ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat

KR 1/9

T- SECURITY GUARANTEE .......................................................................................................... ...........3 . CASE ARGUMENTS................................................................................................................ ..................4 .

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY C/P THE C/P IS A PIC WHERE WE PIC OUT OF THE C/E OF AFGHANISTAN AND JUST STOP THE US’S ENFORCEMENT OF THE WAR ON DRUGS, THIS SOLVES 100% OF THE AFF… THEIR EVIDENCE ABOUT AFGHANISTAN IS JUST SAYING THAT THE US IS ENFORCING THE WOD THERE AND NOTHING SAYS THAT AFGHANISTAN (AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE US PULLING OUT) PULLING OUT OF THE TREATIES THAT THE 1AC HAS THEM DO IS NECESSARY. MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PICS GOOD BLOCK… T “NOT ENFORCING THE WAR ON DRUGS” IS NOT SO MUCH A SECURITY GUARUNTEE… AND THERE IS A BURIED EXTRA T VIOLATION THAT SAYS THE AFF CANT OFFER TO STOP ENFORCING THE WOD WORLDWIDE, THEY CAN ONLY TAKE ACTIONS TOWARDS THE TARGET COUNTRY. CASE ARGS 2 MAIN ARGS HERE, FIRST THAT NARRATIVES/PERSONAL STORIES (WHICH THE 1AC STARTS WITH) IS A TOOL OF BIOPOLITICAL CONTROLS AS WELL AS A BIOPWER IMPACT CARD. THERE ARE ALSO CARDS ABOUT HOW THE STATE USES SECURITY TO REIFY ITSELF… THE ARG BEING THE AFF SHOULDN’T HAVE TRIED TO FIT THEIR ACTION INTO THE GUISE OF SECURITY. OTHER STUFF IN ADDITION YOU SHOULD RUN ANY DA’S OR OTHER CASE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE LINKS BASED ON EITHER CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT OR AFGHANISTAN, SINCE THE C/P DOES NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS.

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…

ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat COUNTER PLAN

KR 2/9

A. TEXT THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP ENFORCING THE WAR ON DRUGS INCLUDING REMOVING ITSELF AS SIGNATORY FROM THE SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS OF 1961 AND THE CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES OF 1971. B. NON-TOPICAL THE C/P IS NOT CONTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT. C. COMPETITION THE C/P COMPETES VIA NET BENEFITS D. SOLVENCY THE C/P CAPTURES 100% OF PLAN SOLVENCY AS THE AFF’S SOLVENCY IS CONTINGENT ON THE US STOPING ITS ACTIONS RELATED TO THE WAR ON DRUGS NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY ENGAGING AFGHANISTAN. THE C/P CAPTURES ADDITIONAL SOLVENCY BY STOPPING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE WAR ON DRUGS WORLDWIDE.

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…

ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat

KR 3/9

T- Security Guarantee
A. DEFINITION
1. Security Guarantees are promises not to attack or to help in defense. Arnett in 98 Eric Arnett, Leader of the Project on Military Technology, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Security Dialogue, 29.4, p. 447, footnote 16 A negative security guarantee is a promise not to attack. A positive security guarantee is a promise to help in defence. 2. THIRD PARTY SECURITY GUARANTEES ARE GUARANTEES TO BOTH WARRING PARTIES. This definition applies to Syria/Israel and the Golan Heights and to the Palestinian Authority Walter in 2K2 Barbara F. Walter, Professor of Political Science at Univ of California at San Diego, 2002 (COMMITTING TO PEACE, p. 26) Third party security guarantees. Civil war combatants are most concerned about weathering the short, but treacherous, period of military engagement and are likely to actively seek outside assistance to ensure compliance during this time. Unlike the combatants themselves, third parties can guarantee that groups will be protected, violations detected, and promises kept (or at least they can ensure that groups will survive until a new government and a new national military is formed).

(B) VIOLATION. THE AFFIRMATIVE’S OFFER OF NOT ENFORCING THE WAR ON DRUGS IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SECURITY GUARANTEES BY PROMISING NOT TO ATTACK OR ASSIST IN DEFENSE. (C) STANDARDS.
____1. Limits. There are hundreds of possible forms of promises that could be used on a country. We cannot be expected to predict and have relevant arguments prepared for each one. Defending only actual security guarantees for a process of constructive engagement gives affs predictable and good options. ____2. Ground. There is ample literature on this topic where constructive engagement alternatives are deliberated. This allows us to run specific counterplans and disadvantages. The aff destroys clash. ____3. Bright line. Constructive engagement is dialogue, offers, and reciprocity. They do not offer the country a security guarantee which forces the judge to make an arbitrary decision about whether they constructively engage, which is unfair ____4. Extra-Topical. The affirmative action goes beyond the scope of the resolution by not enforcing the War on Drugs worldwide, not just as it relates to Afghanistan. Being able to take actions towards countries outside of the target country means the Aff can claim extra topical advantages and also moots out the resolution, the 1AC would be the same if the resolution were that the USFG should C/E Colombia. This is an independent voting issue for reasons of limits, resolutional integrity and fairness.

(D) VOTERS. FOR REASONS OF EDUCATION, COMPETITIVE EQUITY AND GROUND.

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…

ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat

KR 4/9

Case Arguments
TURN-- REVEALING DETAILS OF INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE LIKE THE 1AC PROVIDES BIOPOLITICS WITH THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO REGULATE AND CONTROL LIFE, DEPOLITICIZING OUR OPPRESSIONS AND USING THEM AGAINST US.
Brown 1996 (Wendy, Professor of Women's Studies and Legal Studies, Co-Director of the Ctr. for the Cultural Studies @ UC-Santa Cruz, "Constitutions and
'Survivor Stories': In the 'folds of our own discourse' The Pleasures and Freedoms of Silence," University of Chicago School of Law Roundtable). L/N In the course of this work, I

want to make the case for silence not simply as an aesthetic but a political value, a means of preserving certain practices and dimensions of existence from regulatory power, from normative violence, as well as from the scorching rays of public exposure. I also want to suggest a link between, on the one hand, a certain contemporary tendency concerning the lives of public figures--the confession or extraction of every detail of private and personal life (sexual, familial, therapeutic, financial) and, on the other, a certain practice in feminist culture: the com-pulsive putting into public discourse of heretofore hidden or private experiences--from catalogues of sexual pleasures to litanies of sexual abuses, from chronicles of eating disorders to diaries of homebirths, lesbian mothering, and Gloria Steinam's inner revolution. In linking these two phenomena--the privatization of public life via the mechanism of public exposure of private life on the one hand, and the compulsive/compulsory cataloguing of the details of women's lives on the other--I want to highlight a modality of regulation and depoliticization specific to our age that is not simply confes-sional but empties private life into the public domain, and thereby also usurps public space with the relatively trivial, rendering the political personal in a fashion that leaves injurious social, political and economic powers unremarked and untouched. In short, while intended as a practice of freedom (premised on the modernist conceit that the truth shall make us free), these productions of truth not only bear the capacity to chain us to our injurious histories as well as the stations of our small lives but also to instigate the further regulation of those lives, all the while depoliti- cizing their conditions.

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…

ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat

KR 5/9

TURN-- SPEAKING FOR OURSELVES IS JUST AS DANGEROUS AS SPEAKING FOR OTHERS.
Brown 1996 (Wendy, Professor of Women's Studies and Legal Studies, Co-Director of the Ctr. for the Cultural Studies @ UC-Santa Cruz, "Constitutions and
'Survivor Stories': In the 'folds of our own discourse' The Pleasures and Freedoms of Silence," University of Chicago School of Law Roundtable). L/N My concern with what might be called compulsory feminist discursivity and the presumed evil of silences has yet another source. Notwithstanding American academic feminism's romance with Foucault, there is an oddly non- or pre-Foucauldian quality to much feminist concern with censorship and silencing. In these formulations, expression is cast either as that which makes us free, tells our truth, puts our truth into circulation, n3 or as that which oppresses us by putting "their" truth into circulation in the form of pornogra- phy, hate speech, harassment or simply the representation of the world from "the male point of view." n4 If

one side in the debate argues for more expres- sion on our part--for example, by making our own pornography or telling our own stories--and the other argues for less on "their" part, both sides none- theless subscribe to an expressive and repressive notion of speech, its capacity to express the truth of an individual's desire or condition, or to repress that truth. Both equate freedom with voice and visibility. n5 Both assume recognition to be unproblematic when we tell our own story, and assume that such recognition is the material of power and pleasure. Neither, in short, confronts the regulatory potential of speaking ourselves. I think the whole contemporary debate
over censorship--whether focused on porn or rap music--is necessarily bound to an expressive-repressive model of power and freedom, which may explain why those who feel passionately about both freedom and dignity have trou-ble finding their way in this debate. If the choice is cast either as the free circulation of music and pictures venerating rape, racism, and misogyny, or state repression of the same, how does one choose?

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…

ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat

KR 6/9

THE CULT OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS BASED UPON THE SOVEREIGN SUBJECT’S DESIRE TO CONTROL HER OR HIS OWN STORY, DEMONSTRATING VULNERABILITY AND FEAR OF DOMINATION.
Brown 1996 (Wendy, Professor of Women's Studies and Legal Studies, Co-Director of the Ctr. for the Cultural Studies @ UC-Santa Cruz, "Constitutions and
'Survivor Stories': In the 'folds of our own discourse' The Pleasures and Freedoms of Silence," University of Chicago School of Law Roundtable). L/N While each of these speculations may shed a bit of light on the explosion of personal talk in the public media, for our purposes the most important explanation may be drawn from a telling feature of this talk, namely that very little of it bears the character of either communication or reflection. Most

of this speech pronounces or declares, and practically none of it is aimed at connecting with specific others, working something through, or transforming understanding or experience. In other words, this speech which is aimed at bringing us in
common with one another, and which glorifies the common person, paradoxically eschews the tonal and idiomatic material of connection.

This paradox must be read as a symptom, in particular, a symptom of the crisis of the sovereign subject (a subject who believes s/he is self-made and self- willed) in a world of unparalleled global complexity and contingency. This subject who is so radically in need of external resources for understanding its context in the late twentieth century is deprived of those very resources through this kind of pronunciative speaking. Indeed, this heavily defended creature conveys through this non-communicative and non-communing speech, this tenacious dwelling in his or her own experi-ence and opinion, a kind of rampant individual xenophobia which itself must be read as a terrible fear of disintegration or dissolution through connection, an anxiety of an already profoundly weakened or disintegrated subject. The cult of personal experience and opinion, then, warns of the shakiness of the sovereign subject and of its extreme vulnerability to domination, even as this warning is expressed as a kind of hyper-sovereignty and hyper-individualism. n34

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…

ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat

KR 7/9

IMPACT TO BIO POWER— THE REGULATION OF POPULATIONS THROUGH BIOPOWER HAS ITS ULTIMATE EXPRESSION IN THE WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER OF WARS, GENOCIDE AND THE NUCLEAR THREAT TO SURVIVAL

QuickTimeª and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…

ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat

KR 8/9

BY COUCHING THE 1AC IN TERMS OF A SECURITY GUARANTEE AND SECURITY ITSELF, THE AFFIRMATIVE IS UNWITTINGLY AFFIRMING THE LOGIC OF BIOPOLITICS, GIVING THE STATE THE POWER TO DEFINE LIFE AND DEATH
Dillon ‘7. (Dillona, Michael. Department of Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University. “Governing Through Contingency: The security of biopolitical
governance”. Political Geography Volume 26, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 41-47) The wider political ramifications and implications of the emergence of biopolitically governing through contingency were, however, also somewhat anticipated by Foucault in the earlier SMD lectures. There he reflected on how the new technology of governmental biopower, le dispositif de sécurité, is addressed to, “a global mass that is affected by overall processes characteristic of birth, death, production, illness and so on…not individualising but, if you like, massifying…a biopolitics of the human race” (Foucault, 2003: 242–243). Such a dispositif also, however, installs an impératif, something that consists in dynamics that comprise both a powerful self-generating logic as well as a space of problematisation. In the first lecture of STP Foucault also noted how the

operation and proliferation of mechanisms of security continually inflated the concern with security. Echoing the daunting observation made elsewhere that a certain threshold of modernity is reached when it wagers the life of the species on its political strategies (Foucault, 1987: 143), Foucault goes so far presciently as to say there that the “general economy of power” is in the process of becoming an order of security with society dominated by security technologies that put le destin biologique in question (Foucault, 2004b: Lecture 1). Government has thus to take into account the nature of the thing to be governed. In biopolitics the referent object of governance is life; specifically, in the beginning, ‘population’. Life, especially the life of populations, is characterised by contingency. Contingency is not arbitrary chance. It represents a complex discourse—set of truth-telling practices—about the knowledge of uncertainty. In retrospect, we can therefore see that the question of contingency, or ‘the aleatory’, arises for Foucault as one of those factical elements or ‘natural’ processes to which liberal governmentality must attend, with which it must deal and in relation to which it has to regulate and evaluate its own performance and effectiveness in its ambition to exercise power over life. In governmental terms, the contingent features that life and populations display are not an ideological disguise for the operation of some hidden interests and they are not part of a dialectical historical process. They are a function of truth-telling practices of the life sciences, uncertainty and risk. These perform a whole variety of governmental as well as scientific functions, not least in telling different stories about different categories of living things and their governability, as well as what falls into the category of living thing as such.

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…

ARMY 2008 UMASS Strat SECURITY DISCOURSE ONTOLOGICALLY AFFIRMS THE STATE
Shapiro, ’99 [Michael J., University of Hawaii, “Samuel Huntington’s Moral Geography]

KR 9/9

It turns out that "security" is now cultural security for Huntington. It is people flows rather than weapons that threaten the territory with which he identifies. His perspective on "the clash of civilizations" is one among many approaches, particularly those aimed at a security-oriented mapping of the globe, which, in Fredric Jameson's terms, collapse ontology with geography. Two approaches to the self-recognition of the modern state help situate this practice. First, it is necessary to heed what Michael Taussig has called "the cultural practice of statecraft"3 in which the state is understood to be continually crafting itself as the avatar of a national culture. Second, it is necessary to locate the ways in which that cultural practice of the state constructs the worlds of danger to its coherence. This latter aspect of the state's structures of self-recognition and reproduction is most evident in security discourses.

"Security," is not a thing to be defined, indeed as a concept among scholars of international politics it is more or less "essentially contested;"4 it is to be understood in terms of how and when it is articulated. While its articulation is often associated with strategic arguments in struggles among states, it is also expressed as part of the general ontological defense of the primacy of the state and its claim to be supported by and expressive of a primordial sovereign/citizen identity. Construed in this way, "security" emerges as involvement in the ontological grounding of the political.5 But Huntington eschews an ontological or desiring impetus for his moral geography. His ontological and cosmological commitments to a geopolitical and civilizational order are, for him, detached, realistic assessments of threats to the "security" of the "West." Failing to see the arbitrariness with which civilizational codes have emerged, he sees other "civilizations" as a threat to the West, and the immigration of non-western
Others as a threat to what he constructs as a unitary American national culture.

SECURITY RATIFIES ALL STATE POWER
Dillon ‘7. (Dillona, Michael. Department of Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University. “Governing Through Contingency: The security of biopolitical
governance”. Political Geography Volume 26, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 41-47) Whereas the geopolitics of security began to revolve around the space of territory, that of the biopolitics of security began to revolve around the ‘space’ of species or population. Central to the securing of populations according to Foucault were the emerging sciences of the aleatory or the contingent—statistics and probability. It is therefore important to draw attention to the way that Foucault recorded a re-problematisation of security—a novel dispositif de sécurité—as he observed an increasing preoccupation with governing through contingency in the process of the biopoliticisation of rule. The

strategic principle of formation for this security dispositif was that of the contingency (amenable to statistical and other forms of political arithmetic) which was immanent to life in general and population in particular. One might say that this initiated a government of the contingent, by the contingent, for the contingent: government of population (in its very contingency) by the burgeoning new sciences of contingency (statistics and probability) for the contingent (effects-based) promotion of life. The institution of this novel biopolitical dispositif de sécurité continues to ramify throughout the evolution of the complex security processes of liberal governmentality today. Arguably, the contingent has now become the primary strategic principle of formation for the generic securing of life which liberal governmental rule now pursues globally.

Ummm…. I’m pretty sure I asked for Pecan Sandies…