Iraq Aff Wave 1

***1AC US Credibility Scenario (4)***

Overstaying Iraq crushes credibility – opens multiple scenarios for extinction

Nye & Armitage, ‘7 Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and President of Armitage International (Joseph & Richard, *Note: Report was in collaboration with about 50 other congressmen, “CCIS Commission of Smart Power – A Smarter, more Secure America”, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf)

Today’s Challenges The twenty-first century presents a number of unique foreign policy challenges for today’s decisionmakers. These challenges exist at an international, transnational, and global level. Despite America’s status as the lone global power, the durability of the current international order is uncertain. America must help find a way for today’s norms and institutions to accommodate rising powers that may hold a different set of principles and values. Furthermore, countries invested in the current order may waiver in their commitment to take action to minimize the threats posed by violent non-state actors and regional powers who challenge this order. The information age has heightened political consciousness, but also made political groupings less cohesive. Small, adaptable, transnational networks have access to tools of destruction that are increasingly cheap, easy to conceal, and more readily available. Although the integration of the global economy has brought tremendous benefits, vectors of prosperity have also become vectors of instability. Threats such as pandemic disease and the collapse of financial markets are more distributed and more likely to arise without warning. The threat of widespread physical harm to the planet posed by nuclear catastrophe has existed for half a century, though the realization of the threat will become more likely as the number of nuclear weapons states increases. The potential security challenges posed by climate change raise the possibility of an entirely new set of threats for the United States to consider. The next administration will need a strategy that speaks to each of these challenges. Whatever specific approach it decides to take, two principles will be certain: First, an extra dollar spent on hard power will not necessarily bring an extra dollar’s worth of security. It is difficult to know how to invest wisely when there is not a budget based on a strategy that specifies trade-offs among instruments. Moreover, hard power capabilities are a necessary but insufficient guarantee of security in today’s context. Second, success and failure will turn on the ability to win new allies and strengthen old ones both in government and civil society. The key is not how many enemies the United States kills, but how many allies it grows. States and non-state actors who improve their ability to draw in allies will gain competitive advantages in today’s environment. Those who alienate potential friends will stand at greater risk. Terrorists, for instance, depend on their ability to attract support from the crowd at least as much as their ability to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Exporting Optimism, Not Fear Since its founding, the United States has been willing to fight for universal ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. This higher purpose, sustained by military and economic might, attracted people and governments to our side through two world wars and five decades of the Cold War. Allies accepted that American interests may not always align entirely with their own, but U.S. leadership was still critical to realizing a more peaceful and prosperous world. There have been times, however, when America’s sense of purpose has fallen out of step with the world. Since 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than more traditional values of hope and optimism. Suspicions of American power have run deep. Even traditional allies have questioned whether America is hiding behind the righteousness of its ideals to pursue some other motive. At the core of the problem is that America has made the war on terror the central component of its global engagement. This is not a partisan critique, nor a Pollyannaish appraisal of the threats facing America today. The threat from terrorists with global reach and ambition is real. It is likely to be with us for decades. Thwarting their hateful intentions is of fundamental importance and must be met with the sharp tip of America’s sword. On this there can be no serious debate. But excessive use of force can actually abet terrorist recruitment among local populations. We must strike a balance between

No other missed deadline matters – the only ones that matter are the ones Obama will renege on now

Raed Jarrar (senior fellow on the Middle East at Peace Action)March 2009 “ THANK YOU OBAMA!” online

Obama's speech on friday was pretty significant. He pledged for the first time to bring *all* troops out of iraq. In addition, he promised to comply with the deadline agreed upon on in the bilateral withdrawal agreement (aka sofa). There is a large segment of the US public that believe obama has already promised to bring all troops home in 16 months, but he never did. He talked about combat troop withdrawal in 16 month, and that was modified to 19 months now. I personally don't see a big difference between 16/19 month combat troops withdrawal, and i dont think it'll have much impact on the ground. The only 2 military withdrawals/redeployments that will have real effect on the Iraqi public opinion are: 1- the "combat troop" withdrawal from cities, towns and villages by june of this year (in accordance to the bilateral withdrawal agreement) 2- the complete withdrawal of all troops (combat+non-combat) before decemeber 31st 2011.