3. The number of rapes occurring in colleges and high schools is increasing. Dr. Marc J. Yacht. April 2, 2009. (Yacht is the retired director of the Pasco County Health Department. St. Petersburg Time. “Right Time to Target Sexual Abuse.” LN)
Our colleges and secondary schools are often sites for violence against women with students taking inappropriate liberties with girlfriends or casual dates. Far more sexual abuse incidents occur in our schools than reported. Seniors now face a tough job market and unexpected career detours can be expressed with alcohol consumption, drug use, anger and violence against women.
It is estimated that 20 to 25 percent of college women in the United States experience attempted or complete rape during their college career. Sexual abuse starts early. Teens 16 to 19 were 3.5 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault. Of the women who reported being raped at some time in their lives, 21 percent were younger than 12 years of age. It is suggested that 86 percent of adolescent sexual assaults go unreported. Victims of rape are seven times more likely to be raped again, and sexual offenders often show a history of being abused. Most lawbreakers feel guilt and self loathing but will repeat their actions. Such guilt offers little solace to the seriously injured, dead partner, or targeted child. Young females of both college and high school age are targets along with wives, children and significant others. Female victims typically know their attackers and often have sex again with the men who attacked them.
5. Rape Harm over exaggerated
Baber 02 How Bad is Rape?” http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/research/rape.pdf Director of Philosophy, University of San Diego
Now there is a tendency to exaggerate the harmfulness of rape, that is, to make much of the incapacitating psychological traumas that some victims suffer as a result of being raped One motive for such claims is the recognition that the harm of rape per se is often underestimated and hence that, in some quarters, rape is not taken as seriously as it ought to be taken Rape has not been treated in the same way as other crimes of violence A person, whether male or female, who is mugged is not asked to produce witnesses, to provide evidence of his good character or display bodily injuries as evidence of his unwillingness to surrender his wallet to his assailant In the past, however, the burden of proof has been placed wrongfully on the victims of rape to show their respectability and their unwillingness, the assumption being that (heterosexual) rape is merely a sexual act rather than an act of violence and that sex acts can be presumed to be desired by the participants unless there is strong evidence to the contrary This is not so Writers who stress the traumas rape victims suffer cite the deleterious consequences of rape in response to such assumptions
If this is made clear, there is no compelling reason to harp on the suffering of rape victims Furthermore, arguably, on balance, it may be undesirable to do so First, making much of the traumas rape victims allegedly suffer tends to reinforce the pervasive sexist assumption that women are cowards who break under stress and are incapable of dealing with physical danger or violence Secondly, it would seem that conceiving of such traumas as normal, expected consequences of rape does a disservice to victims who might otherwise be considerably less traumatized by their experiences.
AT: Readiness
1. DADT makes readiness collapse inevitable.
Michelle Garcia July 06, 2009 Veteran Takes the Lead on DADT Bill http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid96041.asp
U.S. representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran who earned a Bronze Star, has become the lead sponsor of a bill that would lift the ban on openly gay personnel serving in the military, confirming earlier reports. "It is vital to our national security," Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said to The Morning Call newspaper. "We have troops that are fighting in two wars and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve." Ellen Taucher, who is leaving Congress to take a position with the Obama administration, was the leading sponsor of the bill when it was reintroduced to Congress earlier this year. The legislation currently has 150 cosponsors in the House. President Obama and members of his administration have indicated that they are interested in repealing the ban through Congress and not by executive order. Murphy, 35, is a former prosecutor, West Point professor, and captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. In a 2008 hearing on "don't ask, don't tell," Murphy went toe-to-toe with Elaine Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, which is fighting to keep the ban in place. "You're basically asserting that straight men and women in our military aren't professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while completing their military missions," he said. "You know, as a former Army officer, I can tell you I think that's an insult to me and to many of the soldiers. … 24 countries…allow [gay] military personnel to serve openly without any detrimental impact on unit cohesion." A Gallup poll in May shows that more than two thirds of Americans -- 69% -- favor lifting the ban; 26% remain opposed.
2. No impact – we’ve survived periods of low readiness
National Security Network 8 (May 13, http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/850)
Our military is second to none, but eight years of negligence, lack of accountability, and a reckless war in Iraq have left our ground forces facing shortfalls in both recruitment and readiness. Every service is out of balance and ill-prepared. We need a new strategy to give the military the tools it needs for the challenges we face today. And we need leadership that meets our obligations to the men and women who put their lives on the line. Overview The U.S. military is a fighting force second to none. It didn’t get that way by accident – it took decades of careful stewardship by civilian as well as military leaders in the Pentagon, the White House, and on Capitol Hill. But eight years of Administration recklessness, and a lack of oversight from conservatives on Capitol Hill, have put the military under enormous strain. Active-duty generals at the highest levels have said that “the current demand for our forces is not sustainable… We can’t sustain the all-volunteer force at the pace that we are going on right now” (Army Chief of Staff George Casey, April 2008); that in terms of readiness, many brigades being sent back to Afghanistan and Iraq were “not where they need to be” (Army Vice-Chief of Staff Richard Cody, SASC subcommittee hearing, April 14, 2008); and that “we cannot now meet extra force requirements in places like Afghanistan” (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen on National Public Radio, April 2008). Readiness and Response: Two-thirds of the Army – virtually all of the brigades not currently deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq – are rated “not combat ready.” The dramatic equipment shortages of a few years ago have been improved but not completely remedied. Recruitment and Retention: These conditions of service, and the strains they place on military family members, have hindered Army efforts (and to a lesser extent those of the Marine Corps) to recruit and retain the requisite number and quantity of service members. The Army has been forced to lower its educational and moral standards and allow an increasing number of felons into its ranks. It is also struggling to keep junior officers, the brains of the force, who represent the height of the military’s investment in its people – and whose willingness to stay on represents a crucial judgment on Administration policies. The Marine Corps, America’s emergency 911 force, is under similar strain. The Commandant of the Marine Corps said in February 2008 that the Marines will not be able to maintain a long term presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The National Guard and Reserve are already suffering from severe shortages of equipment and available combat personnel. In many states, the Army National Guard would struggle to respond to a natural or man-made disaster – just as the Kansas National Guard struggled to respond to the severe tornados last year. How, and whether, we rebuild our military in the wake of the fiasco in Iraq will likely shape it for the next generation. Too much of our military posture is left over from the Cold War. Our forces are being ground down by low-tech insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the most immediate threat confronting the U.S. is a terrorist network that possesses no tanks or aircraft. We must learn the lessons of Iraq and dramatically transform our military into a 21st century fighting force ready to confront the threats of today and tomorrow.
3. Retention solves readiness
Brook, 2006. (Tom Vanden Brook, “Army surpassing year's retention goal by 15%,”, USA Today; April 10 2006, Pg. 05, EBSCOhost.)
The Pentagon announced in March that each of the armed forces was on track to meet its retention goal for the year. Pay and re-enlistment bonuses help, Hilferty says. Bonuses range from nothing to $150,000 for a handful of special operations commandos. The average re-enlistment bonus is $6,000, Hilferty says. "It's not just pay," Hilferty says. "Our people want to be part of something greater than themselves, and they're willing to put up with a lot." Charles Henning, a national defense analyst with the Congressional Research Service, says strong re-enlistment allows the Army to maintain its strength. "Retention has been a very positive thing for the Army," Henning says. "That's an indicator of very high morale, high esprit de corps. It's a very solid indicator that soldiers are gratified, or they'd vote with their feet."
4. Internal failures and overstretching will cause US decline
David C. Hendrickson 2005 (Robert J. Fox Distinguished Service Prof. at Colorado College, World Policy Journal, Summer, http://worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj05-2/hendrickson.html)
A variant of the realist argument is the historical/structural perspective on the rise and fall of great powers. On the basis of its logic, some scholars argue that overspending, overstretching, and internal failures will eventually cause the United States' decline.13 Although the historical records of past great powers (e.g., Spain and Portugal) attest to the strength of this argument, one must be cautious of its application to the United States for three reasons. First, no previous empire had the benefit of capitalism in its highly developed form as the United States enjoys today. Second, several past empires and major powers managed to persevere, albeit in a weakened form, contrary to the expectations of perspectives that focus on automatic structural change. For instance, depending on the Western or Eastern manifestation, the Roman Empire lasted from 500 to 1,100 years. The Ottoman Empire survived for more than 400 years; the Mughal Empire in India more than 300; and the British Empire more than 250. Without World War II, the British Empire would probably have lasted even longer.
Share with your friends: |