Written by: Manu Meel and Isaiah Sirois #mags lab
Download 0.65 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Pakistan collapse causes global tensions and nuclear war
- 2NC – Internal Link
- 2NC – Drones = Better
Pakistan Scenario1NCDrone strikes in Pakistan goodWeitz 11 [Richard Weitz- Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, Fed 2011, “WHY UAVS HAVE BECOME THE ANTI-TERROR WEAPON OF CHOICE IN THE AFGHAN-PAK BORDER,” http://www.sldinfo.com/why-uavs-have-become-the-anti-terror-weapon-of-choice-in-the-afghan-pak-border/, mm] Perhaps the most important argument in favor of using UAV strikes in northwest Pakistan and other terrorist havens is that alternative options are typically worse. The Pakistani military has made clear that it is neither willing nor capable of repressing the terrorists in the tribal regions. Although the controversial ceasefire accords Islamabad earlier negotiated with tribal leaders have formally collapsed, the Pakistani Army has repeatedly postponed announced plans to occupy North Waziristan, which is where the Afghan insurgents and the foreign fighters supporting them and al-Qaeda are concentrated. Such a move that would meet fierce resistance from the region’s population, which has traditionally enjoyed extensive autonomy. The recent massive floods have also forced the military to divert its assets to humanitarian purposes, especially helping the more than ten million displaced people driven from their homes. But the main reason for their not attacking the Afghan Taliban or its foreign allies based in Pakistan’s tribal areas is that doing so would result in their joining the Pakistani Taliban in its vicious fight with the Islamabad government. Yet, sending in U.S. combat troops on recurring raids or a protracted occupation of Pakistani territory would provoke widespread outrage in Pakistan and perhaps in other countries as well since the UN Security Council mandate for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan only authorizes military operations in Pakistan. On the one known occasion when U.S. Special Forces actually conducted a ground assault in the tribal areas in 2008, the Pakistanis reacted furiously. On September 3, 2008, a U.S. Special Forces team attacked a suspected terrorist base in Pakistan’s South Waziristan region, killing over a dozen people. These actions evoked strong Pakistani protests. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who before November 2007 had led Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), issued a written statement denying that “any agreement or understanding [existed] with the coalition forces” [in Afghanistan] allowing them to strike inside Pakistan.” The general pledged to defend Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity “at all cost.” Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari also criticized the U.S. ground operation on Pakistani territory. On September 16, 2008, the Pakistani army announced it would shoot any U.S. forces attempting to cross the Afghan-Pakistan border. On several occasions since then, Pakistani troops and militia have fired at what they believed to be American helicopters flying from Afghanistan to deploy Special Forces on their territory, though there is no conclusive evidence that the U.S. military has ever attempted another large-scale commando raid in Pakistan after the September 2008 incident. Further large-scale U.S. military operations into Pakistan could easily rally popular support behind the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It might even precipitate the collapse of the Islambad government and its replacement by a regime in nuclear-armed Pakistan that is less friendly to Washington. Given these alternatives, continuing the drone strikes appears to be the best of the limited options available to deal with a core problem, giving sanctuary to terrorists striking US and coalition forces in Afghanistan and beyond. Pakistan collapse causes global tensions and nuclear warMorgan 2007 Stephen John Morgan, Former Member of British Labour Party Executive Committee; political psychologist; researcher of Chaos/Complexity Theory, “Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?” http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639 // IS Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children born that year was “Osama” (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d’état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A new war, and possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could no be ruled out. Atomic Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a “Pandora's box” for the region and the world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real strategic possibility. This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It could usher in a new Cold War with China and Russia pitted against the US. 2NC – Internal LinkPakistani strikes are key to solve instabilityJohnston and Sarbahi, 15 Patrick B. Johnston and Anoop K. Sarbahi, *RAND Corporation, **UMN, “The Impact of U.S. Drone Strikes on Terrorism in Pakistan,” 4/21/15, http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf // IS This article offers a systematic analysis of the relationship between U.S. drone strikes and militant violence in northwestern Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. Our analysis suggests that drone strikes are negatively associated with various measures of militant violence, both within individual FATA agencies and their immediate neighborhoods. As should be expected, our findings show that the results presented in this study of the effects of drone strikes on militant behavior, albeit strong, are primarily contemporaneous, and there is only limited evidence of their persistence over longer periods of time. Such a temporal dynamic may explain the U.S.’ persistent use of drone strikes in militant strongholds in the Tribal Areas of northwestern Pakistan and southern Yemen, suggesting the possibility that persistent counterterrorism pressure needs to be applied against militant organizations to counter their cycles of violence effectively. Nonetheless, the plausible exogeneity of the week-to-week timing and location of drone strikes, as discussed earlier, suggests that these findings can be plausibly interpreted as causal. Despite the econometric techniques used to mitigate selection bias in our analysis, caution in inferring causality is necessary due to the possibility of selection bias, which is inherent in any observational study. The implication of these findings, of course, is that as technology continues to become increasingly sophisticated, warfare is likely to become increasingly “virtual,” if not bloodless. Adversaries—not only governments, but also non-state actors such as insurgents, terrorists, and criminal organizations—will adapt their organizational strategies and behavior in an attempt to reduce their vulnerability to state countermeasures, and some are likely to try to leverage new technologies—possibly including drones, whether armed or unarmed—for their own use. Indeed, Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria have already begun flying small UAVs, both for aerial surveillance and as propaganda that demonstrates the Islamic State’s sophisticated capabilities. In the near term, however, powerful states are likely to continue to exploit the technological advantages they currently enjoy. As long as they remain an effective counterterrorism tool, drones are here to stay.
Alternative to drone strikes is military invasion- far worseLlenza 11 [Michael Llenza- Senior Navy Fellow at the Atlantic Council and Foreign affairs specialist at NATO, Spring 2011, “Targeted Killings in Pakistan: A Defense,” http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Targeted%20Killings.pdf, mm] Regardless of the possibility of civilian deaths, if the United States continues its policy of targeted killings, which by all signs it appears to, then the humanitarian benefits of drone strikes far outweigh their costs of the alternative. Predator strikes introduce greater discrimination in targeting than full-scale military assault or large-scale warfare would permit (Anderson, 2009, p.8). They allow the United States to seek out those who mean it harm without having to launch a full-scale invasion or placing U.S. forces at risk. Without placing U.S. and coalition forces at risk, the government can go after the terrorist without the fear of a counterassault that might increase the use of force and cause more collateral damage (Anderson, 2009, pp.7-8). Although some may see military action on the ground more palatable than a standoff killing, invading a hostile area that is predominantly civilian would inevitably result in the death and injury of far more innocent people than those caused by targeted drone strikes. In addition, this measure is more commensurate with the conditions of self-defense, that those killed be responsible for the threat being posed (Statman). Furthermore, as a strategic option, drone strikes are a prudent alternative to what may otherwise result in a larger, costlier and undesirable conflict (Anderson, 2010, p.32). Some critics of the drone operations would rather see Pakistan go after these terrorists, but from a humanitarian standpoint, one need only consider the political unreliability of their government along with the ineffectiveness of the Pakistani army and its penchant for long range artillery barrages over counterinsurgency (The Daily Times, 2010; Anderson, 2009, pp.8-9). Pakistani researchers’ state that attacks by the Pakistani military have caused far more collateral deaths than those by drones with relatively no success (Rodriguez & Zucchino). Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|