[eDebate] Possible Topic Area

David Glass gacggc
Mon Dec 22 21:44:19 CST 2008


hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to"

grand is obv problematic
a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something


so consider:

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should  significantly
reduce its overseas military deployment.


On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson <u.hrair at gmail.com> wrote:
> I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another one
> too, about US military policy.
>
> I'm thinking about something like this:
> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand strategy
> significantly reducing its overseas military deployment.
>
> Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of
> selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like
> discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. Policy
> advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but
> also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power than
> that to which we have recently been accustomed.
>
> The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me for
> some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual strategy
> is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when
> neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as opposed
> to the simple level of its power.
>
> I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this:
> Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially change
> one or more of its operational doctrines.
>
> "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat
> different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not
> sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there seems
> to be some interest.  I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p ground is
> particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden sharing,
> and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it
> avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely
> that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English.
>
> I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the terms
> that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much
> preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in
> helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the electronic
> tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com.
>
> Calum
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list