David Heidt Topicality File

Topicality - Military Presence topic Michigan - Summer 20101/98

Topicality - Military Presence topic

***Substantially ................................................................................................................ 2 1nc - Substantially means a 50% reduction...................................................................................3XT – Substantially reduce is 50%...................................................................................................4AT: Substantially is arbitrary.........................................................................................................5Substantially reduce is 25%...........................................................................................................6Substantial means considerable quantity.......................................................................................7Substantially means without material qualification.......................................................................8Substantially means in the main....................................................................................................9Substantially means in substance................................................................................................10AT: HR 4421 / Comprehensive Base Closure Act.........................................................................111400 troops is substantial............................................................................................................12

***Reduce ....................................................................................................................... 12 1nc – Reduce excludes eliminate..................................................................................................131nc – Reduce requires permanence.............................................................................................141nc – Reduce excludes preventing future increases....................................................................151nc - Reduce means to decrease..................................................................................................16XT – Reduce means decrease numerically...................................................................................17AT: Reduce excludes eliminate.....................................................................................................19AT: Reduce excludes suspend......................................................................................................20AT: Reduce is restore...................................................................................................................21

***Its neg ........................................................................................................................ 21 1nc – Its excludes private military contractors............................................................................22Its means belonging to the United States federal government....................................................23AT: Private contracts are agents of the federal government.......................................................24AT: Private contractors are part of military presence..................................................................25

***Its aff .......................................................................................................................... 25 Its means related to...................................................................................................................... 26PMCs are agents of the government............................................................................................27Military presence includes PMCs.................................................................................................28AT: Military means belonging to the armed forces......................................................................29

***Military Presence ....................................................................................................... 29 1nc - Presence requires physical presence – excludes “virtual” presence...................................30XT – Presence requires physical presence...................................................................................31XT - Presence excludes the nuclear umbrella..............................................................................331nc – Presence must be linked to military objectives...................................................................34XT – presence must be linked to political objectives....................................................................351nc – Presence means only troops...............................................................................................38XT: Presence means stationed personnel.....................................................................................391nc – Presence excludes active combat missions / crisis response..............................................43XT – Presence excludes combat missions.....................................................................................44AT: Presence is just the military means, not a mission................................................................47Presence excludes crisis response...............................................................................................48AT: Pape definition that says presence includes combat.............................................................49AT: Presence includes more than troop deployments..................................................................50AT: Your definition says “forward” presence...............................................................................51AT: Resolution says “reduce military” not “military presence”...................................................52


***Presence - Affirmative ................................................................................................ 52 Presence – broad affirmative definitions......................................................................................53Presence includes military material.............................................................................................57Presence includes combat operations..........................................................................................58Presence includes temporary visits..............................................................................................60Presence includes virtual presence..............................................................................................61Presence includes training...........................................................................................................63AT: Greer definition of presence..................................................................................................64AT: Presence is only deterrence...................................................................................................65Presence only refers to military posture – not a mission.............................................................66Presence only refers to a military posture – not a mission...........................................................67AT: Definitions of “forward presence”..........................................................................................68AT: Reducing presence requires reducing military capability.....................................................69AT: Presence requires visibility....................................................................................................70

***Military violations ...................................................................................................... 70 1nc – Military is only Ground Forces............................................................................................71XT – Military is only ground forces...............................................................................................72Military Must Be All..................................................................................................................... 73AT: Military is only ground forces................................................................................................74

***Police presence .......................................................................................................... 74 Police presence refers to civilian public police forces.................................................................75Police presence is the deployment of US police for security purposes........................................76

***In ................................................................................................................................ 76 In means throughout.................................................................................................................... 77In is within.................................................................................................................................... 78Country boundaries include a 12 mile territorial sea...................................................................80Presence must be within..............................................................................................................81

***Substantially


1nc - Substantially means a 50% reduction

A. Interpretation – presence refers to the totality of US military power in a countryBlechman et al, 97 – President of DFI International, and has held positions in the Department of Defense, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget (Barry, Strategic Review, Spring, “Military Presence Abroad in a New Era: The Role of Airpower,” p. 14)

The highly complex nature of military presence operations, with manifestations both psychological and physical, makes their effects difficult to identify and assess. Nonetheless, presence missions (whether employing forces stationed abroad or afloat, temporarily deployed or permanently based overseas, or based in the United States) are integral parts of U.S. defense strategy. Through routine presence operations, the United States seeks to reinforce alliances and friendships, make credible security commitments to crucial regions, and nurture cooperative political relations. More episodically, forces engaged in presence operations can dissuade aggressors from hostile demands, help prevent or contain regional crises, and, when conflict erupts nonetheless, provide an infrastructure for the transition to war.Given its multifaceted nature, neither practitioners nor scholars have yet settled on a single definition of presence. Technically, the term refers to both a military posture and a military objective. This study uses the term “presence” to refer to a continuum of military activities, from a variety of interactions during peacetime to crisis response involving both forces on the scene and those based in the United States. Our definition follows that articulated by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Presence is the totality of U.S. instruments of power deployed overseas (both permanently and temporarily) along with the requisite infrastructure and sustainment capabilities.”2

A substantial reduction in presence requires at least a 50% decreaseComprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act, 92 (1992 H.R. 4421 ; 102 H.R. 4421, text of the Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992, introduced by Olympia Snowe, lexis)

TITLE I-ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO BE CLOSEDSEC. 101. CLEANUP SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN BASES ON SUPERFUND NATIONALPRIORITIES LIST. (a) CLEANUP SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN BASES ON NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST.-(1)With respect to each military installation described in subsection (b)- (A) before the installation is closed or substantial reductions in its operations have occurred, at least 75 percent of the remedial action required on the installation pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) shall be completed; and (B) not later than two years after the installation is closed or substantial reductions in its operations have occurred, all of the remedial action required on the installation pursuant to such Act shall be completed. (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), substantial reductions in the operations of a military installation shall be considered to have occurred if more than 50 percent of the personnel assigned to the installation, including employees and members of the Armed Forces, have been reassigned and moved to another installation.

B. Violation – the affirmative is a minor reduction in presence

C. Voting issue –


1. limits – allowing minor reductions allows countless variations of small affs likes reducing a single type of intelligence gathering or a covert op in Afghanistan or arms sales to Japan; it makes adequate research impossible

2. negative ground – topic disads won’t link to minor modifications, and generic ground is vitally important to protect since there are 6 different countries with diverse literature bases


XT – Substantially reduce is 50%

A substantial reduction in military personnel is greater than 50%THOMAS.gov, 92 – Summary of H.R.4421, the Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR04421:@@@L&summ2=m&)

Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992 - Title I: Environmental Restoration At Military Installations To Be Closed - Requires, with respect to each military installation which is on the National Priorities List (for substantial environmental cleanup) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 and which is to be closed under Federal base closure Acts or otherwise by the Department of Defense (DOD): (1) that at least 75 percent of the environmental remedial action required under Federal law be completed before the installation is closed or substantial reductions in its operations have occurred; and (2) that all of the required remedial action be occurred no later than two years after such installation is closed or substantially reduced. Defines a "substantial reduction" as the reassignment of more than 50 percent of its personnel.

Substantial reduction is at least 50%Pallone, 3 – US Congressional Representative (Text of H.R. 3189, introduced by Pallone, to amend Title XVII of the Social Security Act,” 9/25, http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3189.html)

`(7) SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION- The term `substantial reduction'-- `(A) means, as determined under regulations of the Secretary and with respect to a qualified beneficiary, a reduction in the average actuarial value of benefits under the plan (through reduction or elimination of benefits, an increase in premiums, deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance, or any combination thereof), since the date of commencement of coverage of the beneficiary by reason of the retirement of the covered employee (or, if later, January 6, 2004), in an amount equal to at least 50 percent of the total average actuarial value of the benefits under the plan as of such date (taking into account an appropriate adjustment to permit comparison of values over time); and `(B) includes an increase in premiums required to an amount that exceeds the premium level described in the fourth sentence of section 602(3).'


AT: Substantially is arbitrary

Substantially must be given meaning even if arbitrary – contextual uses are keyDevinsky, 02 (Paul, IP UPDATE, VOLUME 5, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2002, “Is Claim "Substantially" Definite? Ask Person of Skill in the Art”, http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm)

In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court, by failing to look beyond the intrinsic claim construction evidence to consider what a person of skill in the art

would understand in a "technologic context," erroneously concluded the term "substantially" made a claim fatally indefinite . Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related to an improved push rod for an internal combustion engine. The patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has "substantially constant wall thickness" throughout the rod and rounded seats at the tips. The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" was not supported in the specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite. The district court recognized that the use of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in a particular "technologic context" be found solely in intrinsic evidence: "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field of the invention."

Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that "resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and

specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention." The

Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instruction that "[t]he question is not whether the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but how the phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading the patent documents."


Substantially reduce is 25%

A substantial reduction is 25%US Code, 10 (TITLE 10. ARMED FORCES SUBTITLE A. GENERAL MILITARY LAW PART IV. SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT CHAPTER 148. NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION SUBCHAPTER II. POLICIES AND PLANNING, Current as of 5/17/10, lexis)

"(f) Definitions. For purposes of this section: "(1) The term "major defense program" means a program that is carried out to produce or acquire a major system (as defined in section 2302(5) of title 10, United States Code). "(2) The terms 'substantial reduction' and 'substantially reduced', with respect to a defense contract under a major defense program, mean a reduction of 25 percent or more in the total dollar value of the funds obligated by the contract.".


Substantial means considerable quantity

Substantial- considerable in quantity.Merriam-Webster, 8 (“substantial”, 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=substantially)

Main Entry: sub·stan·tial1 a: consisting of or relating to substance b: not imaginary or illusory : real, true c: important, essential2: ample to satisfy and nourish : full <a substantial meal>3 a: possessed of means : well-to-do b: considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage>4: firmly constructed : sturdy <a substantial house>5: being largely but not wholly that which is specified <a substantial lie>

Substantial- Of ample or considerable amount, quantity, or size.Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 6 (Dictionary.com Unabridged, “substantial”, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=substantially&r=66)

1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of money.2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.3. of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique.4. basic or essential; fundamental: two stories in substantial agreement.5. wealthy or influential: one of the substantial men of the town.6. of real worth, value, or effect: substantial reasons.7. pertaining to the substance, matter, or material of a thing.8. of or pertaining to the essence of a thing; essential, material, or important.9. being a substance; having independent existence.10. Philosophy. pertaining to or of the nature of substance rather than an accident or attribute.

Substantially- to a great or significant extent.Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 8 (“substantially”, 2008, http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/substantially?view=uk)

substantiallyadverb 1 to a great or significant extent. 2 for the most part; essentially.


Substantially means without material qualification

Substantially is without material qualificationBlack’s Law Dictionary 1991 [p. 1024]

Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification.


Substantially means in the main

Substantially means including the main partWORDS AND PHRASES, 1964, p. 818.

“Substantially” means in substance; in the main; essentially; by including the material or essential part.

Substantially means in the most important or basic wayMacMillan Dictionary, 10 (Macmillan English Dictionary - a free English dictionary online with thesaurus and with pronunciation from Macmillan Publishers Limited, http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/substantially)

Substantially1 by a large amount or degreeWe have substantially increased the number of programs.The city has grown substantially.2 very strongly made or builta substantially built brick house3. in the most important or basic wayThe two women hold substantially equivalent positions in the two companies.

Substantially means essentiallyEncarta, 09 (Encarta World English Dictionary, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861716589)

sub·stan·tial·lyadverb Definition: 1. considerably: in an extensive, substantial, or ample way2. essentially : in essence


Substantially means in substance

Substantially means in substance, not illusoryMerriam-Webster, 8 (“substantial”, 2008, http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=substantially)

Main Entry: sub·stan·tial1 a: consisting of or relating to substance b: not imaginary or illusory : real, true c: important, essential2: ample to satisfy and nourish : full <a substantial meal>3 a: possessed of means : well-to-do b: considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage>4: firmly constructed : sturdy <a substantial house>5: being largely but not wholly that which is specified <a substantial lie>


AT: HR 4421 / Comprehensive Base Closure Act

HR 4421 was never enacted – it’s not federal lawBill Tracking Report, 92 (Bill Tracking Report for the Comprehensive Base Closure Reform and Recovery Act of 1992, 1992 Bill Tracking H.R. 4421; 102 Bill Tracking H.R. 4421, lexis)

COMPREHENSIVE BASE CLOSURE REFORM AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1992SPONSOR: Representative Olympia J. Snowe R-MEDATE-INTRO: March 10, 1992LAST-ACTION-DATE: March 10, 1992STATUS: Not Enacted TOTAL-COSPONSORS: 0 CosponsorsSYNOPSIS: A bill to establish a comprehensive recovery program for communities businesses, and workers adversely affected by the closure or realignment of military installations.


1400 troops is substantial

A reduction of 1400 troops is a substantial reductionO’Hanlon, 8 - senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a senior advisor to the Center for a New American Security. (Michael, “Unfinished Business U.S. Overseas Military Presence in the 21st Century,”http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/06_military_ohanlon/06_military_ohanlon.pdf) GPR = Global Posture Review

The GPR will reduce total numbers of airmen and airwomen in Europe by 3,000 to 4,000.29 Incirlik in south central Turkey, after having hosted U.S. combat aircraft and more than 3,000 Americans for years during Operation Northern Watch, has been downsized to a total of some 1,600 Americans that primarily support logistics and resupply flights. It is still a busy base given the amount of U.S. traffic going eastward from Europe, but operates on a substantially smaller scale than before.30 In Germany, Ramstein Air Base is also a logistics hub, with an airlift wing as its core permanent unit.31 Spangdahlem Air Base by contrast hosts F-16 and A-10 combat aircraft.32 In Italy, Aviano Air Base hosts several dozen F-16 combat aircraft, and was critical in the air war against Serbia in 1999.33 Assuming allies permit, these airfields can be used for other types of planes, including aircraft of particular importance during crises or conflicts in Europe and neighboring regions, and for purposed such as intelligence, communications, and electronic warfare assets.


1nc – Reduce excludes eliminate

A. Interpretation - Reduce excludes eliminateWords and Phrases, 2 (vol 36B, p. 80)

Mass. 1905. Rev.Laws, c.203, § 9, provides that, if two or more cases are tried together in the superior court, the presiding judge may “reduce” the witness fees and other costs, but “not less than the ordinary witness fees, and other costs recoverable in one of the cases” which are so tried together shall be allowed. Held that, in reducing the costs, the amount in all the cases together is to be considered and reduced, providing that there must be left in the aggregate an amount not less than the largest sum recoverable in any of the cases. The word “reduce,” in its ordinary signification, does not mean to cancel, destroy, or bring to naught, but to diminish , lower, or bring to an inferior state.—Green v. Sklar, 74 N.E. 595, 188 Mass. 363.

B. Violation – the affirmative withdraws completely

C. Voting issue –

1. limits – they create six more affirmatives and explode the topic literature base; we have to be accountable for the entire peace movement and answer critical affs which require distinct strategies

2. predictability – our evidence signifies the ordinary meaning of reduce; moving beyond the ordinary meaning of words sets a precedent to interpret the all other words unpredictably

***Reduce


1nc – Reduce requires permanence

A. Reduce means permanent reduction – it’s distinct from “suspend”Reynolds, 59 – Judge (In the Matter of Doris A. Montesani, Petitioner, v. Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department 9 A.D.2d 51; 189 N.Y.S.2d 695; 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7391 August 13, 1959)

Section 83's counterpart with regard to nondisability pensioners, section 84, prescribes a reduction only if the pensioner should again take a public job. The disability pensioner is penalized if he takes any type of employment. The reason for the difference, of course, is that in one case the only reason pension benefits are available is because the pensioner is considered incapable of gainful employment, while in the other he has fully completed his "tour" and is considered as having earned his reward with almost no strings attached. It would be manifestly unfair to the ordinary retiree to accord the disability retiree the benefits of the System to which they both belong when the latter is otherwise capable of earning a living and had not fulfilled his service obligation. If it were to be held that withholdings under section 83 were payable whenever the pensioner died or stopped his other employment the whole purpose of the provision would be defeated, i.e., the System might just as well have continued payments during the other employment since it must later pay it anyway. [***13] The section says "reduced", does not say that monthly payments shall be temporarily suspended; it says that the pension itself shall be reduced. The plain dictionary meaning of the word is to diminish, lower or

degrade. The word "reduce" seems adequately to indicate permanency.

B. Violation – the aff only suspends a military operation, it doesn’t reduce it

C. Voting issue –

1. limits – allowing suspension effectively doubles the size of the topic – all currently run affs can be suspended or reduced

2. negative ground – allowing suspension destroys our disad links, it allows them to say that the possibility of resuming presence deters or signals that the US is still committed


1nc – Reduce excludes preventing future increases

A. Reduce means to diminish in size – this excludes refusing to accept future increasesGuy, 91 - Circuit Judge (TIM BOETTGER, BECKY BOETTGER, individually and as Next Friend for their Minor Daughter, AMANDA BOETTGER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. OTIS R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services (89-1832); and C. PATRICK BABCOCK, Director, Michigan Department of Social Services (89-1831), Defendants-Appellants Nos. 89-1831, 89-1832 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 923 F.2d 1183; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 671)

The district court concluded that the plain meaning of the statutory language does not apply to the termination of employment one obtains on his own. A termination, the court held, is not a refusal to accept employment. In this case, the plain meaning of the various words suggests that "refuse to accept" is not the equivalent of "terminate" and "reduce." As a matter of logic [**18] and common understanding, one cannot terminate or reduce something that one has not accepted. Acceptance is [*1189] a pre-condition to termination or reduction. Thus, a refusal to accept is a precursor to, not the equivalent of, a termination or a reduction. n3 n.3 This distinction is also reflected in the dictionary definitions of the words. "Accept" is defined in anticipatory terms that suggest a precondition ("to undertake the responsibility of"), whereas "terminate" and "reduce" are defined in conclusory terms ("to bring to end, . . . to discontinue"; "to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number."). See Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (9th ed. 1985).

B. Violation – the affirmative prevents a planned deployment, it doesn’t reduce an existing deployment

C. Voting issue –

1. limits – they explode the topic, they force us to prepare for all current military presence and every possible proposal to increase presence. Any aff that has a card saying some deployment is “likely” meets their burden for a new aff

2. negative ground – they destroy our disads, all of our links are to existing deployments


1nc - Reduce means to decrease

A. Reduce means decrease – excludes the possibility or result of increasingFriedman, 99 – Senior Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CUNA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. 98-5033 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 169 F.3d 737; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 1832; 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,245; 83 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 799 February 9, 1999, Decided, lexis)

B. CUNA's position has another fatal flaw. Section 808 is captioned "Policy Dividends Deduction," and § 808(c) states:(1) In generalExcept as limited by paragraph (2), the deduction for policyholder dividends for any taxable year shall be an amount equal to the policyholder dividends [**15] paid or accrued during the taxable year.(2) Reduction in case of mutual companiesIn the case of a mutual life insurance company, the deduction for policyholder dividends for any taxable year shall be reduced by the amount determined under section 809."The amount determined" under § 809, by which the policyholder dividend deduction is to be "reduced," is the "excess" specified in § 809(c)(1). Like the word "excess," the word "reduced" is a common, unambiguous, non-technical term that is given its ordinary meaning. See San Joaquin Fruit & Inv. Co., 297 U.S. at 499. "Reduce" means "to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number." Webster's Third International Dictionary 1905. Under CUNA's interpretation of "excess" in § 809(c), however, the result of the "amount determination" under § 809 would be not to reduce the policyholder dividends deduction, but to increase it. This would directly contradict the explicit instruction in § 808(c)(2) that the deduction "be reduced." The word "reduce" cannot be interpreted, as CUNA would treat it, to mean "increase."

B. Violation – the affirmative doesn’t cause a net reduction, they result in a increase

C. Voting issue –

1. limits – allowing the aff to effectually increase military presence explodes our research burdens

2. negative ground – their affirmative creates a result that destroys all of our disad links, which stem from the net reduction in presence


XT – Reduce means decrease numerically

Reduce means to diminish to a smaller numberOxford English Dictionary, 89 (online, at Emory)

reduce, v.26. a. To bring down, diminish to a smaller number, amount, extent, etc., or to a single thing.

Reduce means to make smallerWebster’s, 93 (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, online at Emory)

reduce vb -ED/-ING/-Sb (1) : to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number : make smaller: LESSEN, SHRINK

Reduce means to lessenOxford English Dictionary, 89 (online, at Emory)

reduce, v.b. To lower, diminish, lessen.

Reduce means to decreaseEncarta World Dictionary, 07 (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861700111)

reduceDefinition:1. transitive and intransitive verb decrease: to become smaller in size, number, extent, degree, or intensity, or make something smaller in this way

Reduce means to diminish in sizeMerriam Webster Online Dictionary, 08 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce)reducetransitive verb

1 a: to draw together or cause to converge : consolidate <reduce all the questions to one> b (1): to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number <reduce taxes> <reduce the likelihood of war> (2): to decrease the volume and concentrate the flavor of by boiling <add the wine and reduce the sauce for two minutes> c: to narrow down : restrict <the Indians were reduced to small reservations> d: to make shorter : abridge

Reduce means to make smallerCambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 08 (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=66270&dict=CALD)

reduceverb [I or T] to make something smaller in size, amount, degree, importance, etc:Do nuclear weapons really reduce the risk of war?The plane reduced speed as it approached the airport.My weight reduces when I stop eating sugar.We bought a television that was reduced (from £500 to £350) in the sales.To make a thicker sauce, reduce the ingredients by boiling for 5 minutes.

I reduced the problem to a few simple questions.

Reduce means to weakenAmerican Heritage, 10 (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/reduce)


re·duceVERB:re·duced, re·duc·ing, re·duc·es VERB:tr.1. To bring down, as in extent, amount, or degree; diminish. See Synonyms at decrease.2. To bring to a humbler, weaker, difficult, or forced state or condition; especially:

a. To gain control of; conquer: "a design to reduce them under absolute despotism" (Declaration of Independence). b. To subject to destruction: Enemy bombers reduced the city to rubble. c. To weaken bodily: was reduced almost to emaciation. d. To sap the spirit or mental energy of.e. To compel to desperate acts: The Depression reduced many to begging on street corners. f. To lower in rank or grade. See Synonyms at demote.g. To powder or pulverize.h. To thin (paint) with a solvent.


AT: Reduce excludes eliminate

Reduce includes eliminationUS Code, 09 (26 CFR 54.4980F-1, lexis)

§ 54.4980F-1 Notice requirements for certain pension plan amendments significantly reducing the rate of future benefit accrual.

(c) Elimination or cessation of benefits. For purposes of this section, the terms reduce or reduction include eliminate or cease or elimination or cessation.

Reduce can include an eliminationFederal Register, 10 (26 CFR 1.411(d)-3, Current as of 5/19/10, lexis)

(7) Eliminate; elimination; reduce; reduction. The terms eliminate or elimination when used in connection with a section 411(d)(6)(B) [26 USCS § 411(d)(6)(B)] protected benefit mean to eliminate or the elimination of an optional form of benefit or an early retirement benefit and to reduce or a reduction in a retirement-type subsidy. The terms reduce or reduction when used in connection with a retirement-type subsidy mean to reduce or a reduction in the amount of the subsidy. For purposes of this section, an elimination includes a reduction and a reduction includes an elimination.


AT: Reduce excludes suspend

Reduce is a form of suspensionWidener, 01 – Judge for US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (CARRINGTON GARDENS ASSOCIATES, I, A VIRGINIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENRY G. CISNEROS, SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee, 1 Fed. Appx. 239; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 634, 1/17, lexis)

Under the regulation, 24 C.F.R. § 886.123, the payments to Carrington could have been stopped for good, the contract terms aside. For construction of the contract terms, we adopt the wording of the opinion of the district court for the next three paragraphs of this opinion which follow:The plain meaning of the word "withhold" is "to retain in one's possession that which belongs to or is claimed or sought by another. . . . To refrain from paying that which is due." Black's Law Dictionary 1602 (6th ed. 1990). Using this common meaning of "withhold," HUD clearly has the authority to retain housing assistance payments. But, the HAP Contract's withhold remedy also limits how long [**7] the funds may be retained. The housing assistance payments may be retained only "until the default under this Contract has been cured." Tr. Ex. 8, § 26. Once the default is cured, HUD may no longer keep the retained funds. This remedy, therefore, creates a trust type relationship where HUD has the authority to keep the withheld funds on the owner's account only while the owner is in default and thereafter must pay out the withheld funds when the default is cured.

In contrast, the reduce-or-suspend remedy suggests a more permanent forfeiture of funds. The word "suspend" means "to interrupt; to cause to cease for a time; to post pone; to stay, delay, or hinder; to discontinue temporarily, but with an expectation or purpose of resumption." Black's Law Dictionary 1446 (6th ed. 1990). "Reduce" means "to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1905 (1981). <3> Based on these definitions, "reduce" is merely a less radical form of "suspend."Under the common meanings of "reduce" and "suspend," HUD has the authority to discontinue housing assistance payments entirely or diminish the size of the payments while Carrington Gardens [**8] is in default. Like the withhold remedy, this remedy limits how long payments may be discontinued or diminished -- only "until the default under this Contract has been cured." Tr. Ex. 8, § 26. After the default has been cured, therefore, HUD must resume full housing assistance payments. Unlike the withhold remedy, however, under the plain language of the reduce-or-suspend remedy, HUD is under no obligation to pay out any discontinued or diminished funds. The words "suspend" or "reduce" furnish no inference or suggestion that HUD is obligated to retain suspended or reduced funds on the owner's account until a default is cured. This language in the HAP Contract speaks [*243] only to HUD's obligation to begin full payments after the default is cured. JA 546-548.


AT: Reduce is restore

Defining reduce as restore is archaic and obsoleteWebster’s, 93 (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, online at Emory)

reduce vb -ED/-ING/-S2 archaic a : to lead back : cause to return

» reduce the Protestants within the pale of the Romish Church- Nicholas Tindal«

b : to restore to righteousness: SAVE »if any of these erring men may be reduced, I have my end- John Milton«

3 a obs : REDIRECT »with these words reduce they thoughts that roam- William Austin«

b obs : to bring back» reduce , replant our bishop president- Edward Dering«

c : to bring to a specified state or condition by guidance or leadership»his task was to reduce to order the economic and political chaos following war- W.L.Fleming«

4 archaic a : to cause to recur

»traitors that would reduce these bloody days again- Shak.«

b : to restore to a former condition» reduce them to their former shape- Jonathan Swift«


1nc – Its excludes private military contractors

A. Interpretation – its implies ownershipGlossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005 (http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)

Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession or ownership.EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.)

Military means belonging to the armed forcesCambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 10 (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/military_1)

military adjectiverelating to or belonging to the armed forcesforeign military intervention

B. Violation – private military contractors aren’t owned by the government, they are independent

C. Voting issue –

1. limits – including PMCs doubles our Iraq and Afghanistan research, and it’s a huge, entirely separate body of research that risks overstretch

2. negative ground – few of our generic disads to presence apply to PMCs, because the aff maintains all normal US presence

***Its neg


Its means belonging to the United States federal government

Its means possessionEncarta, 9 (Encarta World English Dictionary, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861622735)

its [ its ] adjective Definition: indicating possession : used to indicate that something belongs or relates to something

The park changed its policy.

Its means belonging toOxford English Dictionary, 89 (2nd edition, online at Emory)

its, poss. pron.A. As adj. poss. pron. Of or belonging to it, or that thing (L. ejus); also refl., Of or belonging to itself, its own (L. suus)


AT: Private contracts are agents of the federal government

Private contractors are distinct entities from the federal governmentBarbier, 7 – US District Judge (Carl, TIEN VAN COA, ET AL VERSUS GREGORY WILSON, ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-7464 SECTION: J(1) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87653, lexis)

As to federal question jurisdiction, Defendants state that P&J was the prime contractor for USACE and Gregory Wilson was its employee, with both parties acting under the control and direction of USACE, thus invoking derivative immunity from state tort claims. As such, Plaintiffs' claims should have been brought under the FTCA and are governed exclusively thereunder.However, in their motion to remand, Plaintiffs argue that as an independent contractor, P&J is not an employee of the federal government, and consequently does not enjoy derivative immunity and cannot invoke the FTCA. Plaintiffs cite United States v. New Mexico in support of the notion that private contractors, whether prime or subcontractors, are not government employees nor are they agents of the federal government. 455 U.S. 720, 102 S. Ct. 1373, 71 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1982). According to the Court, "[t]he congruence of professional interests between the contractors and the Federal Government is not complete" because "the contractors remained distinct entities pursuing private ends, and their actions remained [*4] commercial activities carried on for profit." Id. at 740; see also Powell v. U.S. Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 70 S. Ct. 755, 94 L. Ed. 1017 (1950).


AT: Private contractors are part of military presence

PMCs are distinct from official US military presenceScahill, 7 – independent journalist (Jeremy, “Flush with Profits from the Iraq War, Military

Contractors See a World of Business Opportunities”, Alter Net, http://www.alternet.org/world/59571/)

During the 1991 Gulf War, the ratio of troops to private contractors was about 60 to 1. Today, it is the contractors who outnumber U.S. forces in Iraq. As of July 2007, there were more than 630 war contracting companies working in Iraq for the United States. Composed of some 180,000 individual personnel drawn from more than 100 countries, the army of contractors surpasses the official U.S. military presence of 160,000 troops.


Its means related to

Its means associated withCompact Oxford English Dictionary, 10 (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/its?view=uk) its • possessive determiner 1 belonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. 2 belonging to or associated with a child or animal of unspecified sex.

Its means related toMacMillan Dictionary, 10 (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/its)

Its is the possessive form of it. 1. belonging or relating to a thing, idea, place, animal, etc. when it has already been

mentioned or when it is obvious which one you are referring to

***Its aff

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=to

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=referring

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=are

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=you

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=one

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=which

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=obvious

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=is

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=it

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=when

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=or

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=mentioned

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=been

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=already

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=has

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=it

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=when

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=etc

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=animal

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=place

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=idea

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=thing

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=a

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=to

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=relating

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=or

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/american/?q=belonging

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/its

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/its?view=uk

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/its?view=uk


PMCs are agents of the government

Private contractors are agents of the US governmentAUSNESS ‘86 – Professor of Law, University of Kentucky (RICHARD, Fall, “Surrogate Immunity: The Government Contract Defense and Products Liability.”, 47 Ohio St. L.J. 985, Lexis Law, dheidt)

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's ruling. The Court reasoned that the immunity that protected officers and agents of the federal government acting within the scope of their authority should be extended to private contractors who also acted on the government's behalf. n71 According to the Court: ". . . [I]t is clear that if this authority to carry out the project was validly conferred, that is, if what was done was within the constitutional power of Congress, there is no liability on the part of the contractor for executing its will." n72 The court also observed that the landowner could have sought compensation from the government for his injury in the court of claims. n73 Apparently, it thought that the plaintiff had attempted to circumvent the accepted statutory procedure by suing the contractor instead of the government. n74

Over the years, courts have advanced various theories to explain the government contract doctrine. For example, the Court in Yearsley suggested that the contractor partakes of the government's immunity because it has acted as an agent of the government. In fact, some courts have limited the government contract defense to situations where there is an actual agency relationship between the contractor and the government. n75

PMCs operate as agents of the governmentJohnson, 85- US Circuit Judge, Eleventh Circuit (Edwin Lees SHAW, as personal representative of the Estate of Gary Scott Shaw, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRUMMAN AEROSPACE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant No. 84-5803 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 778 F.2d 736; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25443; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P10,901 December 19, 1985, lexis)

A second and analytically distinct defense is the "government agency defense." It grows out of the Supreme Court's decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18, 60 S. Ct. 413, 84 L. Ed. 554 (1940), in which the Court absolved from liability a contractor who, at the request of the government, built dikes in the Missouri River and accidentally washed away part of petitioners' land. The Yearsley court apparently regarded this contractor as "an agent or officer of the government," acting on the government's behalf. Id. at 21, 60 S. Ct. at 414. Since "the action of the agent is 'the act of the government,'" id. at 22, 60 S. Ct. at 415, the contractor could be deemed to share in federal sovereign immunity. Although such immunity has been waived in many cases, where injuries to military personnel incident to service result from defective [**9] product design, the government may not be sued for damages under the Feres doctrine. See Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 13571 S. Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152 (1950); Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666, 97 S. Ct. 2054, 52 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1977). 5


Military presence includes PMCs

PMCs are part of US military presenceRobichaud, 7 – Program Officer at the Century Foundation, where he writes on nonproliferation and directs the Foundation's Afghanistan Watch program. (Carl, “Private Military Contractors Also Creating Problems in Afghanistan”, World Politics Review, 10/31/2007, http://www.centuryfoundation.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1721)

The Defense Department says the U.S. military employs 1,000 security contractors, and the State Department and the government of Afghanistan also hire PSCs. Estimates on the number of private security personnel in Afghanistan exceed 10,000 for registered groups alone. This number is small in absolute terms when compared with the number of PSCs in Iraq, but it comprises a substantial military presence for Afghanistan. If this figure is accurate, private security personnel outnumber the troop contribution of every nation but the United States, and are almost a third the size of the Afghan National Army (estimated at around 35,000).

PMCs are part of US military presenceIsenberg, 9 – researcher and leader of the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers (NISAT) at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (David, “Private Military Contractors and U.S. Grand Strategy”, http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/isenberg-private%20military-contractors-2009.pdf)

The low visibility and presumed low cost of private contractors appeals to those who favor a global U.S. military presence, but fear that such a strategy cannot command public support. And by using contractors the United States also shift responsibility and blame for its actions.As the United States relies more heavily upon military contractors to support its role as world hegemon, it reinforces the tendency to approach global crises in a unilateral, as opposed to multilateral manner, further ensuring that the burdens will be carried dispropor- tionately by U.S. taxpayers. U.S. use of PMCs is inevitable until people grasp the key point, which is that that contracting is both part of war and part of maintaining a global military hegemonic presence.

PMCs are inextricably linked to US military presenceKaplan, 7 – Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (Robert, The Atlantic, “Outsourcing Conflict”, September, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/09/outsourcing-conflict/6368/)

Using exclusively active-duty sergeant-majors and master sergeants of the quality and numbers that this Army colonel required would have drained the Army of some of its best NCOs. The most-seasoned people can’t be produced overnight. Meanwhile, there is a ready-made retirement pool from which to draw, courtesy of the private sector. In the case of this colonel, the contractors were to be under the operational control of active-duty personnel; they would be allowed to fight only in their own self-defense.The quasi-privatization of war has a long history and is consistent with America’s efficient capitalistic economy. The idea of a large American military presence anywhere without contractors is now unthinkable. Without firms like KBR, the support tail in Iraq would be infinitely longer than it is, with tens of thousands of more troops required to achieve the same result. Buildings need to be maintained; chow halls have to be run; showers and restrooms need to be cleaned. Mundane activities like these account for the bulk of what private contractors do. Of course, that raises the question of bidding fairness: Precisely because only a few such firms, including KBR, can handle massive logistical operations in sync with American military


guidelines, taxpayers need to be protected from what are, in the absence of real competition, essentially no-bid contracts.


AT: Military means belonging to the armed forces

Military means related to the armed forcesMacMillan Dictionary, 10 (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/military)

militaryrelating to armies or armed forces and the way in which they are organizedThe huge influx of military and civilian personnel created a problem.

Military means characteristic of the armed forcesCompact Oxford English Dictionary, 10 (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

militaryadjective relating to or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces.


1nc - Presence requires physical presence – excludes “virtual” presence

A. Interpretation -

Presence requires forward deployed forces physically present within the countryDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf) Italics in original, CONUS = Continental United States

Another difference between presence and crisis response is that decisions on forces for presence are taken at the strategic level, while those for crisis response are operational and tactical. Presence is a routine activity; the size of the baseline force operating forward changes relatively slowly as the strategic assessment of the situation in the theater evolves. At this level, routine deployments and changes in U.S forces based forward are made through U.S. initiatives, scheduled well in advance, ideally in consultation with allies. Crisis response is conceptually distinct from presence in that it is not a routine activity; the forces needed are reckoned at the operational and tactical levels in response to "tactical warning" of the initiatives of adversaries. Changes are not scheduled in advance and may well be undertaken before consultations with allies can be completed.This means that presence planning should be concerned only with forces forward—whether based, deployed, or there on a rotational basis—and that forces in CONUS, important as they are for the credibility of forces forward, cannot be considered as executing the presence mission. This distinction provides an important boundary for force planners because the need for CONUS-based forces can be safely reckoned exclusively on the basis of the crisis response and warfighting needs of major regional contingencies. Unless this distinction is made, overseas presence cannot be a separate activity if the forces needed for it become those forward and in CONUS when the build- up to an MRC begins.This boundary poses no problems for deciding the needs for all forces except for forces to be used in the Caribbean and for strategic bombers in general. The proximity of the Caribbean means that forces in the southern United States proper (and Puerto Rico, Panama, etc.) are "present" without having to be "overseas"; therefore, the relatively small forces needed for presence and crisis situations there will not be further considered here. Bombers can be employed (that is, used without first being deployed) anywhere in the world quickly and directly from CONUS. Knowledge of this fact by adversaries undoubtedly serves as a deterrent on a routine basis, thus meeting one of the objectives of overseas presence. However, bombers can only deter; they cannot contribute to its other presence goals—e.g., building coalitions, developing interoperability, and so on. Although the question of whether to include CONUS-based bombers as a component of overseas presence is one of judgment, on balance, their limited contribution to the goals of presence dictate they not be considered part of presence.

B. Violation – the aff doesn’t effect forces actually in the topic countries, it just targets intangibles like “US commitment”

C. Voting issue –

***Military Presence


1. Limits – they explode the topic, they allow debates over the US military umbrella or arms sales or even how the US approaches military consultation

2. Negative ground – we lose core disads to troop reductions, like troop shift or appeasement


XT – Presence requires physical presence

Presence means visible stationing of forces PATTERSON ‘8 – US Navy Reserve Captain (Mark, “DEFEND THE APPROACHES!”, httpwww.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486738&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, dheidt)

Throughout history, U.S. maritime strategy has evolved in response to the realities of a changing world. As world geo-political dynamics change, US national priorities may change and with it the threats, risks and potential operating environment for the nations’ armed forces. In response, the Navy (including the Marine Corps) develops new strategies or modifies existing ones to support US national strategy and priorities. One constant since the end of World War II has been the enduring principle of forward presence as a mainstay of US maritime strategy. The term presence encompasses many activities from port visits to stationing ships within sight of shore to full scale operations.1 For this paper, presence is the visible positioning or stationing of ships, aircraft and/or personnel for the purpose of influencing, assuring or engaging other state actors or non-state actors. The scope of this definition includes the full range of traditional and emerging military missions, including port visits, training (personnel and forces), Theater Security Cooperation Programs (TSCP), personnel exchanges, humanitarian assistance and limited or full scale permissive and non-permissive military operations.

Presence requires visible posturing of forcesJorgensen, 2 – LCDR, US Navy (Jason, “THE UNITED STATES NAVY’S ABILITY TO COUNTER THE DIESEL AND NUCLEAR SUBMARINE THREAT WITH LONG-RANGE ANTISUBMARINE WARFARE AIRCRAFT,” http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=289&CISOBOX=1&REC=1) NMS = National Military Strategy

Overseas Presence. The NMS defines overseas presence as “the visible posture of US forces and infrastructure strategically positioned forward, in or near key regions” (CJCS 1997b, 14). Overseas presence is a fundamental concept of US naval operations. It ensures that the US is able to “show the flag” in order to maintain regional peace, conduct peacetime military engagement with allies, ensure US interests are maintained, and assure US military accessibility throughout the world.

Presence must be visibleDecamp, 92 - MAJOR, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS (William, “MARITIME PREPOSITIONING FORCES (MPF) IN CENTRAL COMMAND IN THE 1990s: FORCE MULTIPLIER OR FORCE DIVIDER?,”http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA249957&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Presence missions are meant to deter aggression, preserve regional balances, deflect arms races, and prevent power vacuums. They also cement alliances and signal that our commitments are backed by action.1 The National Security Strategy specifically called forsome measure of continuing presence [in the Middle East) consistent with the desires and needs of our friends. We will work with our friends to bolster confidence and security through such measures as exercises, prepositioning of heavy equipment, and an enhanced naval presence.2CINCCENT was asking for nothing more than the National Security Strategy had already mandated.The policy marked regional crises as the predominant military threat, and indicated that their demands, as well as the requirements of forward presence will determine the size and structure of the future forces of the United States. The ability to project our power will underpin our strategy more than ever. We must be able to deploy substantial forces and sustain them in parts of the world where prepositioning equipment will not always be feasible, where adequate bases may not be available (at least before a crisis) and where there is a less developed industrial base and infrastructure to support our forces once they have arrived.

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=289&CISOBOX=1&REC=1

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=289&CISOBOX=1&REC=1


Applying the policy to the ARG/MAGTF mix in the Persian Gulf, the CJCS decreed a continuous presence of an ARG/MAGTF.

Webster defines presence as "the fact or condition of being present," and present as "being in view or at hand."'4 The Navy decided, in effect, by their choice of ARG/MAGTF/MPS mix, to split the force; therefore, the force that will actually be present in the Persian Gulf will not be the force the CJCS ordered, but a smaller force less capable. The whole force would not exist until the arrival of the fly-in echelon (FIE). In spirit at least, this seems contrary to the implicit preference for self-sustaining forces and a power-projection capability in places like those described in the passage, whose description fits the Middle East.Eliminating the choice of visible presence through the choice of a deployment option that necessitates it, on the ground, nullifies the benefits of logistic self-sufficiency and immunity from political constraints, typically enjoyed by naval forces. There is a fine line between deterrence and provocation, and a visible presence on the ground in the Middle East could cross that line, place the force in danger, and inhibit future U.S. regional access and influence.


XT – Presence requires physical presence

Presence requires physically being presentCoe, 97 - Professor, Criminal Law Department, The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army (Gregory, 1997 Army Law. 25, “Restating Some Old Rules and Limiting Some Landmarks: Recent Developments in Pre-Trial and Trial Procedure”, April, lexis)

Reviewing the Manual for Courts-Martial, the Army court held that the speakerphone procedure violated the law because of the logical definition of presence, the policy reasons why physical presence is required to conduct a court-martial, and the military judge's justification for conducting the arraignment by speakerphone. n171 The court determined that the Manual for Courts-Martial nowhere defines "presence" in the applicable provisions. n172 Looking to the plain meaning of the word in Webster's Dictionary, the Army court held that presence meant "the fact or condition of being present." n173 According to Webster's, "present" means "being in one place and not elsewhere, being within reach, sight, or call or within contemplated limits, being in view or at hand, being before, beside, with, or in the same place as someone or something." n174

Presence refers to deployed forces, not virtual forcesPolitz, 99 – Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvador Vargas NAVARRO; Samuel Pasqual Edmondson, Defendants-Appellants. 169 F.3d 228, http://openjurist.org/169/f3d/228)

FED. R. CRIM. P. 43. The first step in interpreting the Rule is to consider the plain, ordinary meaning of the language of the Rule. See United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989). The definition of "presence" in Black's Law Dictionary is:Act, fact, or state of being in a certain place and not elsewhere, or within sight or call, at hand, or in some place that is being thought of. The existence of a person in a particular place at a given time particularly with reference to some act done there and then.BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1065 (5th ed.1979) (emphasis added). The whole dictionary definition suggests that the common-sense meaning of "presence" is physical existence in the same place as whatever act is done there. The Webster's definition suggests a similar meaning. The Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "presence" as:The fact or condition of being present: the state of being in one place and not elsewhere: the condition of being within sight or call, at hand, or in a place being thought of: the fact of being in company, attendance or association: the state of being in front of or in the same place as someone or something.WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1793 (1981). This dictionary defines "present" as: [B]eing in one place and not elsewhere: being within reach, sight, or call or within contemplated limits: being in view or at hand: being before, beside, with, or in the same place as someone or something.Id. Although the dissent emphasizes the phrase "within sight or call," the common-sense understanding of the definition is that a person must be in the same place as others in order to be present. The plain import of the definitions is that a person must be in existence at a certain place in order to be "present," which is not satisfied by video conferencing.


XT - Presence excludes the nuclear umbrella

The nuclear umbrella is distinct from military presenceKugler, 92 – senior consultant at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) of the National Defense University, he previously was a Distinguished Research Professor there (Richard, “The Future of U.S. Military Presence in Europe,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2008/R4194.pdf)

Conversely, any wholesale U.S. military withdrawal from Europe could leave still-existing American nuclear commitments in Europe that are no longer credible to allies or adversaries. Meanwhile, there would be no U.S. military presence in Europe to exert influence over security affairs in peace, crisis, and war. Beyond this, withdrawal could have destabilizing consequences that would reverberate across the entire continent. The NATO alliance could be weakened and perhaps fractured, thereby producing a military and political power vacuum in Europe at a time of great change, stress, and uncertainty. Deterrence could be eroded, potential aggressors would face fewer incentives to exercise restraint, and crisis management would be rendered more problematic. Prospects for democracy, free enterprise, cooperative diplomacy, and smooth trade relationships also could suffer.


1nc – Presence must be linked to military objectives

A. Interpretation -

Presence is the deployment of military forces explicitly linked to a political endDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

Beyond the direct defense of the United States, U.S. conventional forces fulfill three strategic functions: overseas presence, immediate crisis response, and sustained, large-scale combat. The definitions of the three provide the framework for decision on forces. Basically, forces needed for other tasks—for example, peace-keeping and peace enforcement—are lesser cases of these three. (The Bush Administration grouped the latter two together under the label "Crisis Response." The Bottom-Up Review does not address crisis response except by implication as part of phase 1, before large-scale combat in a "major regional contingency."Mr. Aspin tends to put the label presence on all forward forces whether they are forces for presence (as will be specified) or whether they are engaged in the tasks of crisis response.)A basic problem with overseas presence is that the term describes both a military posture (military means) and a military mission (military means and political objectives). In the case of presence as a mission, the objective is influence on behalf of a variety of U.S. political goals. This ambiguity is made worse by the fact that the term has been in use since at least the 1960s, but it has never been defined in the JCS dictionary of military terms. As a strategic task of the armed forces, overseas presence is here defined as the routine operation of forces forward (the means) to influence what foreign governments,113 both adversary and friend, think and do (the ends) without combat.114Overseas presence does not constitute a strategy, though it or a similar term may in time become the shorthand name for the national strategy. The national strategy is one of engagement of U.S. power in the key regions to promote their stability and democratic development. As described in the body of this paper, a national strategy would integrate the components of U.S. power to achieve stability in the short term and build cooperative relations in the long term. The latter would address the dangers inherent in the international system, outlined in table 1, on page 23.

B. Violation – the aff just changes the military mix within a country without changing the political ends of presence

C. Voting issue –

1. limits – they explode the topic to include anything and everything the US military does, including military musical groups and public relations exercises

2. negative ground – the topic is about changing US military strategy, we should get the deterrence disad every debate because the topic requires strategic realignment. They make the topic bidirectional – they can decrease troops but maintain the overall military commitment to a country with a more efficient military


XT – presence must be linked to political objectives

Presence requires explicit linkage to deterrenceGreer, 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

To establish a conceptual framework for this paper, I developed the following definition of forward presence within the context of national defense: the visible employment of US military personnel and/or military material as a deterrent outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational continuum short of involving major US conventional forces in combat.My simplistic definition could be subject to endless scholarly debate. It includes small unit combat operations of limited scope and duration and peacetime contingency operations such as Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia, but it excludes the subsequent combat operation designated Desert Storm. It includes our military activities in Alaska and Hawaii. It excludes any diplomatic, economic, social or psychological activities that do not have a military component.The term “employment” in the definition could be criticized as denoting action or movement which could exclude what some may term passive measures such as storage of material or unmanned (i.e., automated) sites or systems. However, there is always some activity associated with these so-called passive measures (e.g., maintenance, data collection, etc), and the term employment also encompasses emplacement.The more controversial aspect of my definition lies in the terms “deterrent” and “visible.” Deterrence is “the prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” Once major conventional forces are engaged in protracted combat operations, it is clear that deterrence, by definition, has failed.Visibility is inextricably linked to deterrence. Visible to whom? To those we wish to deter. This is reminiscent of the old philosophical question, “If a tree falls deep in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” In the case of forward presence, the answer is “no.”Target audience is the key to the concept of visibility. A target audience may be the world at large, the senior leadership of a specific country or movement, the control cell of a terrorist organization or countless other possibilities. Therefore, forward presence, by definition, also includes covert activities using military personnel and/or material, as long as the activity is visible to the targeted audience and deters that group or individual from taking an undesired action. An invisible presence is both contradictory and serves no useful deterrent purpose, which goes to the heart of the issue. Deterrence is the ultimate purpose of forward presence.

Presence requires decreasing perceived operational capability – not just numerical reductions in troopsBloomfield, 6 – senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and president of Palmer Coates LLC. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs from May 2001 to January 2005 (Lincoln, “Reposturing the Force: U.S. Overseas Presence in the Twenty-first Century,” ed: Lords, http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/Newport-Papers/Documents/26-pdf.aspx)

Central to the new initiative was the idea that capability and commitment could no longer, and should no longer, be measured in numbers. It was not intuitively obvious to a nonmilitary audience in Asia that, for example, anticipated reductions of forces permanently stationed in the Republic of Korea would coincide with an actual strengthening of the potential combat power the United States could bring to bear against North Korea (or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the DPRK). As South Korean newspapers wondered aloud whether Washington was reducing its security commitment to


their country, the North certainly grasped that the United States was increasing its precision-strike power around the Korean Peninsula while reducing its own forces’ exposure to DPRK firepower amassed just north of the Demilitarized Zone, and it denounced the American reconfiguration. If potential adversaries were quick to recognize the military advantages to the United States of the planned new force posture, the larger Asian audience could not be made to think differently overnight. America’s role as the essential stabilizing force in Asia had long encouraged the region to equate numerical presence with commitment and capability. To overcome lingering doubts in Europe and Asia, the United States will have to demonstrate its commitment to the role of ultimate security guarantor through its actions over several years as the GDPR posture changes are implemented.



The 3 political goals of presence are deterrence, allied cooperation, and to ensure economic stabilityDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

This last is probably the greatest obstacle to a mature understanding of presence as a mission of post-Cold War armed forces. Many feel that the reason for the existence of military forces is purely and simply to fight16 and so logically focus on crisis response and war. There is no question that overseas forces must possess genuine combat capabilities, and these must be used successfully when needed. The greatest utility of the armed forces in the new era, however, lies in three other strategic functions that are at the heart of overseas presence:•Deter adversaries•Make common cause with friends on behalf of security•Provide stable conditions so that the U.S. and the world economies can flourish, and inhibit the development of trade restrictions that limit both.The first, to deter—to achieve the nation's purposes without fighting—has been the highest goal of strategy since Sun Tzu, and is the leading purpose of presence.1 (Forward forces also help the U.S. and its friends exploit the initiative, invariably a source of leverage in any competitive situation.) Deterrence also reassures allies, a major benefit in its own right, as will be seen.18The second strategic utility of forward forces is to cooperate with friends and allies on behalf of security. Cooperation yields two important results: The United States should never have to fight alone unless it so chooses. Cooperation also can encourage democracy and help develop enduring structures of regional security within which peace and democracy can flourish.19Third, U.S. armed forces committed to overseas presence have important effects in reducing what the BUR calls "economic dangers to our national security."20 By bringing stability to the key economic regions where they operate, U.S. forces maintain a vital condition on which economic growth depends. Forces overseas also help inhibit further growth of trade restrictions against the U.S. by its friends—a truly post-Cold War effect, the extent of whose importance is just beginning to be recognized.



Presence is a question of military strategy – not troops aloneDismukes, 95 – analyst with the Center for Naval Analyses (Bradford, “The U.S. Military Presence Abroad”, Strategic Review, Spring, p. 49)

As a result of decisions by the Clinton Administration, reaffirming and strengthening policies adopted by President Bush, U.S.

military “overseas presence” has become a major factor affecting the deployment of U.S. forces. The requirements established by overseas presence are now part of the rationale for future force structure. Presence—deploying and operating forces forward to influence, short of combat, what foreign governments think and do—plays a crucial role in a national strategy of “engagement and enlargement.” Operating ground, air, and sea forces overseas is a linchpin of the national strategy: unless the United States does so successfully, the strategy could fail, yielding an isolationist alternative and greater risks for U.S. security and economic interests.

Presence refers to the totality of US military power linked to an explicit military objectiveBlechman et al, 97 – President of DFI International, and has held positions in the Department of Defense, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget (Barry, Strategic Review, Spring, “Military Presence Abroad in a New Era: The Role of Airpower,” p. 14)

The highly complex nature of military presence operations, with manifestations both psychological and physical, makes their effects difficult to identify and assess. Nonetheless, presence missions (whether employing forces stationed abroad or afloat, temporarily deployed or permanently based overseas, or based in the United States) are integral parts of U.S. defense strategy. Through routine presence operations, the United States seeks to reinforce alliances and friendships, make credible security commitments to crucial regions, and nurture cooperative political relations. More episodically, forces engaged in presence operations can dissuade aggressors from hostile demands, help prevent or contain regional crises, and, when conflict erupts nonetheless, provide an infrastructure for the transition to war.

Given its multifaceted nature, neither practitioners nor scholars have yet settled on a single definition of presence. Technically,

the term refers to both a military posture and a military objective. This study uses the term “presence” to refer to a continuum of military activities, from a variety of interactions during peacetime to crisis response involving both forces on the scene and those based in the United States. Our definition follows that articulated by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Presence is the totality of U.S. instruments of power deployed overseas (both permanently and temporarily) along with the requisite infrastructure and sustainment capabilities.”2

Presence is the attempt at suasion for compellence, deterrence, or reassuranceRiehm, 96 – ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS (Peter, “Suasion Through Military Presence: An Analysis of the Role of Presence in U.S.-Libyan Relations, l977-1995,”http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=868&CISOBOX=1&REC=19

Understanding how an application like presence is intended to influence is a significant step in relating objectives of military operations to target interests. Shortfalls lie in the absence of doctrine to tie strategic objectives to the operational vehicle and any reliable means to measure effectiveness. Using military power to influence can be described in terms of 'threat of force," but this thesis will focus on the concept of suasion. Presence is more appropriately described in terms of threat of force through force application to varying degrees. Within these degrees of threat and force application lies the concept of suasion: Compellence, Deterrence, and Reassurance.


1nc – Presence means only troops

A. Interpretation –

Substantially means including the main partWORDS AND PHRASES, 1964, p. 818.

“Substantially” means in substance; in the main; essentially; by including the material or essential part.

Presence refers to personnel stationed in a regionThe Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military, 2 (by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved, republished and cited as “US Military Dictionary” at: http://www.answers.com/topic/presence)

US Military Dictionary: presencen.a group of people, especially soldiers or police, stationed in a particular place: maintain a presence in the region.


XT: Presence means stationed personnel

Bases are the main part of the US military presenceLutz, 9 – professor of International Studies at Brown (Catherine, The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts, p. 6, google books)

Bases are the literal and symbolic anchors, and the most visible centerpieces, of the U.S. military presence overseas. To understand where those bases are and how they are being used is essential for understanding the United States’ relationship with the rest of the world, the role of coercion in it, and its political economic complexion. The United States’ empire of bases – its massive global impact and the global response to it – are the subject of chapters in this book. Unlike the pundits and the strategic thinkers who corner the market on discussions of the U.S. military, these authors concentrate on the people around those bases and the impact of living in their shadow. The authors describe as well the social movements which have tried to call the world’s attention to the costs those bases impose on them without their consent. In this introduction, I ask why the bases were established in the first place, how they are currently configured around the world and how that configuration is changing, what myths have developed about the functions U.S. overseas bases serve, and, finally, introduce the global movement to push back or expel the bases altogether.

Presence is measured by the number of military personnel in a regionPoon et al, 6 - Department of Geography, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo (Jessie, “The role of US defense exports in Asia Pacific regionalism,” Political Geography 25 (2006) 715-734, Science Direct)

The major source of defense trade data comes from the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) where 1989 forms the earliest year that the data are available and 2004 the most recent (http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp). From this database, current and historical records may be searched for U.S. exports to Asia Pacific countries with the end use category ‘‘defense.’’ This ensured that dual use products were excluded from the search. Seven sectors may be identified for defense trade including military aircrafts, aircraft launching gear/parachutes, etc., engines/turbines for military aircraft, military trucks/armored vehicles, etc., military ships/boats, tanks/artillery/ missiles/rockets/guns/ammunition, and parts/special goods, etc. Not all of the sectors will be analyzed because many countries contain only very sparse data. Approximately thirty Asia Pacific countries are

identified to be engaged in defense trade with the US although this number varies from sector to sector. The countries include all members of APEC and the ARF but also extend to other countries that have been excluded from these arrangements such as Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Oceania. Defense exports are supplemented by two other sources of data, that is, US

military presence and countries’ military expenditure. US military presence is measured by the number and shares of active military personnel in the region. This information is compiled by the US Department of Defense (http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm). Statistics on military expenditures may be obtained from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (www.sipri. org). In addition, contextual information is also collected from research monographs on US military strategies. These reports are compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in Washington, D.C., and CRS constitutes the public policy research arm of the US Congress. Many of these reports include testimonials to the Congress regarding defense and strategic events in the Asia Pacific, and provide important documentation as well as evidence of US geopolitical interests, policies and developments in the region.

Reductions in presence should be measured by personnelPoon et al, 6 - Department of Geography, University at Buffalo-SUNY, Buffalo (Jessie, “The role of US defense exports in Asia Pacific regionalism,” Political Geography 25 (2006) 715-734, Science Direct)

Overall, the analysis in this section confirms the proposition that US geostrategic interests in the region are supported through material sales of defense articles to its allies that are in turn reinforced through the deployment of military personnel. However,

defense exports would seem to be the preferred tool for achieving geopolitical policies. While the exports of defense articles have increased by 103% from $111,223 million in 1989 to $225,937 million in 2004, US military personnel on the other hand fell by nearly 40% from 110,262 to 66,890 in the same period. Hence, US military presence has declined in the region over the last 30 years. Together the geography of security points to a bloc of three key allies (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) and several scattered complementary ones (Singapore, Australia, Thailand and in the present days, Pakistan). Without a more regionally coherent pattern of security alliance, such geography reinforces a system of bilateral political alliances with the US than more multilateral regional political alliances. The three key allies for instance have no free trade agreements between or amongst themselves despite being the region’s largest traders along with China. Meanwhile, political allies such as Singapore and Australia are formalizing bilateral trade agreements with the US. In sum, spatial analysis of defense exports and military presence of the US in this section tends to side with realist’s arguments for a balance of power spatial geometry that support regional political processes.



Presence requires the visible stationing of troopsMastapeter, 8 - Senior Planning Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Master’s Thesis for the Naval Postgraduate School (Craig, “THE INSTRUMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER: ACHIEVING THE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE IN A CHANGING WORLD,” December,https://www.hsdl.org/homesec/docs/theses/08Dec_Mastapeter.pdf&code=9b55800f98c1150b31a774eadc3a294b

According to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, presence is defined as the state of being present, or of being within sight or call, or at hand; as opposed to absence.438 YourDictionary defines presence as the fact or condition of being present; existence, occurrence, or attendance at some place or in some thing.439 From the perspective of the purpose of this paper, the FreeDictionary provides the most relevant definition: the diplomatic, political, or military influence of a nation in a foreign country, especially as evidenced by the posting of its diplomats or its troops there.440

Interestingly enough, The Joint Publications 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms does not include a definition of presence. However, Joint Publication 1-0, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, clearly states that an extended U.S. presence will be required, post-termination, to conduct stability operations to enable legitimate civil authority and attain the national strategic end state441 and that, as a nation, the United States wages war employing all instruments of national power to achieve national strategic objectives on terms favorable to the United States.442 It can therefore be inferred from this entry that a U.S. presence is necessary prior to and during operations because presence demonstrates U.S. commitment, facilitates access, enhances deterrence, and supports the transition from peace to war and a return to peace once hostilities have ended on terms favorable to the U.S.The U.S.’ ability to maintain and fully employ its military, informational, diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence, financial, and economic resources overseas enhances U.S. security and that of its partners, bolsters prosperity, and promotes democracy. This ability is commonly called “presence.”In the context of U.S. basic national security policy and strategy, presence, especially forward military, informational (i.e., cultural), diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence (overt, covert, and clandestine), financial, and economic presence, unequivocally demonstrates U.S. resolve and sets the conditions for stability and undeniable commitment to a cause. U.S. presence, government and private sector, creates a planning and future operational environment that is conducive to establishing and operationalizing information dominance, or knowledge superiority, (situational awareness of the common operating picture) and thus creating a strategic advantage. Presence is therefore the ability to project actionable U.S. power and influence, the means by which the U.S. frames and shapes the international environment in ways favorable to the nation’s interests and objectives. Presence is and has been a fundamental principle of U.S. basic national security policy and strategy since 1942, and perhaps as early as 1898. Ultimately, actionable influence and leverage is gained through the totality of the instruments of national power — military, informational, diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence, financial, and economic – and underpinned by the strength of the nation’s geographic and demographic position and its resources and/or access to resources.



Presence requires stationing forces within a countryHarmon, 3 – US Army Major (William, “The Korean Question: Is There a Future for Forward-Based American Forces in a Unified Korea?,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415880&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) (All bolding is in the original)

In American security writings and military doctrine the term “forward presence” describes military forces that are stationed, permanently or on a rotational deployment, in a territory or nation other than the United States. In American National Security, by Amos A. Jordan, William J. Taylor Jr., and Michael J. Mazarr, the term is used as follows:Forward presence, or the forward deployment of forces, can now be more usefully thought of as one component of a larger strategy – one that acknowledges the global role of the United States and the need to remain engaged, visible, and with forces deployed outside the United States that are prepared to respond to contingencies in all corners of the globe.9

In this definition the authors have identified key components of forward presence, namely the flexibility gained by reducing deployment times and the assurance provided to allies (and potential enemies alike) by the engagement and visibility of the forces.

Military or police presence refers to stationed personnel within a placeCompact Oxford English Dictionary, 10 (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/presence?view=uk)

presence • noun 1 the state or fact of being present. 2 the impressive manner or appearance of a person. 3 a person or thing that is present but not seen. 4 a group of soldiers or police stationed in a particular place: the USA would maintain a presence in the region .

Presence refers to the stationing of personnelAmerican Heritage Dictionary, 09 (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/presence)

pres·ence1. The state or fact of being present; current existence or occurrence.2. Immediate proximity in time or space.3. The area immediately surrounding a great personage, especially a sovereign.4. A person who is present.5. a. A person's bearing, especially when it commands respectful attention: "He continues to possess the presence, mental as well as physical, of the young man" (Brendan Gill). b.The quality of self-assurance and effectiveness that permits a performer to achieve a rapport with the audience: stage presence. 5. A supernatural influence felt to be nearby.7. The diplomatic, political, or military influence of a nation in a foreign country, especially as evidenced by the posting of its diplomats or its troops there: "The American diplomatic presence in London began in 1785 when John Adams became our first minister" (Nancy Holmes).



Presence refers to official personnelEncarta, 09 (Encarta World English Dictionary, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861737158)

pres·ence [ prézz'nss ] (plural pres·ences)noun Definition:1. existence in place: the physical existence or detectability of something in a place at a particular time

the presence of contaminants in the water supply2. attendance: somebody's attendance at an event or physical existence in a place with other people

Our presence is requested at the board meeting.3. area within sight or earshot: the immediate vicinity of somebody or something

How dare you use that kind of language in my presence!4. impressive quality: an impressive appearance or bearing

has a certain presence about her that garners respect5. invisible supposed supernatural being: a supernatural spirit that is felt to be nearby

A malevolent presence filled the room.6. person present: somebody who is notably present

the venerable scholar, a dignified presence in the academic procession7. group of official personnel: a group of official personnel, especially police, military forces, or diplomats, present or stationed in a place to represent their country and maintain its interest

maintained a heavy military presence in the capital

Presence refers to troopsMacMillan Dictionary, 10 (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/presence)

definition of presencenoun3. a. a group of people, especially soldiers or the police, who are in a place for a particular purposeWe intend to maintain a presence in the country until there is peace.military/police presence: There is still a large U.S. military presence in the region.


1nc – Presence excludes active combat missions / crisis response

A. Interpretation - Presence requires regular, non-combat activities – forces engaged in combat or one-time noncombat missions aren’t part of U.S. presenceThomason, 2 – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis (James, “Transforming US Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD,” July, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf

WHAT IS OVERSEAS MILITARY PRESENCE? Our working definition of US overseas military presence is that it consists of all the US military assets in overseas areas that are engaged in relatively routine, regular, non-combat activities or functions.By this definition, forces that are located overseas may or may not be engaging in presence activities. If they are engaging in combat (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), or are involved in a one-time non-combat action (such as an unscheduled carrier battle group deployment from the United States aimed at calming or stabilizing an emerging crisis situation), then they are not engaging in presence activities. Thus, an asset that is located (or present) overseas may or may not be “engaged in presence activities,” may or may not be “doing presence.” We have thus far defined presence activities chiefly in “negative” terms—what they are not. In more positive terms, what exactly are presence activities, i.e., what do presence activities actually entail doing? Overseas military presence activities are generally viewed as a subset of the overall class of activities that the US government uses in its efforts to promote important military/security objectives [Dismukes, 1994]. A variety of recurrent, overseas military activities are normally placed under the “umbrella” concept of military presence. These include but are not limited to US military efforts overseas to train foreign militaries; to improve inter-operability of US and friendly forces; to peacefully and visibly demonstrate US commitment and/or ability to defend US interests; to gain intelligence and familiarity with a locale; to conduct peacekeeping activities; and to position relevant, capable US military assets such that they are likely to be available sooner rather than later in case an evolving security operation or contingency should call for them.

B. Violation – the aff ends combat missions, not presence missions.

C. Voting issue -

1. limits – allowing combat missions allows affs to change specific strategies in Afghanistan or Iraq, like ending cluster bombing without actually reducing forces themselves, it explodes the literature base

2. negative ground – presence missions are about deterrence and reassurance – including combat missions avoids core negative disads


XT – Presence excludes combat missions

Presence only applies to military forces before combatGreer, 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

To establish a conceptual framework for this paper, I developed the following definition of forward presence

within the context of national defense: the visible employment of US military personnel and/or military material as a deterrent outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational continuum short of involving major US conventional forces in combat.

My simplistic definition could be subject to endless scholarly debate. It includes small unit combat operations of limited scope and duration and peacetime contingency operations such as Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia, but it excludes the subsequent combat operation designated Desert Storm. It includes our military activities in Alaska and Hawaii. It excludes any diplomatic, economic, social or psychological activities that do not have a military component.The term “employment” in the definition could be criticized as denoting action or movement which could exclude what some may term passive measures such as storage of material or unmanned (i.e., automated) sites or systems. However, there is always some activity associated with these so-called passive measures (e.g., maintenance, data collection, etc), and the term employment also encompasses emplacement.The more controversial aspect of my definition lies in the terms “deterrent” and “visible.” Deterrence is “the prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” Once major conventional forces are engaged in protracted combat operations, it is clear that deterrence, by definition, has failed.Visibility is inextricably linked to deterrence. Visible to whom? To those we wish to deter. This is reminiscent of the old philosophical question, “If a tree falls deep in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” In the case of forward presence, the answer is “no.”Target audience is the key to the concept of visibility. A target audience may be the world at large, the senior leadership of a specific country or movement, the control cell of a terrorist organization or countless other possibilities. Therefore, forward presence, by definition, also includes covert activities using military personnel and/or material, as long as the activity is visible to the targeted audience and deters that group or individual from taking an undesired action. An invisible presence is both contradictory and serves no useful deterrent purpose, which goes to the heart of the issue. Deterrence is the ultimate purpose of forward presence.

Presence is distinct from crisis response and combat missions – it is the deployment of military forces explicitly linked to deterrence or reassuranceDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

Beyond the direct defense of the United States, U.S. conventional forces fulfill three strategic functions: overseas presence, immediate crisis response, and sustained, large-scale combat. The definitions of the three provide the framework for decision on forces. Basically, forces needed for other tasks—for example, peace-keeping and peace enforcement—are lesser cases of these three. (The Bush Administration grouped the latter two together under the label "Crisis Response." The Bottom-Up Review does not address crisis response except by implication as part of phase 1, before large-scale combat in a "major regional contingency." Mr. Aspin tends to put the label presence on all forward forces whether they are forces for presence (as will be specified) or whether they are engaged in the tasks of crisis response.)

A basic problem with overseas presence is that the term describes both a military posture

(military means) and a military mission (military means and political objectives). In the case of presence as a mission, the objective is influence on behalf of a variety of U.S. political goals. This ambiguity is made worse by the fact that the term has been in use since at least the 1960s, but it has never been defined in the JCS dictionary of

military terms. As a strategic task of the armed forces, overseas presence is here defined as the routine operation of forces forward (the means) to influence what foreign governments,113 both adversary and friend, think and do (the ends) without combat.114

Overseas presence does not constitute a strategy, though it or a similar term may in time become the shorthand

name for the national strategy. The national strategy is one of engagement of U.S. power in the key regions to promote their stability and democratic development. As described in the body of this paper, a national strategy would integrate the components of U.S. power to achieve stability in the short term and build cooperative


relations in the long term. The latter would address the dangers inherent in the international system, outlined in table 1, on page 23.

An important distinguishing characteristic of overseas presence115— the absence of combat—places it on a continuum of increasing violence with the other strategic tasks, crisis response and sustained combat. Each form of the application of power aims to influence political behavior. Presence is nonviolent (though it is their potential for violence that makes forward forces influential); crisis response involves the threat, or the actual practice, of limited violence;

sustained combat seeks to change an adversary's behavior through large- scale violence aimed at destroying his armed forces in the field, denying him the means to control or continue to support his operations, and so on. Thinking about the three strategic functions as points or bands on a continuum fits the real world; yet the three define the need for distinct kinds of capabilities.



Presence missions are anything short of actual combatBlechman et al, 97 – President of DFI International, and has held positions in the Department of Defense, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget (Barry, Strategic Review, Spring, “Military Presence Abroad in a New Era: The Role of Airpower,” p. 13)

Occupying a continuum of operations short of actual combat, presence missions have included the permanent basing of troops overseas, routine military-to-military contacts, military exercises and training with other nations, participation in multinational peace and humanitarian operations, the provision of timely intelligence information and other data to leaders of other nations, military deployments in response to crises, and, when necessary, the deployment of forces in anticipation of combat.

Presence excludes the direct application of military forceWidnall and Fogleman, 95 - *Secretary of the Air Force and formerly was Associate Provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology AND **Chief of Staff, US Air Force (Sheila and Ronald, Joint Forces Quarterly, “Global Presence”, Spring, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/jfq2007.pdf) Italics in the original

At the foundation of this approach is power projection. Power projection is a means to influence actors or affect situations or events in America’s national interest. It has two components: warfighting and presence . Warfighting is the direct application of military force to compel an adversary. Presence is the posturing of military capability, including nonbelligerent applications, and/or the leveraging of information to deter or compel an actor or affect a situation. A sound national military strategy depends on coherent warfighting and presence strategies.

Presence is distinct from crisis response – both are highly complex and should be addressed separatelyDismukes, 95 – analyst with the Center for Naval Analyses (Bradford, “The U.S. Military Presence Abroad”, Strategic Review, Spring, p. 55)

Logically, forward presence has become the most important strategic task of U.S. conventional forces. With respect to adversaries, if forces abroad are successful in deterrence, then the requirement to respond to crises (not to mention war) can be avoided. Presence is the primary mission; crisis response is the necessary, but less desirable, back up. These conclusions have far-reaching consequences both for the use of existing U.S. forces and for the acquisition of forces for the future. Because of their scope and complexity, these necessarily must be addressed separately. More important yet are their implications for the way Americans think about why they should bear the risks and costs of keeping forces abroad. For America’s partners, particularly other G7 members, there are equally important implications for why and how they share the political and financial costs of U.S. presence.



Presence refers to regularly deployed units – excludes combat operationsCarter, 2 - Department of the Army Civilian, paper submitted for the Strategy Research Project at the US Army War College (Robert, “CONSIDERATIONS FOR PLANNING OVERSEAS PRESENCE,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA404187&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

For purposes of this paper, the use of the term "overseas presence" is intended to refer to those units and personnel that are permanently based overseas - or - in the case of some assets (e.g., naval forces) - are deployed to a particular region on a regular, rotational basis. (For example, U.S. forces currently fighting terrorism in Afghanistan would not be considered part of U.S. overseas presence by this definition. Any residual forces remaining after cessation of hostilities might be considered permanent presence.) Please note that the data presented in this section are somewhat dated. Cited numbers of personnel and units should be considered as approximations only. Nonetheless, the data are adequate for giving a reasonable sense of the magnitude and allocation of current assets abroad. To constrain the scope of this effort to a manageable level, and focus on areas considered most vital to U.S. interests, only the three key regions of Europe, Asia-Pacific, and the Middle East are addressed.

Presence is distinct from crisis response – US policy experts avoid double counting forces when they have different rolesFlournoy, 1 - senior advisor for international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously served as a distinguished research professor in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction (Michele, QDR 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices for America’s Security, Ed: Michele Flournoy http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) MTWs=Major Theater Wars, SSCs=Smaller Scale Contingencies

Counting Presence ForcesThe role of overseas-presence forces in MTWs and SSCs is also considered at this stage of the process, and the overall force structure adjusted accordingly. For example, forward-deployed naval, air, and ground forces may be part of the initial response to a crisis; indeed, this is an express part of their purpose. Therefore, care must be taken not to double-count such forces in both the presence and MTW or SSC building blocks. On the other hand, some forward-deployed forces may be so vital to deterrence and stability in a given region that they would not be withdrawn from an unengaged theater even in the event of MTW execution. For the purposes of the working group’s analysis, assumptions about which forces should be treated as stay-behind forces were derived from judgments about what would be required to meet U.S. treaty commitments, maintain deterrence and regional stability in a given theater, and provide the regional CINC with minimum essential levels of force protection, support to noncombatant evacuation operations, and strike capability.

Presence is any noncombat military operationYost, 95 – teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School, Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (David, “The Future of U.S. Overseas Presence,” Joint Forces Quarterly, Summer, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/1508.pdf)

Since the late 1980s overseas presence has also become a major element in operations other than war—peace operations, embargoes, no-fly-zone enforcement, nation- building, arms control, democratization, civil-military education, et al. Special operations forces, moreover,


participate in unobtrusive foreign internal defense programs that protect societies from anarchy, subversion, and insurgency, and that promote human rights and civilian control of the military.


AT: Presence is just the military means, not a mission

Just restricting the aff to the means of military presence still excludes combat operationsDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

Overseas presenceA principal aim of presence is to make crisis response unnecessary, just as the latter seeks to eliminate the need for large-scale combat. In addition to permanent and rotational forces forward on the ground, forces deployed at sea, and prepositioned equipment, the means of overseas presence are : •Exercises and training of U.S. forces with those of friends and allies•Unilateral training by U.S. forces on foreign soil•U.S. C3I systems, especially in their bilateral and multilateral roles•Arrangements for the access by U.S. forces to facilities overseas •Stationing and visits abroad by senior U.S. military officials •Visits to ports and airfields by U.S. naval and air forces•Public shows by U.S. demonstration teams such as the Thunderbirds and a host of public affairs activities including military musical groups•Staff-to-staff talks and studies with foreign military organizations and analytical groups•U.S. participation on multilateral staffs•Exchanges of military people between the U.S. and friends and allies•Military training of foreign personnel in the U.S. and in their home countries•Training of military officers of former totalitarian and some developing states in the roles of the military in a civil society•Foreign military sales and funding and co-production of military equipment with other nations.122(Footnote 122)122. This last would logically include an arms transfer policy dimension. With the exception of the Missile Technology Transfer Regime and various transparency reporting provisions of confidence-building agreements, there are not yet any arms control aspects to this part of presence, although these too would appear to called for. This listing is taken from the National Military Strategy and from the unclassified introduction to Annex O of the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, distributed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in December 1992.


Presence excludes crisis response

Presence is distinct from crisis response – it is a routine activity that is planned for well in advance through consultation with alliesDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

Another difference between presence and crisis response is that decisions on forces for presence are taken at the strategic level, while those for crisis response are operational and tactical. Presence is a routine activity; the size of the baseline force operating forward changes relatively slowly as the strategic assessment of the situation in the theater evolves. At this level, routine deployments and changes in U.S forces based forward are made through U.S. initiatives, scheduled well in advance, ideally in consultation with allies. Crisis response is conceptually distinct from presence in that it is not a routine activity; the forces needed are reckoned at the operational and tactical levels in response to "tactical warning" of the initiatives of adversaries. Changes are not scheduled in advance and may well be undertaken before consultations with allies can be completed.This means that presence planning should be concerned only with forces forward—whether based, deployed, or there on a rotational basis—and that forces in CONUS, important as they are for the credibility of forces forward, cannot be considered as executing the presence mission. This distinction provides an important boundary for force planners because the need for CONUS-based forces can be safely reckoned exclusively on the basis of the crisis response and warfighting needs of major regional contingencies. Unless this distinction is made, overseas presence cannot be a separate activity if the forces needed for it become those forward and in CONUS when the build- up to an MRC begins.

Presence is distinguished by the absence of combat – it is by definition nonviolent and excludes combat operations and crisis responseDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

An important distinguishing characteristic of overseas presence115— the absence of combat—places it on a continuum of increasing violence with the other strategic tasks, crisis response and sustained combat. Each form of the application of power aims to influence political behavior. Presence is nonviolent (though it is their potential for violence that makes forward forces influential); crisis response involves the threat, or the actual practice, of limited violence; sustained combat seeks to change an adversary's behavior through large- scale violence aimed at destroying his armed forces in the field, denying him the means to control or continue to support his operations, and so on. Thinking about the three strategic functions as points or bands on a continuum fits the real world; yet the three define the need for distinct kinds of capabilities.


AT: Pape definition that says presence includes combat

Pape’s definition defines military presence from the perspective of terrorists – its in the context of a book on motivations for terrorismPape, 6 – professor of political science at the University of Chicago (Robert, Dying to win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, p. 105-106)

The standard I use is American military presence, defined as heavy combat operations on the homeland of Sunni Muslim majority countries for a sustained period prior to the onset of al-Qaeda’s suicide terrorist campaign against the United States in 1995. If American military presence, so defined, has expanded to include still more countries during the course of al-Qaeda’s suicide campaign, then I include those new countries as well, since they could also serve as recruiting grounds for al-Qaeda’s ongoing suicide campaign. “American military presence” includes cases where American combat forces are based in the country or where the United States provides explicitly or widely understood security guarantee that could be implemented using its forces in an adjacent country. It does not include cases where American military advisors are present or where the country’s military and the U.S. military conduct joint training exercises.This standard comports with the meaning of “occupation” in Chapter 6, because it defines American military presence from the perspective of the terrorists, who are likely to fear the possibility that foreign control may be imposed by force and to suspect that security “guarantees” actually indicate American intention to defend the regime against revolution. This is Osama bin Laden’s view of the role of U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula; it is not the perspective of the United States, which, in most of the relevant cases, would see itself as supporting an allied government.


AT: Presence includes more than troop deployments

Their definition of presence is the broadest possibleScala, 98 - Office of the Secretary of Defense (Mary, “Theater Engagement Planning: An Interagency Opportunity”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA351762&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

During the run-up to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Joint Staff and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy undertook a comprehensive review of overseas presence requirements and issues. The intention was to ensure the resources committed to presence were consistent with national priorities in the region—and to identify overseas commitments that were potentially excess to the emerging defense strategy. To make sure everything was considered, the definition of “presence” was made as broad as possible—from forward-stationed troops, to prepositioned stocks, to naval deployments, to joint and combined military exercises, to mil-to-mil contacts. At about the same time, the Joint Staff was working to create a notional “baseline engagement force” in order to get a clearer historical picture of how many U.S. forces worldwide were engaged routinely in engagement or crisis-response operations. Both the overseas presence study and the baseline engagement force analysis were intended to form one point of departure for the formulation of a new defense strategy. Planners hoped to find relatively painless ways to increase spending on military readiness and procurement, without undercutting essential warfighting forces or technology.

The broad interpretation would mean everything the military does is topicalMeyer, 7 – Lieutenant Commander, US Navy (Richard, “Naval Presence with a Purpose:Considerations for the Operational Commander,”http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA470845&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

In 2007, naval presence is no longer enumerated as a stand-alone mission of U.S. naval forces. However, the concept of presence is inherent in all that we do. In the Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) there is only one specified task with presence in the title and it is the strategic-national task 3.1, “Coordinate Forward Presence of Forces in Theaters.”7 In the definition of this task, the UJTL strikes at the heart of the matter by stating that presence “…is a crucial element of deterrence and can be a demonstration of resolve to allies and potential adversaries.”8 In addition to this one task, however, the term presence or forward presence is used in the definition of several other tasks such as operational task 1.2.4.1, “Conduct a Show of Force”.9 This gives credence to the belief that presence is an underlying theme in every mission we undertake as a Navy.


AT: Your definition says “forward” presence

Forward presence is military presenceZakheim et al, 96 – former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Planning and Resources (Dov, “Political and Economic Implications of Global Naval Presence”, 9/30, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA319811)

The United States has determined that overseas military presence during peacetime, often termed “forward presence” or “peacetime presence”; should remain an integral part of its force posture in the post-Cold War era. In 1996, the United States maintains a diminished, yet still significant land and aviation presence in Europe and in Korea. In addition, it supports a robust maritime presence, including aircraft carrier battle groups and Marine Expeditionary Units, in the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf and East Asia (see Table 1).

Presence is the same as forward presence / overseas presenceDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

115. This paper uses the terms presence, overseas presence, and forward presence interchangeably.

Overseas presence and forward presence are the same thingNational Military Strategy, 97 – prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (“Shape, Respond, Prepare Now: A Military Strategy for a New Era,” http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nms/index.htm#contents)

Overseas Presence. Overseas presence is the visible posture of US forces and infrastructure strategically positioned forward, in or near key regions. Permanently stationed and rotationally or temporarily deployed forces promote security and stability, prevent conflict, give substance to our security commitments, and ensure our continued access. Overseas presence enhances coalition operations by promoting joint and combined training and encouraging responsibility sharing on the part of friends and allies. Overseas presence contributes to deterrence by demonstrating our determination to defend US, allied, and friendly interests in critical regions while enabling the US to rapidly concentrate military power in the event of crisis. The presence of our forces provides commanders with a flexible array of options to respond promptly to aggression. Overseas presence forces embody global military engagement. They serve as role models for militaries in emerging democracies; contribute uniquely to the stability, continuity, and flexibility that protects US interests; and are crucial to continued democratic and economic development.


AT: Resolution says “reduce military” not “military presence”

The topic is about “military presence” – the phrase “and/or police” was added as an afterthoughtBauschard, 10 – author of the topic, coach at Lakeland and Harvard (Stefan, “2010-11 Military Presence Topic Guide” http://www.planetdebate.com/textbooks/viewSection/882

The term “police” was added to the resolution because in some countries , particularly Iraq, many of the individuals that articles refer to as being part of the US military presence are really “police.” This term was largely added to enable affirmatives to topically reduce all of the US presence that could be described as “military,” even if it was technically not military. Although the term was added for that reason, it is likely that some affirmatives may find specific policing operations and reduce those.


Presence – broad affirmative definitions Presence activities – exhaustive listDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

Overseas presenceA principal aim of presence is to make crisis response unnecessary, just as the latter seeks to eliminate the need for large-scale combat. In addition to permanent and rotational forces forward on the ground, forces deployed at sea, and prepositioned equipment, the means of overseas presence are:•Exercises and training of U.S. forces with those of friends and allies•Unilateral training by U.S. forces on foreign soil•U.S. C3I systems, especially in their bilateral and multilateral roles•Arrangements for the access by U.S. forces to facilities overseas •Stationing and visits abroad by senior U.S. military officials •Visits to ports and airfields by U.S. naval and air forces•Public shows by U.S. demonstration teams such as the Thunderbirds and a host of public affairs activities including military musical groups•Staff-to-staff talks and studies with foreign military organizations and analytical groups•U.S. participation on multilateral staffs•Exchanges of military people between the U.S. and friends and allies•Military training of foreign personnel in the U.S. and in their home countries•Training of military officers of former totalitarian and some developing states in the roles of the military in a civil society•Foreign military sales and funding and co-production of military equipment with other nations.122(Footnote 122)122. This last would logically include an arms transfer policy dimension. With the exception of the Missile Technology Transfer Regime and various transparency reporting provisions of confidence-building agreements, there are not yet any arms control aspects to this part of presence, although these too would appear to called for. This listing is taken from the National Military Strategy and from the unclassified introduction to Annex O of the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, distributed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in December 1992.

Military presence includes exercises, storage agreements, military contacts and trainingHarmon, 3 – US Army Major (William, “The Korean Question: Is There a Future for Forward-Based American Forces in a Unified Korea?,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA415880&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) (All bolding is in the original)

American military doctrine addresses forward presence in Joint Publication 3-07, Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War. In this doctrine forward presence is defined as, “ activities [that] demonstrate our commitment, lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and provide a crisis response capability while promoting US influence and access. In addition to forces stationed overseas and afloat, forward presence activities include periodic and rotational deployments, access and storage agreements, multinational exercises,

***Presence - Affirmative


port visits, foreign military training, foreign community support, and military-to-military contacts.”10

(Bold in original)


Presence – broad affirmative definitions

Presence means visible stationing of forces – includes port calls or offshore stationing, training, and humanitarian missionsPATTERSON ‘8 – US Navy Reserve Captain (Mark, “DEFEND THE APPROACHES!”, httpwww.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA486738&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf, dheidt)

Throughout history, U.S. maritime strategy has evolved in response to the realities of a changing world. As world geo-political dynamics change, US national priorities may change and with it the threats, risks and potential operating environment for the nations’ armed forces. In response, the Navy (including the Marine Corps) develops new strategies or modifies existing ones to support US national strategy and priorities. One constant since the end of World War II has been the enduring principle of forward presence as a mainstay of US maritime strategy. The term presence encompasses many activities from port visits to stationing ships within sight of shore to full scale operations.1 For this paper, presence is the visible positioning or stationing of ships, aircraft and/or personnel for the purpose of influencing, assuring or engaging other state actors or non-state actors. The scope of this definition includes the full range of traditional and emerging military missions, including port visits, training (personnel and forces), Theater Security Cooperation Programs (TSCP), personnel exchanges, humanitarian assistance and limited or full scale permissive and non-permissive military operations.

Presence includes sea basing, periodic deployments, storage agreements, exercises, security and humanitarian assistanceJohnsen and Young, 92 – *Strategic Research Analyst at the Strategic Studies Institute AND ** was a National Security Affairs Analyst at the Strategic Studies Institute and is currently an Associate Research Professor. (William and Thomas-Durrell, “DEFINING U.S. FORWARD PRESENCE IN EUROPE: GETTING PAST THE NUMBERS” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA255193&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

The National Military Strategy of the United States defines forward presence as "...forces stationed overseas and afloat... periodic and rotational deployments, access and storage agreements, combined exercises, security and humanitarian assistance, port visits, and military-to-military contacts.'' 4 Because of this rather all-encompassing description, forward presence currently has the unavoidable characteristic of being all things to all people.

The US national security strategy defines presence to include prepositioned equipment, port calls, military to military contacts and exercisesWeeks and Meconis, 99 – *senior scientist with Science Applications International Corporation AND ** founder and the Research Director of the Institute for Global Security Studies (Stanley and Charles, The armed forces of the USA in the Asia-Pacific region, p. 43)

Concerning US defense strategy and force structure, the 1995 national security strategy reaffirmed the conclusions reached by the 1993 Bottom-Up Review. ‘Win two nearly simultaneous major regional contingencies’ remained the strategy. With regard to force structure the strategy declared that:The President has set forth a defense budget for Fiscal Years 1996-2001 that funds the force structure recommended by the [Bottom-Up] Review, and he repeatedly stressed that he will draw the line against further cuts that would undermine that force structure or erode US military readiness.33


An overseas presence of US military forces was strongly supported, but the definition of ‘presence’ was expanded to include permanently stationed forces and prepositioned equipment, deployments and combined exercises, port calls and other force visits, as well as military-to-military contacts.



Presence includes force deployments, training, exercises, drug interdiction, disaster relief, and intelligence gatheringBrady, 92 - Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy (Patrick, “IMPLICATIONS FOR THE U.S. NAVY OF A 50 PERCENT DECREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA261766&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

In this new era of regional threats the need for forward presence has become more important.2 1 Yet defense budget cuts and the closing of many overseas bases have prompted the DOD to reevaluate its traditional definitions of forward presence in order for the nation to continue to fulfill its many obligations.2 2 The new definition of forward presence emphasizes the need to "show our commitment, lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability, and provide crisis response capability while promoting U.S. influence and access." 23The planned reduction of forward land-based U.S. forces worldwide could mean naval forces will be increasingly responsible for fulfilling the objectives of forward presence. There are six roles for the Navy under forward presence. The first role is peacetime engagement. This is similar to the traditional presence role the Navy has historically fulfilled. It is needed to counter the image of an American global withdrawal as force reductions occur and fewer forces are forward based. The forward deployment of naval forces in this role "provides an underpinning for diplomatic activities which, when combined with other U.S. foreign policy initiatives, are influential in shaping events. These forward operations are oriented toward diplomacy, coalition building and the promotion of stability which fosters peace and cooperation." 2 4Additionally, this role will also guarantee the freedom of the sea which will facilitate trade and improve the economic conditions of the United States and our allies. Typical missions include: Stationed forces; rotational overseas deployments; access and storage agreements; port visits; military-to-military relations; and joint and combined training exercises.2 5 This role does not necessarily have to be fulfilled by aircraft carrier battle groups to be credible.26The second role is to enhance crisis response capability. Naval forces provide the National Command Authority with the ability to react to ambiguous warning in the early stages of a crisis. This timely show of force can stabilize the situation and permit diplomacy to prevail. By complicating the risk versus gain calculus of potential adversaries, we cause them to consider carefully the initiation of activity which might be counter to U.S. interests. Depending upon the crisis, forward deployed naval expeditionary forces can respond autonomously or become an enabling force about which a decisive joint/coalition based response can be shaped.2 7The third role is protecting U.S. citizens. This includes not only responsive and capable evacuation lift, but the ability to be able to do it in the midst of conflict. This could also include protection against terrorists by stopping vessels, suspected of containing terrorists or illegal arms shipments, on the high seas.The fourth role is combating drugs. This involves ocean surveillance of potential drug traffickers, interdiction of drug shipments, and intelligence collection for counter narcotics agencies.The fifth role is humanitarian assistance. This requires the ability to respond rapidly and effectively to disasters. As stated in the National Military Strategy, "Not only must our forces provide humanitarian aid, but as seen recently in Northern Iraq, in some cases they must also be prepared to engage in conflict in order to assist and project those in need.'"2 8The final role is intelligence collection. This requires the ability to overtly and covertly collect information, and then transmit real-time information to the National Command Authorities in time to avert or mitigate crises. This role is necessary under all four elements of the new defense agenda. Typical missions include maritime intelligence collection in support of national requirements; surveillance of air or naval forces that could act hostile against vital interests of


the United States; and detection, tracking, and reporting vessels involved in terrorist-related activities.



Presence includes joint exercises, training, stationing forces, prepositioned equipment, intelligence assets, port calls, military exchanges and foreign military sales and co-production of equipmentThomason, 2 – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis (James, “Transforming US Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD,” July, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This is generally consistent, for example, with B. Dismukes’ formulation: “Overseas presence encompasses a variety of activities…. In addition to permanent and rotational forces forward on the ground, forces deployed at sea, and prepositioned equipment, overseas presence includes: exercises and training of US forces with those of friends and allies; unilateral training by US forces on foreign soil; US C3I systems, especially in their bilateral and multilateral roles; arrangements for access by US forces to facilities overseas; stationing and visits abroad by senior US military and defense officials; visits to port and airfields by US naval and air forces; public shows by demonstration teams such as Thunderbirds and a host of public affairs activities, including military musical groups; staff-to-staff talks and studies with foreign military organizations and analytical groups; exchanges of military people between the US and friends and allies; military training of foreign personnel in the US and in their home countries; training of military officers of former totalitarian and some developing states in the roles of the military in a civil society; foreign military sales and funding and co-production of military equipment with other nations.” [pp. 13–14]

Presence includes forward stationing, military exchanges, and trainingPeay, 94 – US Army General (Binford, Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony, 6/16, lexis)

Overseas presence encompasses a broad range of military actions that reduce the likelihood of regional crisis. These activities are a blend of forward stationing, rotational deployments and low-key, high- payoff temporary duty activities such as military-to-military exchanges, professional seminars, and disaster preparedness surveys. These operational requirements seem to be supported best through traditional procedures.

Presence includes deployed forces, exercises, port calls, training and military to military contactsDepartment of Defense, 95 (Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other Than War, Joint Pub 3-07, http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_07.pdf)

b. Forward Presence. Forward presence activities demonstrate our commitment , lend credibility to our alliances, enhance regional stability , and provide a crisis response capability while promoting US influence and access . In addition to forces stationed overseas and afloat, forward presence activities include periodic and rotational deployments, access and storage agreements, multinational exercises, port visits, foreign military training, foreign community support and military-to-military contacts. Given their location and knowledge of the region, forward presence forces could be the first which the combatant commander commits to MOOTW.


Presence includes military material

Presence refers to deployed forces and infrastructure – DOD definitionGAO, 1 – General Accounting Office (“EUROPEAN SECURITY U.S. and European Contributions to Foster Stability and Security in Europe,” November, http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/214.pdf

DOD defines overseas presence as the mix of permanently stationed forces, rotationally deployed forces, temporarily deployed forces, and infrastructure required to conduct the full range of military operations.

Presence refers to deployed forces and infrastructureCrawford, 3 – US Army Colonel, paper for the USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT (Paul, “Army Pre-Positioned Stocks and High-Speed Sealift,”http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA414836&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

The National Military Strategy (NMS) defines Overseas Presence as “the strategic placement of permanently stationed, rotationally deployed and temporarily deployed U.S. military forces overseas, and the infrastructure and pre-positioned equipment necessary to sustain them in and near key regions.”5 The NMS goes on to state, “Strategic mobility requires robust sealift, airlift, space lift, and ground transportation supported by adequate and sufficient air refueling assets, mobility infrastructure, material handling equipment, and pre-positioned stocks of supplies and equipment.”6 Strategic mobility is critical to our ability to augment forward-deployed forces or quickly reinforce a region, and pre-positioned equipment sets are a critical enabler identified in the NMS.

Presence refers to troops or military materialGreer, 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

To establish a conceptual framework for this paper, I developed the following definition of forward presence within the context of national defense: the visible employment of US military personnel and/or military material as a deterrent outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational continuum short of involving major US conventional forces in combat.

Weapons are part of the US military presenceLutz, 9 – professor of International Studies at Brown (Catherine, The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle Against U.S. Military Posts, p. 6, google books)

Much of the United States' unparalleled weaponry, nuclear and otherwise, is stored at places like Camp Darby in Italy, Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, and the Naval Magazine on Guam, as well as in nuclear submarines and on the navy's other floating bases. The weapons, personnel, and fossil fuels involved in this U.S. military presence cost billions of dollars, most coming from U.S. taxpayers but an increasing number of billions from the citizens of the countries involved. Elaborate bilateral negotiations exchange weapons, cash, and trade privileges for overflight and land-use rights. Less explicitly, but no less importantly, rice import levels or immigration rights to the United States or overlooking human rights abuses have been the currency of exchange (Cooley, 2008).


Presence includes combat operations

Presence is part of combat operationsMastapeter, 8 - Senior Planning Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Master’s Thesis for the Naval Postgraduate School (Craig, “THE INSTRUMENTS OF NATIONAL POWER: ACHIEVING THE STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE IN A CHANGING WORLD,” December,https://www.hsdl.org/homesec/docs/theses/08Dec_Mastapeter.pdf&code=9b55800f98c1150b31a774eadc3a294b

According to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, presence is defined as the state of being present, or of being within sight or call, or at hand; as opposed to absence.438 YourDictionary defines presence as the fact or condition of being present; existence, occurrence, or attendance at some place or in some thing.439 From the perspective of the purpose of this paper, the FreeDictionary provides the most relevant definition: the diplomatic, political, or military influence of a nation in a foreign country, especially as evidenced by the posting of its diplomats or its troops there.440

Interestingly enough, The Joint Publications 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms does not include a definition of presence. However, Joint Publication 1-0, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States , clearly states that an extended U.S. presence will be required, post-termination, to conduct stability operations to enable legitimate civil authority and attain the national strategic end state441 and that, as a nation, the United States wages war employing all instruments of national power to achieve national strategic objectives on terms favorable to the United States.442 It can therefore be inferred from this entry that a U.S. presence is necessary prior to and during operations because presence demonstrates U.S. commitment, facilitates access, enhances deterrence, and supports the transition from peace to war and a return to peace once hostilities have ended on terms favorable to the U.S.The U.S.’ ability to maintain and fully employ its military, informational, diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence, financial, and economic resources overseas enhances U.S. security and that of its partners, bolsters prosperity, and promotes democracy. This ability is commonly called “presence.”In the context of U.S. basic national security policy and strategy, presence, especially forward military, informational (i.e., cultural), diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence (overt, covert, and clandestine), financial, and economic presence, unequivocally demonstrates U.S. resolve and sets the conditions for stability and undeniable commitment to a cause. U.S. presence, government and private sector, creates a planning and future operational environment that is conducive to establishing and operationalizing information dominance, or knowledge superiority, (situational awareness of the common operating picture) and thus creating a strategic advantage. Presence is therefore the ability to project actionable U.S. power and influence, the means by which the U.S. frames and shapes the international environment in ways favorable to the nation’s interests and objectives. Presence is and has been a fundamental principle of U.S. basic national security policy and strategy since 1942, and perhaps as early as 1898. Ultimately, actionable influence and leverage is gained through the totality of the instruments of national power — military, informational, diplomatic, legal and law enforcement, intelligence, financial, and economic – and underpinned by the strength of the nation’s geographic and demographic position and its resources and/or access to resources.


Presence includes combat operations

Military presence refers to combat operationsPape, 6 – professor of political science at the University of Chicago (Robert, Dying to win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism, p. 105-106)

The standard I use is American military presence, defined as heavy combat operations on the homeland of Sunni Muslim majority countries for a sustained period prior to the onset of al-Qaeda’s suicide terrorist campaign against the United States in 1995. If American military presence, so defined, has expanded to include still more countries during the course of al-Qaeda’s suicide campaign, then I include those new countries as well, since they could also serve as recruiting grounds for al-Qaeda’s ongoing suicide campaign. “American military presence” includes cases where American combat forces are based in the country or where the United States provides explicitly or widely understood security guarantee that could be implemented using its forces in an adjacent country. It does not include cases where American military advisors are present or where the country’s military and the U.S. military conduct joint training exercises.This standard comports with the meaning of “occupation” in Chapter 6, because it defines American military presence from the perspective of the terrorists, who are likely to fear the possibility that foreign control may be imposed by force and to suspect that security “guarantees” actually indicate American intention to defend the regime against revolution. This is Osama bin Laden’s view of the role of U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula; it is not the perspective of the United States, which, in most of the relevant cases, would see itself as supporting an allied government.

Presence is the physical deployment of combat forcesMurdock, 2 – Senior Advisor at the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Clark, “The Navy in an Antiaccess World,” http://web.archive.org/web/20040204233100/http://www.ndu.edu/inss/books/Books_2002/Globalization_and_Maritime_Power_Dec_02/26_ch25.htm)

In its April 2000 Strategic Planning Guidance, the Navy identified “combat-credible forward presence” as its “enduring contribution” to the Nation.10 According to this document, “sea-based, self-contained and self-sustaining” naval expeditionary forces project power and influence through the means of “Knowledge Superiority and Forward Presence,” defined as follows:Knowledge Superiority is the ability to achieve a real-time, shared understanding of the battlespace at all levels through a network which provides the rapid accumulation of all information that is needed—and the dissemination of that information to the commander as the knowledge needed—to make a timely and informed decision inside any potential adversary’s sensor and engagement timeline.Forward Presence is being physically present with combat credible forces to Deter Aggression, Enhance Regional Stability, Protect and Promote U.S. interests, Improve Interoperability, and provide Timely Initial Crisis Response where our national interests dictate.11


Presence includes temporary visits

Presence includes temporary deploymentsCliff et al, 1 - associate political scientist with RAND and currently is assigned to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy (Roger, QDR 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices for America’s Security, Ed: Michele Flournoy http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

3 Another method of categorizing overseas presence forces—one used in recent reports of the Secretary of Defense—is by their degree of permanence. In this construct, overseas presence forces can be categorized as (1) permanently stationed, (2) rotationally deployed, and (3) deployed temporarily for exercises, combined training, or military-to-military interactions. See Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Annual Report to the President and Congress 2000, 4.


Presence includes virtual presence

Presence includes virtual presenceBillman, 2k - LIEUTENANT COLONEL, USAF, and NATIONAL DEFENSE FELLOWGENERAL RIDGWAY CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIESUNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH (Gregory, “The Space of Aerospace Power – Why and How,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA394062&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

This chapter discusses presence, its relationship to influence, and how this relationship affects an adversary. This discussion is done from both general military and specific aerospace perspectives. Webster’s dictionary defines presence as “the state or act of being present.” “Present” denotes being “alert to circumstances,” and “readily available.” An entity is present when it is physically “close at hand,” or even perceived to be so. Hence, an entity can be present when it is physically so, or merely notionally so.This chapter deals with “presence” in two ways. First, it discusses the capability of military forces to be “present” in, near, or over an area of interest to the US. Second, it discusses two concepts of presence -- real and virtual -- and how they relate to the space dimension of aerospace power. Presence allows influence.

Presence activities are distinct from “being present” – it means the ability to exert influenceThomason, 2 – Project Leader, Institute for Defense Analysis (James, “Transforming US Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD,” July, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.122.1144&rep=rep1&type=pdf

In everyday parlance, to “be present” means that an entity is in a particular place at a particular time. It is the opposite of absence. Being present in this sense does not necessarily mean that the entity is exerting a significant effect upon the immediate surroundings. By contrast, in everyday language, to “have presence” or “have a presence” means that an individual is able to exert and usually is exerting a significant effect on the immediate surroundings.


Presence includes virtual presence

Presence includes virtual presenceWidnall and Fogleman, 97 – *Institute Professor at MIT and former US Secretary of the Air Force AND **former Air Force general (Sheila and Ronald, American Defense Policy, ed: Hays, p. 357-358)

The thrust of forward defense was to deter potential aggressors, and if that failed, to engage those aggressors’ forces close to their borders, halting and repelling the aggression. As such, presence equated to and was ensured by bipolar alliances, heavy overseas troop commitments, frequent political and military-to-military interaction with America’s allies, and the continual courting of “on-the-fence” nations. In short, America’s Cold War strategy was “being there.” It was a strategy most Americans understood.As the 1980s ended and the Cold War subsided, the basis for the traditional definition of presence began to dissolve. America moved from the Cold War’s bipolar arrangement toward what was perceived to be a new, less threatening political environment. As forward defense lost its rationale, forward presence and overseas presence emerged. The goal of each was to assure America’s allies of our nation’s continued commitment to their security while responding to the reality of the decreasing threat to America’s national existence.Today the global international system has become a more diverse panorama of political, military, and economic concerns confronting the United States. Consequently, it is more difficult to achieve consensus on what Americans consider “vital” national interests. Despite this, America’s military forces are involved in more operations of greater duration than at any time in the past twenty years; and, these operations have been conducted with 25 percent of the total force and 40 percent fewer forward deployed forces than the services possessed in 1989.In the face of increasing demands on U.S. military forces, smaller force structures, and shrinking defense budgets, we can no longer afford to physically deploy forces in every region of concern. Concurrent with changes in the international security environment are significant advances in technology, most notably information technologies. The ability to create, disseminate, access, and manipulate information for one’s own ends and to control information available to competitors or adversaries produces a potential for decisive advantage. Much as the introduction of the airplane moved us into the three-dimensional battlefield, information technologies lead us to consider the potential of operations in a four-dimensional, virtual battlespace. This battlespace is not defined in terms of traditional, centralized, geopolitical boundaries, but in terms of a decentralized, global web of networks. As a result, we must examine new methods of characterizing the threat – including the use of technology-based analysis – and determine appropriate responses.To use an analogy, during the Cold War, America was like a cop permanently guarding the door of every bank around the globe. Changes in the security environment coupled with technological improvements and force reductions altered America’s need to continue in this role. Hence America replaced “the cop on the beat” with “video monitoring and alarm systems” linked to joint military capabilities that can be brought to bear wherever and whenever necessary. This monitoring and alarm network consists of space-based and air-breathing platform sensors and other information-gathering systems. In most instances, information, combined with the right mix of capabilities, can achieve U.S. goals. On occasion, information alone may be enough to attain U.S. objectives. Of course, in some regions of the world a physical presence is imperative; however, there may be circumstances when such a presence is counterproductive. In instances where a physical presence is not preferred, information capabilities provide America the option to visit the “bank” as often as it wishes to check the integrity of the system.


In an environment influenced by so many variables, how should America best pursue the continuing need for presence? One way is through global presence. Global presence expands the definition of presence to include the advantages of physical and virtual means. Global presence considers the full range of potential activities from the physical interaction of military forces to the virtual interaction achieved with America’s information-capabilities.


Presence includes training

Presence is primarily training – not just troop presenceLutz, 9 - professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University (Catherine, “Obama’s Empire,” New Statesman, August 3, 2009, lexis)

Moreover, these bases are the anchor - and merely the most visible aspect - of the US military's presence overseas. Every year, US forces train 100,000 soldiers in 180 countries, the presumption being that beefed-up local militaries will help to pursue US interests in local conflicts and save the US money, casualties and bad publicity when human rights abuses occur (the blowback effect of such activities has been made clear by the strength of the Taliban since 9/11). The US military presence also involves jungle, urban, desert, maritime and polar training exercises across wide swathes of landscape, which have become the pretext for substantial and permanent positioning of troops. In recent years, the US has run around 20 exercises annually on Philippine soil, which have resulted in a near-continuous presence of US soldiers in a country whose people ejected US bases in 1992 and whose constitution forbids foreign troops to be based on its territory. Finally, US personnel work every day to shape local legal codes to facilitate US access: they have lobbied, for example, to change the Philippine and Japanese constitutions to allow, respectively, foreign troop basing and a more-than-defensive military.


AT: Greer definition of presence

Greer’s definition isn’t rigorous or well thought out, it only applies to his paperGreer, 91 - Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Charles, “The Future of Forward Presence”, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA234227&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

The definition may not be scholastically airtight. It is only offered to provide a conceptual frame of reference for the study. So for the purpose of this study, let us accept that forward presence is the visible employment of US military personnel and/or military material as a deterrent outside of the continental United States (OCONUS) at any point along the operational continuum short of involving major US conventional forces in combat.


AT: Presence is only deterrence

Presence refers to military forces deployed for the purpose of influence, reassurance, deterrence, and initial crisis response Flournoy, 1 - senior advisor for international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously served as a distinguished research professor in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction (Michele, QDR 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices for America’s Security, Ed: Michele Flournoy http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) Italics in original

Terms such as presence and engagement are often used rather loosely. Following a survey andanalysis of existing sources, we developed or adopted specific definitions for the terms used to describethese strategy issues.We define overseas presence as military forces permanently stationed or rotationallyor intermittently deployed overseas for the purposes of influence, engagement, reassurance, deterrence,and initial crisis response. We define peacetime military engagement as encompassing all U.S. military activities designed to enhance constructive security relations and promote broad U.S. securityinterests, including activities such as combined training and education, military-to-military interactions,security assistance, and various other programs. U.S. overseas presence forces are often also involvedin conducting peacetime military engagement activities.

Presence refers to military forces deployed for particular military goals of influence, reassurance, deterrence and crisis responseFlournoy, 1 - senior advisor for international security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously served as a distinguished research professor in the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University and as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction (Michele, QDR 2001: Strategy-Driven Choices for America’s Security, Ed: Michele Flournoy http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430963&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) Italics in original

Another key element of any defense strategy is overseas presence, which we define as the military forces permanently stationed or rotationally or intermittently deployed overseas for the purposes of influence, engagement, reassurance, deterrence, and initial crisis response. Because many overseas-presence forces require a substantial rotation base, this element has potentially profound implications for the size of the associated force.

Presence includes crisis response and security cooperationHenry, 6 – served as Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy since February 2003 (Ryan, “Reposturing the Force: U.S. Overseas Presence in the Twenty-first Century,” ed: Lords,http://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/Newport-Papers/Documents/26-pdf.aspx)

Finally, operational access comprises the presence, global management, and surging of our forces overseas, all enabled by the political and geographic access we enjoy with hostnation


partners. Presence is defined by the permanent and rotational forces that conduct military activities (training, exercises, and operations) worldwide, from security cooperation to crisis response. That presence consists of both small units working together in a wide range of capacities and major formations conducting elaborate exercises to achieve proficiency in multinational operations. Second, our posture supports our new approach to force management, which seeks both to relieve stresses on our military forces and their families and to manage our forces on a global, rather than regional, basis. Combatant commanders no longer “own” forces in their theaters; rather, forces are managed according to global priorities. Third, managing our military forces globally also allows us to surge a greater percentage of the force wherever and whenever necessary.


Presence only refers to military posture – not a mission

Presence just refers to a military posture – their interpretation of a presence mission isn’t specified in the resolutionDismukes, 94 – representative of the Center for Naval Analyses to the London staff of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Europe. (Bradford, “National Security Strategy and Forward Presence: Implicationsfor Acquisition and Use of Forces,” March, http://cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2793019200.pdf)

The core of this analysis is a comparison of the relative merits of a military posture focused on operating forces overseas with its alternative—a posture centered on forces in or near the continental United States (CONUS).5 Because confusion surrounds the term presence, appendix A defines it further, showing its relationship to the other strategic tasks of conventional forces. The basic problem is that the term describes both a military posture, i.e., military means, and a military mission, which cannot be meaningful without defining its ends—influence on behalf of a variety of political goals. The problem American strategy faces concerns military posture: whether forces have to be overseas to achieve the desired political ends. Unless the mission is specified hereafter, the terms "presence," "overseas presence," and "forward presence" refer only to a military posture. Appendix A also provides the background to the discussion of force sizing and structure in the final section of the body of this paper.

Presence solely refers to the deployment of forces overseas – it is distinct from the political goals attached to force deploymentsKugler, 98 – senior consultant at the Center for Technology and National Security Policy (CTNSP) of the National Defense University, he previously was a Distinguished Research Professor there (Richard, “Future Directions for the U.S. Overseas Military Presence”, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR956/MR956.2.pdf)

Overseas presence is a policy instrument: a means to an end, not an end in itself. The United States

deploys military forces abroad for specific purposes, and the posture, ideally, should reflect these purposes. One purpose is to perform the important but narrow mission of waging war and otherwise carrying out combat operations on short notice. An equally important purpose, however, is political and strategic. Overseas-presence forces are intended to work with the forces of friendly and allied countries, as well as with U.S. forces based in CONUS, to influence the behavior of many countries and therefore to help shape the international environment. Both purposes must be kept in mind when judging the performance of the current posture and future requirements.

A legitimate question can be raised about whether the term overseas presence is the best name for this endeavor. During the Cold War, the relevant term was forward defense. This term was discarded when the Cold War ended,

and it was replaced first by forward presence, then by overseas presence. One effect has been to strip away provocative connotations; an additional effect has been to create a term that seems devoid of purpose or activity. The term overseas presence merely states that U.S. forces are deployed overseas, but it says nothing about their ends and means. Perhaps a better term might be overseas security engagement or overseas security commitments, terms that convey a sense of strategic purpose, rather than presence for its own sake.For convenience I use overseas presence. However, I provide a comprehensive definition of this term because it includes so many things:Overseas presence is the set of U.S. military assets and activities abroad that, as a complement to power projection from CONUS, engages in purposeful security commitments and management efforts on behalf of a broad spectrum of national objectives that are “strategic”—that is, political, economic, and military in nature.


Presence only refers to a military posture – not a mission

Their interpretation conflates presence and influence – presence is just the state of being present in a country, influence is the GOAL of presenceJones, 95 – Major, USAF (Bud, Air & Space Power Journal 1995-1998 (there is no date listed in the archive but this article is listed under that date range), “The Objective is Influence, not Presence or Its Influence (not Presence) Stupid!,” http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/influenc.html)

The objective of military presence is not simply to be present as events occur, the objective is to influence those events. Unfortunately, military presence can easily masquerade as the objective and the argument over which particular service or mix of forces can best attain the desired presence can dominate the debate and

exclude other considerations. Presence and influence are related, but they are not synonymous. Presence, the mere fact or condition of being present, is much easier to achieve. It can be achieved in some special circumstances by sending a carrier battle group or amphibious force, in a greater number of circumstances by rapidly deploying Army elements, or in the greatest number of instances by the sudden impact of air power from Air Force warplanes quickly launched from distant bases--including those in the continental United States. In all these cases, presence is designed to

shrink the time and distance equation so a potential military response will seem more immediate and visible. Still, the debate over who can best provide presence while limiting vulnerability and danger to US lives causes a loss of focus on the more important objective: influence.Presence is only a component of influence (which is a much more sophisticated and in some ways subtler concept). Influence is also a much more elusive objective than presence. The influence military forces can exert in the international arena is related to their presence (or capability to be present), their core capabilities, the political will to use those forces, and, most importantly, the perception of those who you seek to influence. Moreover, in this complex world, the US military will be required to exert influence in ways not directly related to war fighting; i.e., missions like transporting and distributing humanitarian aid, providing health and physical services in support of relief efforts, and peacekeeping duties. Contrary to the current debate over which types of forces will best provide presence, the real question is: which forces will work successfully across the widest possible spectrum of events to influence future international situations?

The answer to that question is not as simple as the slogan makers seem to make it. Mere presence is no guarantor of influence; after all, the United Nations and American Express are present virtually everywhere but their influence is at best limited. For example, great claims are made about the Navy's ability to operate in the world's coastal or littoral areas and thus, so the argument goes, making it the most visible and flexible service to support forward presence. What these proponents do not acknowledge is that littoral presence may or may not provide an avenue for achieving influence. In effect, a naval presence adds only the possibility for influence.


AT: Definitions of “forward presence”

Forward presence is broader than military presence – it includes nonmilitary capabilitiesChallis, 93 - Lieutenant Colonel (Dan, "GENERAL PURPOSE GROUND FORCES" WHAT PURPOSE?" 4/6, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA441096&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfJSCP = Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan

JSCP guidance for forward presence operations is similarly broad. It defines forward presence as the "totality of U.S. instruments of power deployed overseas (both permanently and temporarily) at any time". A wide-ranging assortment of 34 specific actions are aligned into six categories:•operational training and deployments•security assistance•peacekeeping operations• protecting U.S. citizens abroad•combatting drugs• humanitarian assistanceIt is evident from the JSCP that a wide variety of military and non-military capabilities are to be integrated into the regional CINCs' plans. The breadth of military operations envisioned in this document has huge implications for the number, structure, training and operational tempo (OPTEMPO) of conventional units, to include general purpose ground forces.


AT: Reducing presence requires reducing military capability

The Global Posture Review reduced US military presence even though it was designed to expand allied capabilitiesO’Hanlon, 8 - senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a senior advisor to the Center for a New American Security. (Michael, “Unfinished Business U.S. Overseas Military Presence in the 21st Century,”http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/06_military_ohanlon/06_military_ohanlon.pdf) GPR = Global Posture Review

The GPR encompasses everything from the creation of new bases in Central Asia and Eastern Europe to the downsizing of the U.S. military presence in Germany to a reduction and realignment of the American presence in South Korea and Okinawa, Japan. These changes are designed to improve U.S. and allied options for handling new developments — such as the ongoing struggle against extremism and terrorism, the rise of China — and enduring problems such as the North Korean and Iranian regimes. Of course, there have also been enormous changes in the Persian Gulf, the largest related to ongoing operations in Iraq, and the elimination of American combat forces from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. (Deployment patterns of naval vessels have also changed a good deal, but the base infrastructure supporting them has changed less in recent years.)According to the plan, about 70,000 U.S. military personnel would return to the United States over a ten-year implementation period — just under 30 percent of the 250,000 the United States deployed abroad prior to 9/11 (though less than 20 percent of the total deployed when the review was announced in 2004 with the Iraq and Afghanistan operations fully underway).2 The total number of American military sites abroad would decline from 850 to 550 over that same ten-year period of drawdown (not counting sites in Iraq or Afghanistan).3 That 35 percent cut in numbers of facilities will translate into a reduction of somewhat more than 20 percent of the total value of the assets used by U.S. forces abroad, which topped $100 billion earlier this decade.4


AT: Presence requires visibility

Presence doesn’t depend on visibility or perceptionRiehm, 96 – ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLL FORT LEAVENWORTH KS (Peter, “Suasion Through Military Presence: An Analysis of the Role of Presence in U.S.-Libyan Relations, l977-1995,”http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=868&CISOBOX=1&REC=19

This professional experience off the coast of Haiti is the genesis of this thesis. Presence operations seemed to have been either misapplied, underutilized, or just plain misunderstood. The US5 Harlan County incident in October 1993 is a good example of misapplied presence with an inadequate attempt at entry and unceremonious withdrawal of forces. Where was the disconnect? Was it lack of doctrine or lack of appreciation for the proper employment of presence? In pondering these questions, it became clear to the author that evaluating or measuring the effectiveness of presence operations has been subjective and largely intangible. Apparent ambiguity and difficulty in measuring variables make presence a complex concept to grasp, much less apply. For this thesis, presence is defined as any use of military power intended to influence a sovereign entity, regardless of perception, including mere capability to measured applications of force short of war. This thesis will attempt to discern some pattern or form to measure efficacy of presence operations.


1nc – Military is only Ground Forces

The adjective “military” excludes the Navy—the aff does not

RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY 2010(“Military,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/military)

–adjective1. of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy: from civilian to military life.

Predictable limits—US Code distinguishes between military and naval forces—their interpretation multiplies the topic

18 USC 2387(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002387----000-.html)

(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “military or naval forces of the United States” includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such vessel.

***Military violations


XT – Military is only ground forces

“Military” means land forces

AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 2009(“Military,” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/military)

4. Of or relating to land forces.

The adjective “military” refers to land forces

SPIRITUS TEMPORIS 2005(History website, “Military,” http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/military/meaning-of-the-word.html)

In formal British English, "military" as an adjective refers more particularly to matters relating to an army (land forces), as opposed to the naval and air force matters of the other two services.


Military Must Be All

The adjective “military” means the plan must apply to all of the armed forces generally

SPIRITUS TEMPORIS 2005(History website, “Military,” http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/military/meaning-of-the-word.html)

In American English, "military" as an adjective is more widely used for regulations pertaining to and between all the armed forces like military procurement, military transport, military justice, military strength and military force.


AT: Military is only ground forces

“Military” includes the Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard

RANDOM HISTORY 2007(History website; all authors have at least a BA, many have advanced degrees, “Pluralism, Expansionism, and Democracy: A History of the U.S. Military,” Random History and Word Origins for the Curious Mind, December 14, http://www.randomhistory.com/1-50/020military.html)

In many ways, the history of the America’s military is a history of America itself, for it is a projection of America’s political, economic, and institutional issues. U.S. military history is both vast and complex, but its pluralistic military institutions, dual force of professional and citizen soldiers, and commitment to civilian control of the military have been consistent themes. As of 2007, the term “military” encompasses the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps, which are all under the command of the Department of Defense. The U.S. president is Commander in Chief of each of these branches and also has authority to assume control of individual state militia or National Guard units. Today, America still stands as the world’s premier military superpower, but it has not always been this way.

Context matters—for the purposes of deployment strategy, in theaters with different forces all aspects of armed power are included as “military”

VEGO 2003(Milan, Professor of Operations, US Naval War College, Naval Strategy and Operations in Narrow Seas, pp. 1-2)

In the strict meaning of the term, military strategy does not involve the actual application of military force, but is principally focused on accomplishing national military and/or theater-strategic objectives through national or coalition/alliance strategy, determining principal and secondary theaters of

war and overall military posture (offensive or defensive), deciding on the distribution of armed forces to various theaters, and conflict/war

termination. Depending on the medium where sources of military power are to be applied, military strategy encompasses naval, airspace, and land aspects. Many theoreticians differentiate naval from airspace strategy, while the term ‘military strategy’ is commonly used when referring to land warfare.


Police presence refers to civilian public police forces

Police refers to civilian public forces charged with crime control and maintaining orderDeflem and Sutphin, 6 – * Associate Professor of Sociology University of South Carolina AND **grad student in sociology at the University of South Carolina (Mathieu and Suzanne, "Policing Post-War Iraq: Insurgency, Civilian Police, and the Reconstruction of Society." Sociological Focus 39(4)265-283.http://www.cas.sc.edu/socy/faculty/deflem/zpoliraq.html

Our analysis of the police situation in Iraq focuses on developments since an end to major combat operations was announced in the Spring of 2003. Unless explicitly noted otherwise, the term police in this paper refers to the institution and function of civilian public police forces that are formally legitimated within the context of national states with the ta sks of crime control and order maintenance. Importantly, we make no assertion that the police in Iraq has acquired a degree of popular legitimacy comparable to that of law enforcement agencies in other nations, especially those with a long history of democratization. Relatedly, when we use such terms as insurgency and terrorism in this paper, we imply no essentialist positions but instead rely on a constructionist viewpoint and therefore precisely rely on the terms that are being used, especially on the part of the agents of control, to refer to acts of violence that are responded to accordingly by police agencies and other institutions of social control. Considering the rapidly evolving and changing nature of the Iraqi situation, also, it is important to note that this article was completed in August 2006, at a time when discussions on the insurgency in Iraq were for several months already implying a shift towards civil war.

***Police presence


Police presence is the deployment of US police for security purposes

Police presence is the deployment of US police to supplement military forces to provide securityDobbins et al, 3 – RAND Corporation (James, “America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq”,http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1753/MR1753.ch9.pdf

INTERNATIONAL POLICE PRESENCE OVER TIMEA more recent innovation has been dispatching U.S. and international police to supplement the efforts of military forces to provide security for local inhabitants. These initiatives have differed greatly in scope and scale. Some have principally consisted of training programs for local law enforcement officers; others have been major operations that have included deploying hundreds or thousands of armed international police to monitor, train, mentor, and even substitute for indigenous forces until the creation of a proficient domestic police force. Figure 9.3 shows numbers of foreign police per thou- sand inhabitants over time for the four cases that featured significant deployments of international police.


In means throughout

the word ‘in’ means throughoutWords and Phrases, 8 (Permanent Edition, vol. 20a, p. 207)

Colo. 1887. In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.

***In


In is within

In means within – this is the core meaningEncarta, 9 (Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2009, http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620513)

in [ in ] CORE MEANING: a grammatical word indicating that something or somebody is within or inside something

(prep) The dinner's in the oven. (adv) I stopped by, but you weren't in.

Definition: 1. preposition indicates place: indicates that something happens or is situated somewhere

He spent a whole year in Russia.

in means within the limits ofMerriam Webster Online Dictionary, 06 (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=in)

Main Entry: 1 in Pronunciation: 'in, &n, &nFunction: prepositionEtymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German in in, Latin in, Greek en1 a -- used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits <in the lake> <wounded in the leg> <in the summer>

In expresses being enclosed or surrounded within.Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 8 (“in”, 2008, http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/inxx?view=uk)inpreposition 1 expressing the situation of being enclosed or surrounded. 2 expressing motion that results in being within or surrounded by something. 3 expressing a period of time during which an event takes place or a situation remains the case. 4 expressing the length of time before a future event is expected to take place. 5 expressing a state, condition, or quality. 6 expressing inclusion or involvement. 7 indicating a person’s occupation or profession. 8 indicating the language or medium used. 9 expressing a value as a proportion of (a whole).

In means within the bounds ofOxford English Dictionary, 89 (Second Edition, online accessed via Emory databases)

in, prep. 1. a. Of place or position in space or anything having material extension: Within the limits or bounds of, within (any place or thing).

In means within boundsAmerican Heritage, 9 (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/in)

in1 PREPOSITION:


1. a. Within the limits, bounds, or area of: was hit in the face; born in the spring; a chair in the garden.

b. From the outside to a point within; into: threw the letter in the wastebasket.


In is within

In means within an areaCambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 10 (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/in_1)

in preposition ( INSIDE ) inside or towards the inside of a container, place or area, or surrounded or closed off by something


Country boundaries include a 12 mile territorial sea

Each country has a 12 mile territorial sea that is part of its territoryWest's Encyclopedia of American Law, 8 (edition 2,http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Territorial+sea

Territorial WatersThe part of the ocean adjacent to the coast of a state that is considered to be part of the territory of that state and subject to its sovereignty.In International Law the term territorial waters refers to that part of the ocean immediately adjacent to the shores of a state and subject to its territorial jurisdiction. The state possesses both the jurisdictional right to regulate, police, and adjudicate the territorial waters and the proprietary right to control and exploit natural resources in those waters and exclude others from them. Territorial waters differ from the high seas, which are common to all nations and are governed by the principle of freedom of the seas. The high seas are not subject to appropriation by persons or states but are available to everyone for navigation, exploitation of resources, and other lawful uses. The legal status of territorial waters also extends to the seabed and subsoil under them and to the airspace above them.From the eighteenth to the middle of the twentieth century, international law set the width of territorial waters at one league (three nautical miles), although the practice was never wholly uniform. The United States established a three-mile territorial limit in 1793. International law also established the principle that foreign ships are entitled to innocent passage through territorial waters.By the 1970s, however, more than forty countries had asserted a twelve-mile limit for their territorial waters. In 1988 President RONALD REAGAN issued Executive Proclamation 5928, which officially increased the outer limit of U.S. territorial waters from three to twelve miles (54 Fed. Reg. 777). This limit also applies to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Reagan administration claimed the extension of the limit was primarily motivated by national security concerns, specifically to hinder the operations of spy vessels from the Soviet Union that plied the U.S. coastline. Another reason for the extension was the recognition that most countries had moved to a twelve-mile limit. In 1982, at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 130 member countries ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which included a recognition of the twelve-mile limit as a provision of customary international law. Although the United States voted against the convention, 104 countries had officially claimed a twelve-mile territorial sea by 1988.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Law+of+the+Sea

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/International+Law

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Territorial+sea


Presence must be within

Presence must occur within countriesDilag, 5 - Major (Select), United States Air Force (Bayani, “ACCESS ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN THAILAND AND THE PHILIPPINES,” http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2005/Mar/05Mar_Dilag.pdf)

The RAND Corporation undertook a study under the Project AIR FORCE that was sponsored by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations (AF/XO) that sought to “...examine the political, operational, logistical, and force protection issues associated with overseas basing for the Expeditionary Aerospace Force.”27 The RAND report entitled A Global Access Strategy for the U.S. Air Force explores the “pure” basing and access strategies.28 The study covered several issues and variables that may affect other countries’ decision to grant or deny access to the U.S. military. The RAND report distinguished three kinds of access, viz., (1) permanent presence, (2) mission presence,and (3) limited access. “Permanent presence” is defined by the authors as, “The presence of U.S. forces abroad, in bases or facilities that are operated by the United States either alone or in concert with host countries...”29 American bases in NATO countries, Japan, Korea, and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are examples of this kind of basing arrangement.“Mission presence” was described as substantial presence in countries for the purpose of an ongoing military mission where there may or may not be treaty commitments.30

David Heidt Topicality File

Documents

Transcript of David Heidt Topicality File