1. The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

2. List(en) Focused Research Predictable Intent
List topic (as opposed to open ended) – Talk about solvency dependent T questions (it will never be substantially reduce hegemony)

3. Why foreign presence?

4. Why would countries want to let us do that?
The agreements that govern U.S. presence in another country, most commonly Status of Forces Agreements [SOFA], refer to personnel.

5. Military Presence
Troops
Bases
Weapons

6. Military Presence
Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and the most visible centerpieces, of the U.S. military presence overseas. (1)
Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and the most visible centerpieces, of the U.S. military presence overseas. The level of American involvement in an area in which an opportunity takes place is perhaps the most visible demonstration of US commitment. US military involvement as defined includes: (1) an established American military presence, defined as a U.S. military base, (2) the furnishing of military aid to some state or organization, or (3) a prior use of force. Such investment represents American interest and obligation to allies, enemies, and neutral parties alike. (2)
1. Catherine Lutz, Anthropology Professor-Brown University, 2009, The Bases of Empire: the global struggle against U.S. military posts, ed. Catherine Lutz, p. 6
2. James Meernik, University of North Texas, 1994, “Presidential Decision Making and the Political Use of Military Force,” International Studies Quarterly, Volume 38, p. 127

7. Can the Affirmative Plan Reduce the Troop Presence with Actions Short of Withdrawal? (Smaller bases/footprint or rotational commitments)

8. Can the Affirmative Reduce Commitments that Establish “Virtual” Presence?

9. Are Temporary Visits Sufficient to Constitute “Military Presence”?

10. Can the Affirmative Reduce Private Military Contractors?

11. Must the Affirmative Plan Involve the Abrogation or Renegotiation of a Formal Agreement?

12. Does “Sea-Basing” Constitute Military Presence?

13. Iraq Tons of Troops PMCs - Private Military Contractors
Deadline Exists (Pace)
Withdraw v. Withdrawal

15. Iraq 1. Relations a. US-Iraq b. Middle East 2. Modeling a. Democracy
b. Credibility
c. Terrorism
3. Domestic Politics
4. STABILITY

16. Kuwait Important Because of Oil (Cause of First Gulf War)
Smallest Country (and part of topic)
Stationing for other Operations
Does have Missile Defense
Weapon of the Week

17. Very Political / Symbolic
South Korea
28,000 US Troops
Very Political / Symbolic
"Deter hostile acts of external aggression against the Republic of Korea by a combined military effort of the United States of America and the ROK; and in the event deterrence fails, defeat an external armed attack against the ROK."

19. South Korea 1. Straight Reduction of Troops
a. Great Solvency Advocates
b. Big Advantages
i. North Korea
ii. Relations
iii. Modernization
iv. Korean War... Inevitable?
2. Critical Reductions
a. Prostitution
b. Cultural Destruction
3. Korean Soft Power
a. “Middle Power”

20. Current Withdrawal Deadline:
Afghanistan
70,000 US Troops
+ 30,000 (Surge)
+40,000 NATO Forces
Current Withdrawal Deadline:
July 2011

22. Afghanistan 1. Pure Withdrawal - We Can’t Win
a. It Hurts Hegemony and Legitimacy
b. Emboldens Enemies
c. Overstretch
2. Withdrawal Inevitable - Just a question of meeting the deadline.
3. Drug Enforcement

23. Only Country With Nukes
Turkey
3,000 US Troops
Only Country With Nukes
Only NATO Country

24. Turkey 1. Hegemony 2. Islam / Middle East Relations a. Probably Bad
a. Democratic Modeling
b. Terrorism
3. Remove Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs)
a. Proliferation
b. Iran

25. Japan WWII and The Constitution Hatyama and Party Politics
“Commitment to Defend”
40,000 Troops
Hatyama and Party Politics
Okinawa
2014 Guam Agreement
(Gradual v. Immediate)
PM is the leader of parliamentary government. In 2009, Hatyama was elected as PM as a member of DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan), a more liberal and progressive party. Campaign promise was to move US out of bases. US disagreed, and Hatyama resigned. There’s a Parliament election in July.
If US left, the nature of the alliance would change and China, NK, Taiwan relations would change. By 2014, some of our forces will be moved to Guam which creates uniqueness arguments and SQ arguments that gradual phase out is better. If US left, would Japan develop nuclear weapons or a defense force and what implications would that have on relations? Human rights and environment arguments lend themselves to K debates. Like the way we skirt international law.

27. Japan
i. North Korea
ii. Relations
iii. Modernization
iv. Environment