar attacks -- won't directly affect Iraqi oil output, but it does threaten
respectively, or roughly 3 percent higher than before the ISIS march began. There is another potentially bright spot
in the Iraqi oil sector: the quasi-independent Kurdish region in the north. Kurdish troops have so far stood up to ISIS
and kept their territory free from insurgent attacks. And now that Kurdish forces occupy the historically contested
city of Kirkuk and its significant adjacent oil fields, the Kurds are in a much better position to jump-start exports to
report said. And it's not just Iraq: In many OPEC nations, the IEA said, "political turmoil and security concerns are a
growing impediment to supply growth, if not a cause of outright disruptions." Iraq's centrality to oil's future was
Affordable oil
"would seem to need a lot of incremental oil supply from Iraq, while all the current
also underscored by Energy Aspects, a London-based energy consultancy, on Tuesday.
dynamics suggest that the flood may be just a trickle," the group said. Even though the United States' recent oil-
very ambitious output targets. "It is difficult to overstate the importance of Iraq to the long term outlook for oil
markets," said Securing America's Future Energy, a group that advocates reducing U.S. dependence on oil, in a
report Tuesday.
note that the actual amount spent on oil relative to the overall size of the economy initially suggests
that the effect of a price increase should be relatively small. For example, as a result of the 1973 oil
embargo, the world spent an extra $5.1 billion ($23 billion in 2009 dollars) on oil. Yet, U.S. real GDP
buying a new car when gas prices are high, but they dont rush out to buy one just because pump
prices are low. So will the recent run up in the price of crude push the U.S. economy back into
recession? The good news is that the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 3.2 percent in the most recent
quarter, and gross domestic product has returned to the level it reached in 2007. On March 1, Federal
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the Senates Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Global war
Harris and Burrows, 9 *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the
principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of the NICs Long Range Analysis
Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, Washington
Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)
In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource
issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and
youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and
scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach.
will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and
control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry
relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a
nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended
escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of
potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems
The lack of
strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and
uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than
defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.
also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack.
Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources,
could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neomercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to
take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies . In the worst case, this could
result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be
essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important
Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and
modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus
geopolitical implications.
focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval
capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create
opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle
East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in
strategic objectives, particularly its longer-term political goals. This might be because the costs associated with
campaign is predicated on maintaining order and (re)establishing control over unstable areas. Conversely
IS plans an imminent
attack in this country. In light of the latest murderous attack by this organization against an American
Worse yet, the Texas Department of Public Safety believes there is evidence that
journalist, Steven Sotloff, among other atrocities, such threats must be taken with the utmost seriousness. Among
the targets national security professionals fear may now be in the jihadis' crosshairs is Americas exceedingly
vulnerable electric grid. A panel discussion being held at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday
the event organized by the Secure the Grid Coalition (www.SecuretheGrid.com), Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, has warned
that the
sort of collusion that has been taking place between jihadist groups
could allow such a scenario to be
actualized. After all, last October, the Knights Templar narco-traffickers
blacked out the grid of the Mexican state of Michoacan to murder law
enforcement personnel and others. And last June, a substation serving the
border and city of Nogales, Arizona was nearly destroyed by an improvised
explosive device. Dr. Pry and two other nationally renowned experts on the grid vulnerability issue
like the Islamic State and Latin American drug cartels
former Defense Department official and author F. Michael Maloof and former Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Amb. Henry F. Cooper will discuss the various naturally occurring
and man-induced phenomena that threaten our bulk power distribution system and, with it, all the other critical
infrastructures that depend upon the grid to supply the necessities of life in 21st-century America. Of particular
concern is the prospect that,
sponsored by Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona and Pete Sessions of Texas and strongly supported by House Homeland
Security Chairman Michael McCaul. Known as the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, this measure would require
the Department of Homeland Security to make a focus for a new National Planning Scenario a particularly
destructive means of attacking the electric grid: a high-altitude nuclear detonation unleashing electromagnetic
death and destruction now being meted out routinely by the Islamic State and assorted other shariah-adherent
terrorists calls to mind one of the lessons drawn by the 9/11 Commission about the murderous suicidal aircraft
hijackings of that black day thirteen years ago: The Commissioners described our unpreparedness for that act of
jihad as a failure of imagination. We dare not indulge in such a failure again especially in the face of mounting
Credible prospects for determining attribution of responsibility during many actual cyber attacks can be illuminated
attacker, but equally plausible, it might openly threaten use of cyber tools in order to strengthen its leverage and
Korea might not want to conceal its identity as a cyber attacker, but might choose instead to broadcast it clearly in
order to strengthen its leverage and bargaining power. Even if it tried to conceal its identity, the source of its
activity in the cyber realm most likely could be determined. In such a crisis, it is unlikely that any other potential
cyber attacker would choose this particular pattern of activity.
at a time when it is provoking a grand showdown over Taiwan and the future of the entire East Asia security order.
Instead, it would be more likely to make its cyber identity known to all of its adversaries in order to enhance its
Impact EMP
Theyll use EMP or any attack to wreck the power grid
WND 9/1/14 (World News Daily citing Dr. Peter Pry executive director of the Task Force on National and
Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, EXPERT: 'IMMINENT' ISIS THREAT TO U.S.
POWER GRID http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/08/expert-imminent-isis-threat-to-u-s-powergrid/#8ash9IqUIZXDyKVo.99)
ISIS terrorists pose an imminent threat to the U.S. electric grid with the
capacity to coordinate a devastating assault on our nations infrastructure,
warned a leading homeland security and terrorism expert in a radio interview Sunday. Dr. Peter Pry, a former CIA
officer, is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear
Strategy Forum, both congressional advisory boards. He also served on the Congressional EMP Commission, the
Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, and the House Armed Services Committee. There
is an
imminent threat from ISIS to the national electric grid and not just to a
single U.S. city, said Pry. Pry was speaking on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New Yorks AM 970 The
Answer. Outlining the threat, Pry recalled a leaked U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report divulged this
past March that coordinated terrorist attacks on just nine of the nations 55,000 electrical power substations could
across America are now surging. Get your autographed copy of A Nation Forsaken which probes this crucial issue.
an
attack on the U.S. power grid wouldnt be difficult for them. There are
open-source computer models where you can figure out which are those
nine critical transformer substations where if attacked would take down
the whole national power grid, he said. So something like that could be arranged. It could happen
tomorrow. It could happen next week. Pry pointed out ISIS allies in al-Qaida last June attacked power
the electric grid in Arizona, or New Mexico, or Minnesota or New York. Or the entire nation. Pry surmised such
lines in Yemen that left the entire nation without power for a day. He took issue with a statement last week from
former deputy director of the CIA Mike Morell who said it would take ISIS two to three years to develop the capacity
to carry out a 9/11-style attack. Morell stated that over
ISIS terrorists pose an imminent threat to the U.S. electric grid with the
capacity to coordinate a devastating assault on our nations infrastructure,
warned a leading homeland security and terrorism expert in a radio interview Sunday. Dr. Peter Pry, a former CIA
officer, is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and director of the U.S. Nuclear
Strategy Forum, both congressional advisory boards. He also served on the Congressional EMP Commission, the
Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, and the House Armed Services Committee. There
is an
imminent threat from ISIS to the national electric grid and not just to a
single U.S. city, said Pry. Pry was speaking on Aaron Klein Investigative Radio on New Yorks AM 970 The
Answer. Outlining the threat, Pry recalled a leaked U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report divulged this
past March that coordinated terrorist attacks on just nine of the nations 55,000 electrical power substations could
across America are now surging. Get your autographed copy of A Nation Forsaken which probes this crucial issue.
an
attack on the U.S. power grid wouldnt be difficult for them. There are
open-source computer models where you can figure out which are those
nine critical transformer substations where if attacked would take down
the whole national power grid, he said. So something like that could be arranged. It could happen
tomorrow. It could happen next week. Pry pointed out ISIS allies in al-Qaida last June attacked power
the electric grid in Arizona, or New Mexico, or Minnesota or New York. Or the entire nation. Pry surmised such
lines in Yemen that left the entire nation without power for a day. He took issue with a statement last week from
former deputy director of the CIA Mike Morell who said it would take ISIS two to three years to develop the capacity
to carry out a 9/11-style attack. Morell stated that over
homes are bigger, with more luxuries and appliances than ever. We count on power in ways our parents couldnt
imagine.
Power quality is the measure of reliable power in our homes and businesses, and it has been declining steadily
since 1990. During this time, demand for power has increased by 25%, but the infrastructure needed to transmit
An ISIS fighter approached a Christian woman two weeks ago and lifted the 3year-old child from her arms. Little Kristina wailed as she was taken out of sight of her mother; she
has not been seen since. This heartless crime, carried out in northern Iraq, is just the latest
act in a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing which is being carried out
on an historic scale by the so-called Islamic State, according to a report by Amnesty
International. The human rights organization says thousands of women and children have been abducted, while
men and boys over the age of 12 have been massacred, in a calculated campaign to drive non-Muslims out of the
area. Its a clear-cut case of ethnic cleansing, Donatella Rovera, author of the Amnesty report, told The Daily
Beast. I can see it happening in front of my eyes very quickly. Amnesty has spoken to hundreds of survivors some
of whom watched family members and neighbors lined up along the edge of mass graves and shot dead, executionstyle. In two of the killings, detailed in the report, up to 90 civilians were shot in the back after being separated from
their wives and children and made to kneel before their killers. The massacres took place in areas where the Yazidi
community had refused to flee and stood up to defend themselves against ISIS. Their relatives and their
community were made to pay a very heavy price, said Rovera. There is a double aim for that particular level of
brutality, which is to punish those who tried to resist and to set an example. The propaganda has worked if you look
at large areas of the country where they have been able to take overthey really havent had to fight for it at all
they were pretty much able to walk in unopposed. If the most brazen acts of mass murder were a threat and a
warning to the Yazidi and potential pockets of resistance elsewhere in Iraq, there was no apparent motive for the
abduction of Kristina. Her mother told Amnesty: One of the armed men took her from me and walked away with
her in his arms. She was crying. There was nothing I could do. I pray to God that they will release her soon and let
her come back home. I cannot sleep; all I can think of is my little girl. Mirze Ezdin, a lawyer, is another of those
desperately awaiting news of his missing family. Forty-five relatives, all women and children, were taken by ISIS
fighters in Qiniyeh. Holding up a picture of two of his nieces, he said: Can you imagine these little ones in the
hands of those criminals? Alina is barely 3... We dont know if they are alive or dead or what has happened to
them. Those criminals took their killing spree to tiny Kocho just south of Sinjar on August 15. A group of Yazidi had
been trapped by fighting in the village, which has a population of 1,200. ISIS fighters told the residents to gather at
the local high school where they took their phones, jewelry and cash. They were separated into groups of men,
women, and children. The men were packed into vehicles, taken out a short distance and shot. Not everyone was
The staggering
accumulation of crises and conflicts facing the world today in Ukraine,
Iraq, Syria, Gaza and Libya are linked to Americas new stance. Should matters
security. But the U.S. is no longer willing or able to be the worlds policeman.
come to a head in another seismic zone of world politics namely in East Asia the world would confront a global
catastrophe stemming from the synchronicity of numerous regional crises. Obviously, it would be a crisis that no
a grave challenge to the Arab Middle East as it has been constituted for the last century. The controversy in Europe
ISIS is threatening
to kill or enslave all members of religious and ethnic minorities who do not
immediately convert to Islam or flee. With the world watching while ISIS
has threatened genocide, taking action against the group is a moral duty .
about arming the Kurds seems bizarre in light of the situation in Iraq. Before our eyes,
Questions regarding, for example, what happens after the fighting ends to the weapons given to the Kurds are of
Iraqs national
army is all but incapable of defeating ISIS, while the Kurdish militias could but only if they
are equipped with modern weapons. A victory for ISIS in northern Iraq, or even just the
capture of Irbil, the Kurdish Regional Governments capital, would cause not just an
unparalleled humanitarian disaster; it would also pose an enormous
political threat to the greater Middle East and world peace . So the nexus between
secondary importance. In terms of realpolitik, this argument is strengthened by the fact that
values and interests is self-evident and renders the conflict over fundamental foreign-policy principles irrelevant.
Impact Hegemony
ISIS is a direct challenge to Middle East stability and the global
economy Congressional authorization is vital to restoring the
credibility of U.S. leadership globally
Kitfield 8/20/14 (James Kitfield a senior fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress
and a Defense One contributor. He is a former senior correspondent for National Journal and has written on defense,
national security and foreign policy issues from Washington, D.C. for more than two decades, Why America Should
Declare War on the Islamic State Defense One, http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/08/why-america-shoulddeclare-war-islamic-state/92003/)
As Obama said during a press conference earlier this week, the administration is already closely consulting
Congress on the Iraq crisis, because when confronting a threat like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the United
United States of America will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. We will be vigilant and we will
be relentless. When people harm Americans anywhere, we do whats necessary to see that justice is done and we
act against ISIL, standing alongside others, Obama said this morning in comments about Foleys execution. Even
as he spoke, Pentagon officials confirmed that they are contemplating sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq, to help
secure Baghdad. From governments and peoples across the Middle East, there has to be a common effort to
extremists. When explaining U.S. airstrikes that enabled Iraqi and Kurdish forces to recapture the Mosul Dam in his
press conference, for instance, Obama said he was acting to protect U.S. personnel in the Baghdad embassy
hundreds of miles away. Really? Such
of U.S. military force may comport with the commander in chiefs constitutional authority to protect
American citizens. They sound an uncertain trumpet to allies in the region, however,
who are desperate for U.S. leadership. The resignation of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki
represents a victory for the Obama administration, and it should be exploited. Throughout the crisis senior
administration officials rightly insisted that increased U.S. assistance would be contingent on the formation of a
national unity government in Baghdad that did not include the divisive Shiite strongman. Now that Maliki is out of
the way, President Obama has to decide on the quantity and quality of that assistance.
of holding Iraq together, and making good on President Obamas promise this week to pursue a longterm strategy to turn the tide against [ISIS], U.S. military support to the Iraqi Security
Forces will have to be significant. Put simply, the administration needs to articulate a strategy for
Iraq, and settle on a plan for executing it that is backed at home and understood in Iraq and the region. Some
congressional leaders want a say in such an important decision, and they have a point. Washington is overdue for a
on U.S. military action, Kaine, the Virginia Democrat, told The New York Times this week. We should not be putting
American men and womens lives at risk if we are not willing to do the political work to reach a consensus that its
Congress has so far been able to duck the issue because the
Obama administration can plausibly point to a number of authorities to
justify its actions to date in Iraq. Those responses have already included sending advanced
necessary.
weapons and roughly one thousand uniformed personnel to Iraq; conducting a humanitarian relief effort in the
Kurdish region; and launching limited air strikes against ISIS targets.
if oil from an
increasingly unstable Middle East were to stop flowing, it could trigger a
global recession. The credibility of the United States as a reliable partnermuch
questioned around the worldis also at stake. Not only does the United States still have a strategic
framework agreement with the government in Baghdad, but the disintegration of Iraq along
sectarian lines would directly threaten U.S. allies such as Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Persian Gulf states.
U.S. national interests involved. Despite talk of a looming U.S. energy independence,