[eDebate] "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security"
Wed Dec 24 12:35:42 CST 2008
Unless I am crazy, and I usually am, the reason for Grand Strategy is likely
that using that term would allow the aff to increase to decrease (rev in mil
affairs, modernization, new tech etc).
In other words, an affirmative could functionally modernize the armed forces
and still decrease troop levels as long as "strategy" is included.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:22 AM, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
> The counterplan I'm worried about is the one that PICs out of the
> "grand strategy" and just reduces the deployment
> It seems like you can just cut deployment without having a "grand
> Wikipedia says : "Grand strategy is military strategy at the level of
> movement and use of an entire nation state or empire's resources.
> Military grand strategy includes calculations of economic resources
> and man-power.
> So if the Aff's grand strategy is to decrease the military budget, for
> example, and part of that is decreasing deployments, the PIC
> makes the debate just about the budget, and not about the deployment.
> I mean that's fine, but perhaps
> not the reason to write such a rez (?)
> Is there an example of a good aff where the strategy is required for
> the cut in deployment?
> So far, no alternative broadening language has occurred to me which
> isn't subject to the PIC.
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Michael Antonucci
> <antonucci23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Have you considered employing the term "national security strategy" ?
> > As you've mentioned, it's more concretely tied to an identifiable
> > governmental process:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_strategy
> > It seems to address your concern that we debate "a broader policy, by
> > civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to
> > achieve American objectives."
> > This wording would more explicitly enable the counterplan(s) to implement
> > the aff through legislation, covert action, or purely internal military
> > directives.
> > The counterplan might succeed as a limiting function where a simple T
> > based on the well-documented but imprecisely defined adjective "grand"
> > fail. Only advantage ground based on the perceived legitimacy of a
> > strategic change would meaningully differentiate the plan from the
> > counterplan.
> > "Improve UAVs" loses to a process counterplan. "Offshore balancing" also
> > might, which is a concern, but can at least leverage a pre-emptively
> > 1AC.
> > If you loathe this range of counterplans, of course, you might want to
> > rephrase the original, since "grand strategy" carries a weaker but
> > definitely existent association with the National Security Strategy,
> > Personally, I'm agnostic, since everyone will probably vote for that
> > to get it on with tattooed dolphins or whatever. It seems worthwhile,
> > though, as an exercise, to determine if you want that range of
> > or not.
> > --
> > Michael Antonucci
> > Debate Coach
> > Georgetown University
> > Mobile: 617-838-3345
> > Office: 202-687-4079
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman