1ac myth 1ac -critical Introduction of us armed Forces Aff
Download 0.74 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Epistemology
- Military controls policymaking
FrameworkRole of the Ballot – Break the SilenceWe just break the silence in security discourses that have resulted from the war on terror and perpetuated the domination of women – that’s key to reconceptualizing politics and our entire security regime.Stabile and Rentschler 5 [Carol: Associate Professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, and Carrie, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies in the Department of Art History and Communication Studies at McGill University, “States of Insecurity and the Gendered Politics of Fear”, Feminist Formations, 17(3)] Feminists need to work together to undo the silences in the discourses of security that have followed from the war on terror—the media’s, as well as our own. Like the women of Greenham Common, who for nineteen years occupied that space in protest of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s decision to site cruise missiles there, we need to make noise about issues of security that matter to more than a handful of the world’s elites.3 We need to speak back to all our would-be protectors and to pay attention to the silences in narratives about security. We need to demand discussion of competing discourses about security and to listen across the boundaries of class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability, age, and national origin to understand the limits of individual and individualized constructions of fear, threats, and security. Those of us who enjoy more privilege and comparative security urgently need to mobilize against the militarized futures currently on sale. Feminists need to continue to fight over the meanings of security being foisted upon us and to work to appropriate the word security for feminist purposes and a feminist political agenda. Working within a discipline itself born out of political resistance to androcentrism, women’s studies teachers, students, and supporters have a unique and urgent responsibility to respond to the states of insecurity being created by an arrogant and androcentric militarized culture. No single volume can even begin to address the complicated web of issues that converge around gender, security, and fear, and research cannot substitute for political action. Our hope for this volume is that in some modest way it can provide a starting point for the conversations, conferences, research projects, and direct action projects that we need to begin having in collective, collaborative, and ever-louder ways. In the midst of this growing political and economic gloom, we can find hope and sustenance for the struggles ahead in the courage, energy, creativity, and dedication of all those women fighting against the states of insecurity being thrust upon us. As Rachel Corrie said shortly before her death, “I look forward to increasing numbers of middle-class privileged people like you and me becoming aware of the structures that support our privilege and beginning to support the work of those who aren’t privileged to dismantle those structures” (2003). Together, we need to find ways to make a whole symphony of women’s voices heard above the din of militarism, aggression, and androcentric self-interest. EpistemologyBe skeptical of their knowledge-productionAndrew J. Bacevich 13 Jr. (born 1947) is an American political scientist specializing in international relations, security studies, American foreign policy, and American diplomatic and military history. He is currently Professor of International Relations and History at Boston University.[1] He is also a retired career officer in the United States Army. He is a former director of Boston University's Center for International Relations (from 1998 to 2005) and author of several books, including American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy (2002), The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War (2005) and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (2008). He has also appeared on television shows such as The Colbert Report and the Bill Moyers Report and has written op-eds which have appeared in papers such as The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and Financial Times. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The new American militarism: how Americans are seduced by war,” 2013, Oxford University Press, DOA: 8-1-13, y2k Contrast this with earlier turning points in U.S. military history. When the United States in 1917 plunged into the European war, Senator Robert M. La Follette, a stalwart progressive from Wisconsin, warned Americans that under a pretext of carrying democracy to the rest of the world, Woodrow Wilson was actually doing more to undermine and destroy democracy in the United States than it will be possible for us as a Nation to repair in a generation. 10 Two decades later, as Franklin Roosevelt maneuvered the country toward a second world war, Senator Robert A. Taft, stalwart conservative from Ohio, testified eloquently to the results likely to follow. If the United States took it upon itself to protect the smaller countries of the Old World, he said in a speech on May 17 , 1941 , we will have to maintain a police force perpetually in Germany and throughout Europe. As Taft saw it, this was not Americaproper role. Frankly, the American people don’t want to rule the world, he said, and we are not equipped to do it. Such imperialism is wholly foreign to our ideals of democracy and freedom. It is not our manifest destiny or our national destiny. 11 Nor were La Folletteand Taftthe only voices raised against war and militarism. The point here is not to argue that in their time La Follette and Taft got things exactly right. They did not.although events proved them to be more prescient than either Wilson or FDR, each of whom prophesied that out of war would come lasting peace. Rather, the point is that in those days there existed within the national political arena a lively awareness that war is inherently poisonous, giving rise to all sorts of problematic consequences, and that military power is something that democracies ought to treat gingerly. Today, in sharp contrast, such sensitivities have been all but snuffed out. When it comes to military matters, the national political stage does not accommodate contrarian voices, even from those ostensibly most critical of actually existing policy. Military controls policymakingAndrew J. Bacevich 13 Jr. (born 1947) is an American political scientist specializing in international relations, security studies, American foreign policy, and American diplomatic and military history. He is currently Professor of International Relations and History at Boston University.[1] He is also a retired career officer in the United States Army. He is a former director of Boston University's Center for International Relations (from 1998 to 2005) and author of several books, including American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy (2002), The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War (2005) and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (2008). He has also appeared on television shows such as The Colbert Report and the Bill Moyers Report and has written op-eds which have appeared in papers such as The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, and Financial Times. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The new American militarism: how Americans are seduced by war,” 2013, Oxford University Press, DOA: 8-1-13, y2k Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of mili-tary professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. 53 That military is led by an officer corps that has evolved its own well-defined worldview and political agenda. Senior military leaders have sought, albeit with mixed results, to wield clout well beyond the realm falling within their nominal purview. They aim not simply to execute policy; they want a large say in its formulation. Highly protective of their own core institutional interests, these senior officers have also demonstrated considerable skill at waging bureaucratic warfare, manipulating the media, and playing off the executive and legislative branches of government against each other to get what they want. The present-day officer corps, writes the historian Richard H. Kohn, is more bureaucratically active, more political, more partisan, more purposeful, and more influential than at any earlier time in American history. 54 The resulting fractious, at times even dysfunctional, relationship between the top brass and civilian political leaders is one of Washington’s dirty little secrets.recognized by all of the inside players, concealed from an electorate that might ask discomfiting questions about who is actually in charge. This too is an expression of what militarism has wrought. Directory: file -> fetch fetch -> 11 th Lit Semester 1 Final Study Guide!!! fetch -> Industrial Revolution Inventors fetch -> Analysis for Galveston Hurricane of 1900 fetch -> The Illuminators (Team 2) 1900 Galveston Hurricane Cycle a team Assignment fetch -> Team csi-utb ruth Reyes Jose Ferrer fetch -> Galveston Hurricane of 1900 Cycle a-teacher as a Problem Solver fetch -> Is Climate Change Starting a New Dust Bowl? Cycle A fetch -> What makes a storm a hurricane fetch -> The 1950s were the "Happy Days" because it was a time of economic prosperity, technology development, new entertainment, new fashion and family growth. The 1950s was a great time fetch -> Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age Download 0.74 Mb. Share with your friends:
|