Forensics Files Nov 2012

The Forensics Files November 2012
The PFD File Middle East
THEFORENSICSFILES
THEPFDFILE
Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.
November2012
1
Table of Contents
Topic Overview Definitions Pro Cases Con Cases Pro Extensions Con Extensions Pro Blocks Con Blocks Preflows 3 5 8 12 16 31 41 45 49
Topic Overview
Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.
This topic is likely a timely topic because Mitt Romney, the Republican Candidate for President, has recently attacked President Obama and his administrations policies in the Middle East. Specifically, in the past couple years, the peoples of Middle Eastern countries including Egypt have protest for more democratic processes. The US, promoting democracy, was supportive of these efforts. However, as Romney has pointed out, the people of these Arab nations have proved not to disapprove of anti-American policies, they just wanted leaders who would institute other, more effective AntiAmerican policies. However, the wording of this resolution poses very significant concerns for anyone who has any previous debate experience. Unlike prior topics that have focused on a very narrow issue of fact, this topic is exceptionally broad. In fact, it resembles (quite remarkably) the college policy debate topic a few years ago. Prior PFD topics from the NFL have focused on one specific U.S. policy with regard to another nation (e.g. U.S. aid to Pakistan). The Middle East is defined as An area of southwestern Asia and northern Africa that stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to Pakistan and includes the Arabian peninsula. The included countries are Bahrain, Cypress, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen; depending on the source, some of these countries might not be included and other countries might be included. And the United States has foreign policies toward all of the countries. Unfortunately, foreign policy is also an exceptionally broad term. Foreign policy toward another country can include immigration, economic assistance, intelligence sharing, health initiatives, and much more. And each of these areas could arguably affect the U.S. national security. And finally, an oddity of this resolution is the use of the word our. This word is odd because our is possessive of what belongs to we. This is distinguishable from the specific reference to the United States. If the framers of this resolution were aware of the term U.S. and could use U.S. as an adjective, why is our national security used instead U.S. national security. This odd terminological choice permits another point of argumentation, our is not United States. This point is plausible because not all NFL members, or schools using this topic are from the United States. For example, there are schools in Taiwan, Thailand, Korea, and Canada who are NFL members and debate the
NFL resolution. Its plausible, but unlikely, that the NFL intended the meaning of the topic to change based on what country the debate is occurring or some other country. One strategic suggestion for this topic is for the Pro side to argue specifically, and hope that the Con side does not have specific responses to argue that the specific policy the pro side is focusing on undermines national security. To combat such a strategy, and to have a workable strategy for arguing first, the Con side could conversely argue that there is specific policy in a specific Middle East country that promotes national security and hope the Pro side does not have the on-point responsive evidence. (The conflict of these two somewhat obvious strategies, however, will create many debates lacking in clash and unsubstantiated claims of outweighing (quite similar to a typical policy debate)). The evidence in this file attempt to tackle this exceptionally broad topic; providing evidence of U.S. foreign policy regarding the many Middle East countries. TFF wishes you the best of luck debating in November!
Definitions
Current
1 Belonging to the present time: current events; current leaders. 2 Being in progress now: current negotiations. 3 Passing from one to another; circulating: current bills and coins. Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2012
Current
1 Of the immediate present; in progress "current events" 2 Most recent; up-to-date 3. commonly known, practiced, or accepted; widespread 4.circulating and valid at present Source: Collins English Dictionary 2012
Current
1 the current situation/climate: 2 the current trend Source: Macmillan Dictionary2012
Current
1 presently elapsing 2 occurring in or existing at the present time 3 most recent Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2012
US
1 United States. Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2012
Foreign Policy
The diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations. Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2012 5
Foreign Policy
the policies of a government regarding relations with other countries Source: Collins English Dictionary 2012
Foreign Policy
the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2012
Middle East
An area comprising the countries of southwest Asia and northeast Africa. In the 20th century the region has been the continuing scene of political and economic turmoil. Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2012
Middle East
1 (loosely) the area around the East Mediterranean, especially Israel and the Arab countries from Turkey to North Africa and eastwards to Iran 2 (formerly) the area extending from the Tigris and Euphrates to Myanmar Source: Collins English Dictionary 2012
Middle East
the region of the world that consists of the countries east of the Mediterranean Sea and west of India. It includes Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. Macmillan Dictionary 2012
Our
The possessive form of we Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
National Security
the protection or the safety of a country's secrets and its citizens
The Forensics Files November 2012 Source: Macmillan Dictionary 2012
National Security
A collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations of the United States. Specifically, the condition provided by: a. a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations; b. a favorable foreign relations position; or c. a defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from within or without, overt or covert. Source: The Free Dictionary Online 2012
Pro Cases
PRO CASE #1 [Russia 1 of 2] We believe that the following resolution is true: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East threatens our national security. Currently, the U.S. remains heavily invested and involved, as it always has been, in Middle Eastern affairs. This involvement threatens U.S. relations with Russia because Russia views this involvement as a continuation of U.S. cold-war containment policies. Moreover, because current U.S. efforts in the Middle East are failing at securing any U.S. allies, the U.S. is in critical condition and ready to be decimated by Russia and new nuclear Middle East enemies. The US remains heavily involved in the Middle East both militarily and diplomatically and this wouldnt change even if we reduced our oil dependence. Adam Wilmoth, who has a B.A. & M.A. from Oklahoma State University, wrote an article in 2012 entitled: Energy independence: It would impact U.S. military policy, expert says, in NewsOK Online:1 The United States military has been involved in two wars, one in the oil-rich Middle East, and actively patrols and monitors oil choke points throughout the world. Energy independence could change both arrangements. Even if the United States were selfreliant, the country likely still would be heavily involved in the Middle East, Jackson said. But the focus could be more diplomatic and less militaristic. Despite the purported end of the Cold War, Russia is still eyeing Middle East countries for allies to take down the U.S. This is the a big threat to national security. An article from The Jerusalem Post entitled The US-Russia Middle East 'reset:' America at the exit from June 12, 2012 states: Regarding a Russian reset. Perhaps from a naive American perspective things appeared better in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But Russia never lost sight of its ambitions in the region. Following its 1979 replacement by the United States in Egypt Russia remained patron to Syria waiting patiently for an Iranian opportunity to come along. Russia is a principal military, economic, and geopolitical partner of Iran and views its Middle Eastern policy through the prism of competition with the United States... While Russian foreign policy in the Middle East is clearly anti-American, at times it also appears self-defeating. Russia is backing a losing Assad regime and siding with the isolated Shia Islamic Republic in Tehran. The policy is almost incoherent, driven by a plethora of strategic relationships and commercial interests.The error in this line of reasoning is the assumption that it is the Russians and Iranians, not America and its everdiminshing allies who are on the losing side of the conflict. No doubt this rationale
1
http://newsok.com/energy-independence-it-would-impact-u.s.-military-policy-expertsays/article/3714064? 8
The Forensics Files November 2012 PRO CASE #1 [Russia 2 of 2]
assumes that America today is identical to America emergent from the Second World War. In actuality the United States is just emerging from two failed military conflicts, its military leadership clearly reluctant, maybe determined, to avoid another such Middle East war. And unlike 1946, in 2012 the United States is slowly (hopefully) emerging from the worst economic recession since the 1920s.America, in other words, is a superpower in decline. In practical terms Russia has deftly blocked every effort by Obama to finesse a decision regarding Iran and Syria onto the Security Council. Iran, for its part, has been equally successful in engaging President Obama in endless and nonproductive negotiations by appearing to agree to American conditions, then leaving the talks as they entered. Except, based on experience, each successive effort by the administration to restart talks is at more favorable to Iran starting point intended to coax the reluctant Iranians back to the negotiating table! With Russias military unchallenged in the Mediterranean Europe, already dependent on Russia for natural gas to heat homes in the winter and drive its industry, America will be isolated internationally. Isolationist by choice or not this time, unlike in the nineteen-teens, its oceans will prove no barrier to the 21st century military threat by non-national terrorism, or by ballistic missile by national enemies so armed. Therefore, current US foreign policy in the Middle East will likely result in Russia taking over, and finally getting its opportunity to take the United States, who is in the weakest position its ever been in. Therefore, current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security. Thank you for your time and attention.
The Forensics Files November 2012 PRO CASE #2 [Saudi Arabia 1 of 2]
We believe that the following resolution is true: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East threatens our national security. Currently, the U.S. remains heavily reliant on Saudi Arabia for oil. This makes the U.S. vulnerable to international economic instability and promotes the nuclearization of other countries; both of these undermine US national security . First, the US is currently relying on Saudi Arabia for oil. Amy Jaffe, wrote an article entitled "America's Real Strategic Petroleum Reserve" in Foreign Policy Magazine on August 24, 20122: Over the years, the United States has been surprisingly reluctant to release SPR during times of crisis, preferring instead to let Saudi Arabia handle the problem by simply increasing its production. For decades, in fact, U.S. presidents have been able to count on the Middle Eastern petro giant to pre-release oil in anticipation of times of war. For example, Riyadh flooded the market ahead of the first Gulf War and, though many do not remember, it also put extra oil on the market ahead of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saudi Arabia even increased its oil production after the 9/11 attacks, which badly strained U.S.-Saudi relations. Likewise, this spring, when the Obama administration was debating whether or not to release the SPR ahead of the tightening of sanctions against Iran, Saudi Arabia helpfully boosted its production above 10 million barrels per day, causing oil prices to fall more than $10 a barrel and eliminating the need for the White House to make a firm decision. Second, relying on foreign oil markets results in international economic instability. Jaffe continues: Oil markets might have taken solace in Saudi preparedness until rumors surfaced of an assassination attempt aimed at the kingdom's intelligence chief, a move purported to be a revenge killing by Iran for similar assassinations of senior military leaders in Syria. The rumors proved to be false, but like much of the region's murky political intrigue, it moved markets and served as a reminder that a tit-for-tat game of high level assassinations is not out of the realm of possibility. The oil implications of this unpredictability are clear: It will be hard to keep global oil markets calm in the coming weeks and months.
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/24/Saudi_Arabia_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserv e 10
The Forensics Files November 2012 PRO CASE #2 [Saudi Arabia 2 of 2]
Third, the US funding of Saudi Arabia enhances its ability to acquire nuclear weapons. Jaffe concludes: Deaths of rulers can change dynamics overnight virtually anywhere in the region, and Israel's defense policy remains an ever-present black swan. Saudi Arabia's own rumored pursuit of new nuclear-style ballistic missiles from China adds an additional layer of uncertainty about a nuclear arms race in the region. Therefore, current U.S. policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.
11
Con Cases
CON CASE #1 [Alternate Causes1 of 2] We believe that the following resolution is false: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East threatens our national security. The US currently faces many national security threats from the Middle East, however, none of these are caused by current US foreign policy. They are caused by U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East for the past several decades of support for Israel. As a result, the inherent distrust and hate that Islamic Middle East countries are not cause by current policies, and nothing we can do can change the way that that they feel. This is especially true because the media sources in other countries are biased toward the U.S. and the U.S. cannot combat this. Therefore, we do face many national security threats, but the Pro Side will be unable to link them to current U.S. foreign policy or show that U.S. foreign policy could be changed to solve the national security threats. The US is distrusted by Middle East countries; and that distrust is shared globally. Julian Borger and Tom Clark of The Guardian write on September 11, 2012: American influence on the world stage is being sapped by widespread distrust of US intentions, not just in the Middle East and south Asia but also among traditional European allies, according to a survey of global opinions.Suspicion of America outweighed faith in its good intentions by large margins in the Arab world and Pakistan, and even its heavyweight European ally Germany was more sceptical than trusting, a YouGov survey found. British and French opinion was more positive but still deeply divided.Negative Arab and Pakistani perceptions of America as overweening and untrustworthy clearly pose a daunting foreign policy challenge for the Obama administration. The fact that 78% of Pakistanis questioned by YouGov said they did not trust America to act responsibly underlines Washington's serious lack of soft power in the region as it attempts to extricate itself from Afghanistan. The Jews and Arabs hate each other; this is a result of thousands of years of fighting each other. There is no one policy that the US can have that will undo thousands of years of history. Zvi Bar'el, writes an article poignantly remarks on the current attitude of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East in his article entitled "A good Jew hates Arabs" from August 2012 states: Israeli "literature" promoting hate of Arabs predates the occupation. The children's book series "Danidin" by Shraga Gafni is full of expressions and illustrations that laid excellent infrastructure for Arab-hatred. The "Mikraot Yisrael" (Israeli Readers ) series, which helped educate hundreds of thousands of Israeli children, is striking in terms of the "incitement" concealed within it.Similar books published in the Palestinian Authority keep those who monitor Palestinian incitement very busy. But there isn't really a need to
12
The Forensics Files November 2012 CON CASE #1 [Alternate Causes2 of 2]
list all the recipes for Arab-hatred that have been fed to us, and which we developed on our own, in order to come up with a defense for those criminals in Jerusalem, whose "only crime" was to do what Israeli pedagogy and the "Death-to-Arabs" ethos directed them to do.This is an ethos that will continue to be an integral part of the Israeli-Jewish national identity, even if the occupation were to end tomorrow. Because "Death to the Arabs" isn't an expression of "routine" hatred of those who are different, or the loathsome slogan of some "price tag" gang. It does not resemble the xenophobia or the fear of Muslims that characterizes European racism.Hatred of Arabs is part of the test of loyalty and identity that the state gives its Jewish citizens. A good Jew hates Arabs. A loyal Israeli will leave an Arab to die, because "he's an Arab." And someone who isn't like that, as we know, "sleeps with Arabs." The Israel-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to the US. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, argue in an article entitled IsraeliPalestinian Peace: What is the US national security interest? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, on January 20, 2011: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to America. Indeed, American lives are being lost today because of the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace agreement is a, if not the, key to achieving most of our goals in the greater Middle East. It is not the solution to everything; it is not a panacea. But that is an unrealistic standard. "Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict won't solve every problem between Morocco and Bangladesh" is, frankly, a stupid reason not to try to move ahead and solve it. This is a false issue, a red herring, if I've ever seen one. The reasons why this conflict is a threat to the United States are multiple. I'll start with a very simple one. If you believe that Israel is a national security interest of the United States and an ally and partner of America, as every American president since Harry Truman has affirmed, then a conflict that threatens Israelis every day must be a threat to the national security interests of the United States as well. Because the US cannot solve the underlying source of hatred between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, current US foreign policy is not responsible for undermining our national security. Therefore, the resolution is false.
13
The Forensics Files November 2012 CON CASE #2 [Israel-Palestine 1 of 2]
We believe that the following resolution is false: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East threatens our national security. The current Israeli-Palestine conflict threatens national security. Obama is the key negotiator in the process and he has been successful at opening lines of communication to help promote peace. Failing to secure the Israel-Palestine conflict will threaten US national security. Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, argue in an article entitled IsraeliPalestinian Peace: What is the US national security interest? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, on January 20, 2011 Failure to find a secure, just and fair peace means that extremism and anger will fester and spread further, producing more and more threats to American national security and ultimately to American citizens. To underscore this point, let me give you one more example: Mumbai 2008, the most significant terrorist attack since 9/11 anywhere in the world. Ten Pakistani terrorists, young men from the Punjab led by Lashkar-e-Taiba, struck key targets in the largest city in India. What was at the very top of their target list that day in November 2008? A Jewish Chabad house in Mumbai. Mumbai is a big place; you have to look hard to find a Chabad house. They had looked hard. An American citizen, David Headley, had helped them look for it for months and months. It was at the top of their list because for them, it symbolized the Zionist-Hindu-Crusader alliance. I submit to you that when 10 Punjabi kids have decided that killing American Jews in Chabad houses in Mumbai is a holy cause, we have come to a situation in which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national security threat to the United States of America. Only Obama can solve the current Israel-Palestine conflict. Riedel, Anderson, Wilcox, and Katulis continue: President Obama may take seriously his own admonition that this issue matters to American strategic interests. That would translate into U.S. leadership in shaping a breakthrough, preferably with EU and Quartet support, creating real choices and deploying new incentives and disincentives with the parties, notably Israel. Ultimately, for all the noise and speculation regarding their resumption, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are likely to prove rather inconsequential. Success or failure in achieving deoccupation in two states will depend primarily on the conversation between Obama and Netanyahu, their political calculations, priorities and persistence.
14
The Forensics Files November 2012 CON CASE #2 [Israel & Palestine2 of 2]
Obama has been successful in engaging Israel and Palestinian authorities to work toward peace. Riedel, Anderson, Wilcox, and Katulis conclude: The administration's statements have steadily moved toward that sort of engagement and away from the sterile and discredited claim that we have to accept what the parties are going to work out for themselves. And it's not just this administration. Let's review some history. It was during the Carter administration that we first heard an official mention of the Palestinian nation. During the Clinton administration, it was the president's wife, not the president, who first spoke of a Palestinian state. The George W. Bush administration's road map, however little he did to follow it, was the first official mention of two states as a solution. The current administration, in a remarkable advance in rhetoric, has declared that it will end the occupation. President Obama said that it will end what began in 1967. The secretary of state recently declared, "We will not be passive." She has demanded that both sides present their specific visions for settlements, detailing positions on borders, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. I think we'll wait a long time for these two sides to present those visions. They'll only be presented when we accept that the only way forward is for the United States to present its outlines and to declare its determination to reach them. Therefore, Obama and his current US foreign policy in the Middle East has promoted, not undermined our national security. Therefore, the resolution is false.
15
Pro Extensions
Debt is the biggest threat to US national security. Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr., "Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says" U.S. Department of Defense News, September 22, 2011 http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65432 Debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during remarks to business executives today.Ive said many times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt, so I also believe we have every responsibility to help eliminate that threat, he said. We must, and will, do our part. Cyberterrorism is the biggest threat to US national security. Forrest Jones, "Chertoff: Cyber Attacks on Companies Pose Biggest Threat to US National SecurityRead more: Chertoff: Cyber Attacks on Companies Pose Biggest Threat to US National Security" May 8, 2012, www.moneynews.com/Economy/Chertoff-CyberAttacks-Security/2012/05/08/id/438333 Cyber attacks pose the biggest threats to national security, says former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.Cyber attacks against companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Sony, Google, Visa and Mastercard, among others, show just how vulnerable the economy is to tech-savvy terrorists."This is the biggest threat we currently face," Chertoff tells Yahoo's The Daily Ticker. Loss of intellectual property rights is the biggest threat to US national security. Forrest Jones, "Chertoff: Cyber Attacks on Companies Pose Biggest Threat to US National SecurityRead more: Chertoff: Cyber Attacks on Companies Pose Biggest Threat to US National Security" May 8, 2012, www.moneynews.com/Economy/Chertoff-CyberAttacks-Security/2012/05/08/id/438333 "Not only is there a concern about our critical infrastructure but we are losing billions of dollars of intellectual property every year that is being stolen and it is resulting in job losses and damages to our economy." A Federal Emergency Management Agency report estimates cyber attacks jumped 650 percent from 2006 to 2010, Yahoo adds, pointing out 60 percent of U.S. companies have reported security breaches. Half of the country's socalled "high-priority facilities" like those that manage the country's electrical grids reported having been attacked. Many attackers aren't necessarily enemies of the U.S. but rather, are looking for a leg up to compete, Chertoff adds. "For many nations, they view the economic well-being of the country as part of their national security strategies. They will use their intelligence agencies as a way to enable their companies, their national champions, to compete in the market place," Chertoff says. 16
Debt from military spending is the USs biggest threat to its national security. Andrew Parker, Editor-in-Cheif, Brooks: U.S. Debt Biggest Threat to National Security, April 11, 2012, www.aviationtoday.com/rw/public-service/government-agencies/BrooksU-S-Debt-Biggest-Threat-to-National-Security_76143.html#.UHIoea74LOI If the government doesnt get the debt under control in a constructive way, he said, the U.S. is looking at a series of cuts to our national defense thats going to do more harm to our national security than any enemy has been able to do in a long period of time. Brooks explained that the U.S. collected $2.3 trillion in revenues last year, but spent $3.6 trillion, amounting to a $1.3-trillion deficit. He compared it to the personal finances of a family. The new regime in Egypt, which the US helped set up, is anti-American. Mohamed Al-Sayaghi, Egypt, Yemen challenge some U.S. ideas, Washington Post, September 29, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/egyptyemen-challenge-some-us-ideas/2012/09/29/2bb61282-098d-11e2-858a5311df86ab04_story.html Juggling complicated coalitions and competing factions at home, both Muslim leaders made it clear that their brands of popularly chosen government do not look like the United States or share all of its values. We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references and not seek to impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi told the U.N. gathering Wednesday. Morsi, on the job three months, told the U.N. that the protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo reflected the legitimate, and decidedly Islamic, voice of Egyptian popular will. And he effectively told Obama he would have to get used to new rules. Insults against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, are not acceptable, said Morsi, whose political roots lie in the Muslim Brotherhood. We will not allow anyone to do this by word or by deed. US efforts with Yemen have backfired. Mohamed Al-Sayaghi, Egypt, Yemen challenge some U.S. ideas, Washington Post, September 29, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/egyptyemen-challenge-some-us-ideas/2012/09/29/2bb61282-098d-11e2-858a5311df86ab04_story.html In an interview with The Washington Post on Saturday, Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi sounded a similar note, saying freedom of speech does not constitute freedom to defame religious beliefs. It should not be understood that freedom of expression is freedom of attacking others faith, he said. The cultural confrontation comes early in the U.S. relationship with a changed Middle East. Although billions of dollars in U.S. aid are still committed to Egypt, Libya and the other countries in the region, U.S. officials acknowledge that the money gives them less leverage than it once did. 17
Obamas efforts in Egypt have been ineffective and have backfired against the US Mohamed Al-Sayaghi, Egypt, Yemen challenge some U.S. ideas, Washington Post, September 29, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/egyptyemen-challenge-some-us-ideas/2012/09/29/2bb61282-098d-11e2-858a5311df86ab04_story.html Obama abandoned decades of U.S. policy when he yanked U.S. support for Mubarak, and his administration moved quickly to support democratic movements in several Mideast nations.But the U.S. emphasis on personal liberty and tolerance rings hollow to many Egyptians and others, who recall the former willingness of U.S. leaders to look the other way when grievous human rights abuses occurred.Egypts secular pro-democratic opposition, with long ties to the United States, largely crumbled after the revolution. The well-organized Muslim Brotherhood, with practically no ties to a U.S. government, proved more sure-footed. The US currently provides unnecessary foreign aid to Egypt. Walter Pincus,U.S. foreign aid under fire after attack on embassy in Egypt, outpost in Libya, The Washington Post, October 1, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/us-foreign-aid-to-under-fire-after-attacks-on-embassies-in-egypt-andlibya/2012/10/01/eb677456-0b11-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html Faced with the current fiscal crisis, U.S. politicians are looking for places to make deep cuts, and one obvious target for the general public appears to be taxpayer dollars sent to foreign countries to build their schools, roads and more recently private businesses projects that have trouble being funded here. The presidential campaign also provides a forum for debating whether the Middle East policies of the Obama administration can be turned into votes for either candidate. A good test case for both situations turned up Friday when the State Departments plan to provide Egypt with an additional $450 million in aid went to Congress. Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, which handles foreign aid money, zeroed in on the plan in a statement: This proposal comes to Congress at a point when the U.S.-Egypt relationship has never been under more scrutiny, and rightly so. I am not convinced of the urgent need for this assistance and I cannot support it at this time. As chair of the subcommittee, I have placed a hold on these funds.
18
Anti-American is high in Middle East Islamic countries. Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, an issue that was front and center throughout much of the George W. Bush era, is squarely back in the news following the protests that swept across more than 20 countries in reaction to a controversial anti-Islam film. The all-too-familiar images of angry demonstrators burning the Stars and Stripes are a dramatic reminder that, while the image of the United States has improved throughout many parts of the world during Barack Obama's presidency, negative views of America remain stubbornly persistent in key Muslim countries. Much of this animosity is due to continuing concerns about U.S. power and widespread opposition to major elements of American foreign policy. But it's not just about the United States -- rather, antiAmericanism needs to be seen within a broader context of distrust between Muslims and the West. Obamas efforts in Egypt have been massively unsuccessful Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us Following his election, Obama made it a priority to change America's dismal image in the Muslim world, most prominently in his June 2009 Cairo speech. And he has had some successes; in fact, Muslim publics still generally give him more positive ratings than Bush received. For instance, in a spring 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, only 24 percent of Turks express confidence in Obama; still, that's a whole lot better than the 2 percent who felt this way about Bush during his final year in office. Also, due in part to having lived there for a few years as a child, Obama has consistently received high marks in Indonesia, and his popularity has helped turn around America's image in the world's most populous Muslim nation.But overall, the picture remains grim. In Egypt, for example, despite all the tumult of the revolution, America's image remains roughly where it was four years ago -- then 22 percent expressed a favorable opinion of the United States; in the 2012 poll, it was 19 percent. Among Pakistanis and Jordanians, America's already poor ratings have declined further since 2008 -- in both countries, 19 percent held a positive view of the U.S. four years ago, compared with just 12 percent in 2012.
19
US military efforts in the Middle East are unpopular and render all other policies in effective. Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us Why hasn't America's image improved? In part, many Muslims around the world continue to voice the same criticisms of U.S. foreign policy that were common in the Bush years. U.S. anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular. America is still seen as ignoring the interests of other countries. Few think Obama has been even-handed in dealing with the Israelis and the Palestinians. And the current administration's increased reliance on drone strikes to target extremists is overwhelmingly unpopular -- more than 80 percent of Jordanians, Egyptians, and Turks oppose the drone campaign. Muslim countries in the Middle East hate all aspects of US leadership. Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us The opposition to drone strikes points to a broader issue: a widespread distrust of American power. This is especially true when the United States employs hard power, whether it's the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or the drone attacks in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. But it is true even for elements of American soft power. Predominantly Muslim nations are generally among the least likely to embrace U.S. popular culture or the spread of American ideas and customs. Only 36 percent of Egyptians like American music, movies, and television, and just 11 percent believe it is good that U.S. ideas and customs are spreading to their country. After US foreign policy efforts in Egypt, Egypt is on a dangerous trajectory. James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Greater U.S. Pressure Needed to Ensure Successful Egyptian Transition, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/us-egypt-relations-greater-pressureneeded-to-ensure-successful-egyptian-transition In recent months, EgyptianAmerican relations have severely deteriorated due to Cairos politically motivated prosecution of several U.S.-funded nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) involved in democracy building. The fact that these civil society efforts, which were tolerated in Egypt before the fall of President Hosni Mubarak last year, now are considered criminal activities reveals the dangerous trajectory taken by Egypts revolution.Egypts transition to democracy is threatened by an unholy alliance of holdover bureaucrats, army officers, and newly empowered Islamist political parties. The Obama Administration should apply pressure on Egypts leaders at the highest levels to head off show trials that would poison bilateral relations and prospects for genuine democracy in the largest Arab country.
20
US foreign policy has resulted in the worst crisis in Egyptian-American relations. James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Greater U.S. Pressure Needed to Ensure Successful Egyptian Transition, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/us-egypt-relations-greater-pressureneeded-to-ensure-successful-egyptian-transition The worst crisis in EgyptianAmerican relations in more than 30 years was intentionally provoked by the transitional governments prosecution of 43 civil society workers, including 16 Americans, for offering advice to Egyptians on how to organize political movements and prepare for democracy. The Americans worked for three respected American NGOs: Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, and the National Democratic Institute. After Washington threatened to cut off aid, Cairo lifted a travel ban that had prompted seven of the Americans to seek refuge in the U.S. embassy and permitted them to leave, but Egypt has continued the prosecution, and the trial is set to resume on April 10. Israel - Palestine The Middle East is falling apart due to current US policy. Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark Global Recession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/BigPeace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-GlobalRecession While we enjoy relative tranquility here at home, the Muslim world is erupting in a conflagration of Islamic fundamentalist protests, destruction, and murder. What started as timed terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, has turned into full-scale demonstrations of destruction fueled by an amateur video purportedly critical of their prophet Mohammed.What started with the Arab Spring nearly two years ago, a democratic movement which led to the ousting of strong-arm leaders Khadafy in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt, has evolved into an Arab Fall, and likely an Arab Winter of icy relations with the Muslim world. Perhaps it is nothing more than the morphing of hope and change to despair and violence, induced by the Islamic extremist realities of the region. Four embassy personnel were mercilessly murdered at the consulate in Libya, including our ambassador and two former Navy Seals, who weve learned remarkably, were forbidden by the State Department from being issued live ammunition to protect the embassy staff. The Washington Times reports that Ambassador Chris Stevens was raped before he was murdered.
21
Obama is ignoring problems in the middle east. Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark Global Recession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/BigPeace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-GlobalRecession This week U.S. embassies have been under siege in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Israel, Iraq, and Yemen, and U.S. companies and interests targeted in Iran and London. And with all of this occurring, the president chose to skip his intelligence update to make a campaign trip to Las Vegas. In a taped message to campaign workers in Nevada, he imprudently compared them to those demonstrating in the Muslim world striving for a better world. Muslim countries in the Middle East hate Obamas policies. Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark Global Recession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/BigPeace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-GlobalRecession There are also the aural reminders that the Muslim world has not taken kindly to the killing of Osama bin Ladin. Raw video captured by Middle East Media Research Institute shows the mob that attacked the Egyptian embassy was chanting, Obama, Obama, were all Osama. Perhaps it has been ill-advised to trumpet the killing of Osama. And all of this animus is targeted at the U.S. in spite of billions of dollars we give in foreign aid to Muslim countries, and surprisingly, one week after the administration forgave a $1 billion dollar, taxpayer funded loan to Egypt. The Obama Doctrine is responsible for many Middle East Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark Global Recession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/BigPeace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-GlobalRecession Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz this week indicated that Obamas cozy relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood is troubling. And that due to the Obama Doctrine, regimes and Muslim country leaders cant trust America to do the right thing, as evidenced by leaving Iraq after deposing a dictator, and Afghanistan after toppling a totalitarian Taliban regime. The administration actively supported the toppling of the Mubarak regime in Egypt, praising the democratic Arab Spring uprising, and militarily attacked Khadafys Libya to oust him.
22
The Arab Fall is responsible for terrorist threats against US targets. Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark Global Recession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/BigPeace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-GlobalRecession The violence is spreading outside of the Muslim nations. Attacks on the U.S. embassy in London, as well as bomb threats at North Dakota State and the University of Texas in Austin validate concerns that anti-American violence can spread quickly, jumping oceans and geographic barriers to threaten Americans and U.S. interests everywhere. The caller of the bomb threat to the University of Texas claimed to represent al-Qaida. Whatever the motivation, the threats and violence of terrorism are evil. The cozier our relationship with perpetrators of such vile acts as weve witnessed this past week is, the more compromised and susceptible we are to manipulation by those very elements. With the collapse of the Obama Doctrine of foreign policy, its clear that a new foreign policy is needed, based in reality, not on something as obviously tenuous as Muslim Outreach. A Current Middle East turmoil could throw the global economy back into a recession. Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark Global Recession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/BigPeace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-GlobalRecession The turmoil in the Middle East, the Federal Reserve's decision to further devalue the U.S. dollar through a third round of "quantitative easing" (QE3), and rising oil prices are combining to create a toxic economic brew that could send the global economy into recession.That was the assessment of International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol. "I see the [oil] prices today, in this economic context, as unbearable for consumers," said Birol on Friday. "High prices together with other factors could push the global economy back into recession."
23
Obama plans to use his failures in the Middle East to dip into the USs oil reserve. Wynton Hall, Obama Doctrine: Middle East Chaos, Soaring Oil Prices Spark Global Recession Fears , September 15, 2012, www.breitbart.com/BigPeace/2012/09/15/Middle-East-Turmoil-And-Soaring-Oil-Prices-May-Spark-GlobalRecession Industry experts believe that President Barack Obama may use the Middle East uprisings and soaring fuel costs to justify tapping the nation's 700 million-barrel emergency Strategic Petroleum Reserve, similar to what Mr. Obama did last year to no lasting effect.But it was the Federal Reserve's decision to pump $40 billion so-called "stimulus" dollars a month into the U.S. economy in the form of buying mortgage-backed securities that ultimately may prove to be the match that lit the economic powder keg. As the value of the U.S. dollar goes down, oil prices go up. That means slower economic growth and higher consumer prices. Obama is responsible for a tsunami of negative change in the Middle East, this change could result in an international crisis. Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is a work in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-newmiddle-east-obama-doctrine.html Seven weeks after protests in the small North African country of Tunisia toppled the longtime leader there and sparked what some are calling a new "Arab Awakening," President Barack Obama, his top aides, and U.S. lawmakers are confronting a historic tsunami of change in the Middle East that shows no signs of receding. With Libya teetering on the edge of civil war; Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, a key counterterrorism ally, clinging to office; and democratic transitions in Egypt and Tunisia by no means assured, it's too soon for a full report card on Obama's first sustained international crisis. Obama has been too slow in addressing the current problems in the middle east. Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is a work in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-newmiddle-east-obama-doctrine.html But Obama has been slow and cautious in articulating an over-arching U.S. strategy to match the moment, one that explains how the U.S. will support political change in the Middle East and reassures nervous U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, according to many analysts and lawmakers.
24
The US cant afford to pay for the slow transition of other countries to democracies. Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is a work in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-newmiddle-east-obama-doctrine.html What challenges lie ahead in the Middle East can only be imagined. It will take years, at best, for Egypt to become a functioning democracy. Gadhafi's personality has so dominated Libya for 40 years that if he goes, new institutions will have to be built from the ground up. Bahrain, with its Shiite Muslim majority dominated by a Sunni minority, could become the center of a proxy war between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.The U.S. spent billions of dollars helping shepherd eastern Europe toward democracy and free-market economies, and even gave aid to a destitute Russia, once its mortal enemy.But now, the U.S. government doesn't have the deep pockets it once did, and the White House hasn't announced large new democracy assistance programs for the Middle East. Obama is cutting defense spending at a time when the US is the biggest security risk in the Middle East. Ben Shapiro, Obama Doctrine: Slashes Military Amidst Islamist Uprising, Breitbart News, September 14, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/Obama-doctrineslash-military-world-in-flames With the black flag of al Qaeda flying over the American embassy in Tunisia, the murder of the American ambassador in Libya, the storming of the US embassy in Cairo, the burning of the American flag in London, and the torching of American businesses in Lebanon, the Obama administration is focused like a laser on its top priority: slashing defense.
25
The Obama Doctrine is responsible for the loss of defense spending to provide more defense in the middle east. Ben Shapiro, Obama Doctrine: Slashes Military Amidst Islamist Uprising, Breitbart News, September 14, 2012, www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/14/Obama-doctrineslash-military-world-in-flames This is the fault of a president so extreme that his last two budgets did not receive a single vote in the House or Senate. This is the fault of a president so extreme that when Republican House Speaker John Boehner offered him $800 billion tax increases over ten years in exchange for between $3 trillion and $3.5 trillion in spending cuts (or cuts to future growth) and a revision of the tax code, Obama tentatively agreed then rejected it at the last minute, insisting on another $400 billion in tax increases. That impasse led to the creation of the Budget Control Act, which would have cut $1.5 trillion over ten years via a bipartisan deficit committee but if the committee could not come to any deal, $1.2 trillion in cuts would immediately take effect. President Obama insisted that about half of those cuts come from defense. Thats no surprise from a president who wants to unilaterally shrink Americas nuclear arsenal and take a chainsaw to the Pentagon budget. The tide of war is receding but the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need long after the wars of the last decade are over, Obama said in January. Continued reliance on Saudi Arabia for oil undermines US national security interests. Amy Jaffe, "America's Real Strategic Petroleum Reserve" August 24, 2012, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/24/Saudi_Arabia_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve But relying on Saudi Arabia, while politically convenient, is not without risks. The most obvious is that the Saudis have come under increased pressure -- both internal and external -- as a result of their longstanding oil-for-security alliance with Washington. Iran has warned its fellow Gulf producer not to make up the slack resulting from American and European sanctions, threatening direct retaliation if it does. Saudi Arabia isn't taking any chances. In recent months, it has arrested prominent Shiite dissidents -- always suspected of possible ties to Iran -- and doubled the number of Saudi National Guard forces in the Eastern Province, home to the vast majority its 2 million-plus Shiite citizens as well as the close to 90 percent of its oil production.
26
The US is unable to fall back on Saudi Arabia. Amy Jaffe, "America's Real Strategic Petroleum Reserve" August 24, 2012, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/24/Saudi_Arabia_Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve America's ability to fall back on the Saudis is further imperiled by the inherent instability of the kingdom's political and economic system. Saudi Arabia is going to need more and more oil revenue just to keep its population from growing restive. Riyadh-based Jadwa Investment predicts that Saudi Arabia will be forced to run budget deficits from 2014 onwards, even at a break-even price forecast of $90.70 per barrel in 2015. Other forecasts are even bleaker in the medium term, estimating the breakeven price at $110 a barrel in 2015. Either way, the kingdom's thirst for cash is likely to mean that U.S. and Saudi interests diverge. The oil-for-security deal between the two countries has destabilized the kingdom in the past by igniting support for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and it could be used again by agents of internal opposition groups. Moreover, the recent prodemocracy upheavals in Egypt, Syria, and above all Bahrain are bound to influence U.S.Saudi relations over time in ways that are hard to predict. Iran opposes current US foreign policy in the Middle East. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest Israel is bullying the United States over the alleged threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, using the prospect of an Israeli military attack on Iran to force the hand of its much larger ally, Irans president said Monday.President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the idea that Israel might attack on its own, over the objections of the United States, and said Israel is an inconsequential interloper with no rightful place in the Middle East.
27
The US is ineffective at restraining Israel from attacking Iran. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest The Obama administration is chafing under increasingly direct pressure from Israel to declare red lines in Irans nuclear development that would trigger a U.S. attack. President Obama, who is scheduled to address the United Nations on Tuesday, has said he would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear bomb. He has threatened a military strike if there is no other option to prevent Iran from getting a bomb, but he has not publicly set a deadline for diplomacy to run its course.The Obama administration opposes a unilateral Israeli strike because it would be unlikely to finish off Irans program and could pull the United States into a wider Middle East war. Ahmadinejad said Iran remains open to negotiation over the bounds of what he insisted is a peaceful nuclear development program, but he said several U.S. administrations have managed to miss opportunities to improve relations with Iran. Obama is failing at helping the Israel and Palestine situation. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest For the last two years, the Obama administration has clung to the notion of a "peace process," starting with a settlement freeze as a confidence-building measure to resume negotiations. But settlement building continues, direct negotiations have failed, and we have reverted to "proximity talks." The administration has challenged Israeli negotiators to explain their positions, so that, if necessary, the United States can offer "bridging proposals." This incremental approach shows no signs of working. It is time for a much bolder American approach.
28
Obamas policies in Iraq have left it a threat to US security. Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television, "Obamas failed Iraq policy threatens U.S. security" June 6, 2012, www.humanevents.com/2012/06/26/obamas-failed-iraq-policythreatens-u-s-security/ The Obama administration wants Americans to believe their Iraq policy is a success even as Baghdad is heading off a political cliff that favors Iran.President Barack Obama came to office more interested in keeping his 2008 campaign promise to bring the troops home than the long-term success of our efforts there, said U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (ROkla.). Obama withdrew most of our troops and advisers in Dec. 2010 leaving that country in bad hands.Sen. Inhofe, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, continued Now, the Iraqi leader that the Obama administration supports, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, threatens to turn the country away from democracy. The senator warns If Iraq fails; history will find it due in part to President Obamas failed foreign policy there. There is still significant violence in Iraq. Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television, "Obamas failed Iraq policy threatens U.S. security" June 6, 2012, www.humanevents.com/2012/06/26/obamas-failed-iraq-policythreatens-u-s-security/ Polls aside, there is a lot happening in Iraq that Obamas supporters dont want American voters to know about. First, Iraqi sectarian violence is back with a vengeance. Last week was the most violent since March 2010 with almost one hundred non-suicide bomb attacks that left more than 107 dead and hundreds more injured. Stephanie Sanok, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Associated Press the absence of American forces combined with the government divisions and weak Iraqi security have emboldened the militants. Iraqs political crisis is markedly sectarian which fuels the violence. Maliki is leading the sectarian attack by sidelining his political opponents and refusing to share authority such as in the case of Vice President Tareq alHashemi. Obamas troop surge in Afghanistan was ineffective. CBS News September 29, 2012, "Obamas Afghan Surge Failed" newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/29/obamas-afghan-surge-failed/ Now that President Barack Obama has ended the military surge in Afghanistan, the analysts are taking a hard look at what was accomplished since Obama made his surprising move in 2009 when he decided to send more troops to Afghanistan.Unfortunately, very little if anything has improved in Afghanistan. More than a waste of our nations time and money, it has been a waste of more Americans lives.
29
The Forensics Files November 2012 There was no justification for a troop surge in Afghanistan. CBS News September 29, 2012, "Obamas Afghan Surge Failed" newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/09/29/obamas-afghan-surge-failed/
Additionally, what was given as a reason for sending tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan in February of 2009 has fallen by the wayside as there are current discussions on the effect of the United States involvement in the Taliban-laden and troubled country.According to reports, various Taliban and related attacks against NATO powers were approximately 2,700 in August of 2009 when Obama made his contrary-tocampaign promised-move to step up the nations military assistance in Afghanistan. Three years later, in August of 2012, there were more attacks nearly 3,000.
30
Con Extensions
Reducing military spending would not reduce US debt. Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr., "Debt is Biggest Threat to National Security, Chairman Says" U.S. Department of Defense News, September 22, 2011 http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65432 As you know, the resident has made a decision to reduce the defense budget by more than $450 billion over the next 10 years, he said. Thats a lot of money from any perspective, but, in fact, it only represents a little over 9 percent a year from our baseline. There is mutual distrust between Islamic Middle Eastern countries and America. Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us But America's image problems are not due solely to fears of American power. In some ways, the issue of anti-Americanism is part of a broader story about mutual distrust between Muslims and Westerners. Polling by Pew in 2006 and 2011 highlighted the extent to which Muslim and Western publics see their relations with each other as bad, and the degree to which they blame each other for the poor state of affairs. Middle Eastern countries view the US as selfish, greedy and violent. Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us In the West, fears about extremism and violence continue to play a role in driving these views. Among Muslims, many describe Westerners as selfish, greedy, and violent, and the 2011 poll found majorities of Muslims in Egypt, the Palestinian territories, Pakistan, and Turkey saying that both Americans and Europeans tend to be hostile toward Muslims. Muslims in the Middle East blame US policies for their lack of prosperity. Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us Also, large numbers of Muslims surveyed in 2011 blamed Western policies for the lack of prosperity in Muslim nations. Just like the headlines from the past week, the survey data paint a fairly bleak picture. The "Obama effect" that changed America's battered image in Europe and other parts of the globe did not register in many predominantly Muslim nations. Even so, there are some hopeful signs.
31
US efforts have been effective at promoting US economic ideals and democracy in the Middle East Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us Moreover, some aspects of American soft power are appealing to Muslim publics. American-style business is especially popular in Arab nations. Indeed, among the 21 nations included in spring 2012 survey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia were the only countries where more than half said they like American ways of doing business. And even though U.S. democracy-promotion efforts have been met with skepticism by many Muslims over the last decade, America's democratic tradition continues to have some appeal. Six-in-ten Tunisians and more than four-in-ten Egyptians, Jordanians, and Lebanese say they like American ideas about democracy. And young people are especially likely to embrace these ideas. Some 72 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds like U.S.style democracy in Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began. Although some US policies are ineffective, the US has been effective at promoting democracy in the middle east. Richard Wike, Wait, You Still Dont Like US? Foreign Policy Magazine, September 19, 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/19/you_still_don_t_like_us Majorities or pluralities in six predominantly Muslim nations surveyed by Pew in 2012 said democracy is the best form of government, and polling has consistently shown that Muslims in countries throughout the world support specific features of democracy, including institutions such as a free press and multiparty elections that serve as cornerstones of Western democratic systems.So while many Muslims continue to oppose U.S. policies and remain uneasy about American power, many also want to see their own countries adopt some central features of American society. And that's, at least, a bit of good news.
32
Popular opinion in Egypt has become more and more favorable toward the US. Nate Silver, "Poll: Egyptian Publics Views Toward United States Are Much Improved" The New York Times, January 31, 2011, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/poll-egyptian-publics-views-towardunited-states-are-much-improved/ What does appear to be the case, however, is that Egyptian popular opinion toward the United States has substantially improved over the course of the past 2 to 3 years, to the point that a new leader would probably not gain any points by expressing anti-American sentiment.The BBC World Service conducts an annual survey in 28 countries, in which it asks participants how they feel about each of the others. The BBC has interviewed Egyptians as part of its survey since 2007.Egyptian sentiment toward the United States has improved dramatically since the survey began. In 2007, just 11 percent of Egyptians said they viewed the United States as having a mostly positive influence, versus 59 percent who said it had a mostly negative influence. The numbers were even worse the next year: 16 percent positive, but 73 percent negative. Egypt likes Obama. Nate Silver, "Poll: Egyptian Publics Views Toward United States Are Much Improved" The New York Times, January 31, 2011, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/poll-egyptian-publics-views-towardunited-states-are-much-improved/ The election of President Obama created a major change in opinion, however. In 2009, positive opinions about the United States rose to 40 percent against 48 percent negative. And last year the first survey conducted after Mr. Obamas well-received June 2009 speech in Cairo[, Egypt] positive opinions became the plurality, at 45 percent, against 29 percent negative views, figures comparable to those for survey participants in the United Kingdom and France. Although opinion about the United States has also improved in most other countries since Mr. Obamas election, according to the survey, in perhaps no case has the change been quite so dramatic. US Egyptian relations have been stable; the two countries have always worked well together. US Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, US Relations with Egypt, Fact Sheet, August 22, 2012, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm The United States established diplomatic relations with Egypt in 1922, following its independence from protectorate status under the United Kingdom. The United States and Egypt share a relationship based on mutual interest in Middle East peace and stability, revitalizing the Egyptian economy and strengthening trade relations, and promoting regional security. Egypt has been a key U.S. partner in ensuring regional stability and on a wide range of common security issues, including Middle East peace and countering terrorism.
33
The US has achieved its national security objectives in Egypt. US Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, US Relations with Egypt, Fact Sheet, August 22, 2012, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm Egypts historic transition to democracy, launched in early 2011, will have a profound impact on the political future, not only of Egypt, but also the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region at large. Supporting a successful transition to democracy and economic stability in Egypt, one that protects the basic rights of its citizens and fulfills the aspirations of the Egyptian people, will continue to be a core objective of U.S. policy toward Egypt. A prosperous and democratic Egypt, buoyed by economic growth and a strong private sector, can be an anchor of stability for the MENA region. US assistance to Egypt has been and will continue to be successful. US Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, US Relations with Egypt, Fact Sheet, August 22, 2012, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5309.htm U.S. assistance to Egypt has long played a central role in Egypts economic and military development, and in furthering the strategic partnership. With Egypt embarking on a transition to democracy, U.S. support can bolster Egypts nascent democratic system and achieve inclusive economic growth. U.S. assistance supports Egyptian efforts to protect civil liberties and human rights, introduce transparency and accountability in government, foster economic growth and democratic institutions, and develop a robust, independent civil society. Obamas policies are effective at managing crises in the Middle East. Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is a work in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-newmiddle-east-obama-doctrine.html Former U.S. officials give the White House high marks so far for day-to-day crisis management. Obama helped shoehorn from power aging Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a U.S. partner for decades, and quietly evacuated American diplomats and other citizens from Libya before marshalling tough sanctions and other measures against Moammar Gadhafi's regime." Despite the criticism they've gotten, they've acted deftly in managing the crisis in both Tunisia and Egypt, especially," after some initial stumbles, said Edward Djerejian, an assistant secretary of state for the Near East under presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
34
Obama is approaching the Middle East with caution. Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is a work in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-newmiddle-east-obama-doctrine.html Aides say Obama is reluctant to thrust the U.S. into the center of largely peaceful peoples' revolts that are authentically Arab and, for the first time in recent memory, don't involve the burning of U.S. and Israeli flags or other displays of anti-Americanism. "The president understands that it is absolutely critical that the United States not try to, or be seen as trying to, take ownership" of the pro-democracy movements, said Daniel Shapiro, the senior director for the Near East on the White House's National Security Council. Obama is opening lines of communication with the Middle East. Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers, Like new Middle East, Obama doctrine is a work in progress, March 4, 2011, www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/04/109865/like-newmiddle-east-obama-doctrine.html National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon briefs Obama multiple times each day on the crisis, and deputy Denis McDonough leads meetings virtually daily of the inter-agency Deputies Committee. Obama, Shapiro said, has ordered officials and diplomats to open channels of communications wherever they can find them, not just with counterparts in Arab governments, but with members of civil society and opposition groups. He called it "a very Obama approach" drawn from the president's days as a community organizer in Chicago. "You go out and talk to everybody," he said, and it has helped U.S. officials get a richer understanding of what is happening in Egypt and elsewhere. Obama is promoting peace in Israel-Palestine. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest We at the Middle East Policy Council think that it is a national security interest of the United States to resolve this conflict. In that, we are in agreement with President Obama, General Petraeus, George Mitchell, former officials such as Brent Scowcroft and many others. Since 1977, when President Jimmy Carter tried to orchestrate a comprehensive resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict with a Palestinian homeland at its core, there have been a number of developments: Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories have proliferated; the United States and Israel have recognized the PLO; interim agreements have been achieved; and limited Palestinian self-rule has been established.
35
Arab-Israeli tensions have serious national security implications for the US. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest We are at a moment of truth in the Middle East, in the Arab-Israeli conflict and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We face the urgent necessity of moving forward because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, is a national security threat to the United States of America. There are many reasons why America should promote peace in the Middle East. Promoting peace is a good thing in and of itself, but today, more than ever, it is because our national security interests are at stake that we need to promote peace. Why is it a moment of truth? Last month at the U.S.-Israel forum sponsored by the Saban Center at Brookings, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted what we all knew: the Obama administration's very brave efforts of the first two years had not succeeded, had not produced a breakthrough despite the hard work of Secretary Clinton and special representative George D. Mitchell. Despite the brave words of Cairo, we had not achieved a breakthrough. Israeli-Arab relations are at the heart of all US national security interests in the Middle East. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest There is no question to anyone who studies this conflict, anyone who has lived in the Arab world, anyone who has lived in the Islamic world, that this conflict produces anger, frustration and humiliation among Palestinians, among Arabs and among Muslims more broadly. It is thus a driving force not the only one, but a driving force of radical extremism throughout the Islamic world and becoming more so every day. Once again, it's not the only force; there are other things as well. But it is among the most important, if not the most important. I'm going to focus on al-Qaeda, because I've done a lot of research on al-Qaeda and because al-Qaeda today is the single most dangerous threat to the United States. President Obama made that clear in his review of policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan: our policy in this region has as its highest priority to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is also important because it falls into an unusual category. It is an organization that has actually declared war on the United States of America. No one since 1941 except al-Qaeda has declared war on the United States of America.
36
The Israeli-Palestine conflict is what drives terrorism. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest My proposition, very simply, is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in particular the larger Arab-Israeli conflict, is at the heart and center of al-Qaeda's ideology and narrative. It is essential for its case and its declaration of war that every single American is a legitimate target to be murdered today. Some argue that al-Qaeda is a latecomer to this issue, that it's not sincere, that this is not really what drives al-Qaeda at all, that al-Qaeda is actually driven by a desire to remove American soldiers from Saudi Arabia. Rubbish. Al-Qaeda has been involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute. It has been at the center of its ideology from its inception, as I will show you. If this issue were all about American troops in Saudi Arabia, this war should have ended five years ago. We lost, by the way. We gave up, and we said, we're leaving. But it didn't happen; it hasn't ended one bit. Obama is developing a Middle East plan and siding with Arabs on the IsraelPalestine divide. CNN May 19, 2011, Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israelpalestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war. In the past, the United States has unofficially backed a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on the borders in place prior to the war 44 years ago in which Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. In a major speech Thursday, Obama became the first president to formally endorse the policy, but he also acknowledged the need for modifications through the negotiating process due to conditions on the ground.
37
Now is the key time to create peace in Israel and Palestine. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest As for the timing of a new U.S. peace initiative, I think we have to move now. There are always domestic political reasons for delay and other competing diplomatic challenges. But the environment for peace in Israel and Palestine will continue to deteriorate, and the danger of much greater violence, even war, is ever present. If the Obama administration does decide to move, it will need deeper staffing and expertise. The president should also create a clearer point of leadership, whether it's the secretary of state or someone else, in order to avoid the kind of division among policy makers that has hurt American peace efforts in the past. There is a big risk of destabilization of the Israel-Palestinian region. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, Israeli-Palestinian Peace: What is the US national security interst? How can it be achieved? Middle East Foreign Policy Council, 1/20/2011, www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/israelipalestinian-peace-what-us-national-security-interest Second, there's a very real risk of a destabilizing conflict in the region. When you look at what's happened over the last four-and-a-half to five years, the region really walked up to several conflagrations: civil war in Iraq, the conflict between Lebanon and Israel, Hezbollah and Israel, and the conflict in Gaza. And though there's a calm now, it's a very tenuous calm. There have been flare-ups and some major bouts of violence, including the Gaza war of 2008-09. In the absence of forward progress in either the current process or some alternative, such as the presentation of a U.S. plan, one could see yet another conflict reemerging. Look at the combustible mix that exists now in Lebanon. The absence of momentum is deeply troubling. Obamas policies in Iraq have improved US security. White House Press Release 2012 http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy President Obama has pursued national security policies that keep the American people safe, while turning the page on a decade of war and restoring American leadership abroad. Since President Obama took office, the United States has devastated al Qaedas leadership. Now, thanks to our extraordinary servicemen and women, we have reached a pivotal moment as we definitively end the war in Iraq and begin to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we have refocused on a broader set of priorities around the globe that will allow the United States to be safe, strong, and prosperous in the 21st century.
38
America is popular in Iraq thanks to Obamas foreign policy. Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television, "Obamas failed Iraq policy threatens U.S. security" June 6, 2012, www.humanevents.com/2012/06/26/obamas-failed-iraq-policythreatens-u-s-security/ Obama supporters understand the domestic political risks associated with Sen. Inhofes warning. That prompted Democratic Party operatives to launch an Iraq public opinion survey to create a positive perception of Maliki, Obamas man in Baghdad.Last month Iraqi and international media took the bait and reported the surveys results as good news for Maliki and by association Obama. For example, the New York Times reported a plurality of Iraqis felt the country was going in the right direction and Iraq Daily News reported Malikis popularity has risen to 53 percent, an increase of 19 points since Oct. 2011. Obamas foreign policy in Iraq has improved Iraqs economic relationships with other nations in the region. Robert Maginnis, retired Army lieutenant colonel, and a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television, "Obamas failed Iraq policy threatens U.S. security" June 6, 2012, www.humanevents.com/2012/06/26/obamas-failed-iraq-policythreatens-u-s-security/ Iraqs economy is wide open to Iran as well. Maliki signed more than 100 economic agreements with Iran and now Iranian companies work inside Iraq on major reconstruction projects. For example, Iraq, Iran and Syria signed a $10 billion natural gas deal to construct a pipeline originating in Iran and extending to Syria. Obamas Afghanistan troop surge was effective. USA Today September 21, 2012, "Obama's surge in Afghanistan ends" content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/09/21/obamas-surge-inafghanistan-ends/70000832/1#.UHSHZa74LOJ Very quietly, the surge of troops into Afghanistan that President Obama announced to such fanfare in late 2009 is now over.Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said today that 33,000 troops have been withdrawn, calling the Afghan surge "a very important milestone" in a war the Obama administration is winding down; there are sill 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.The "surge did accomplish its objectives of reversing the Taliban momentum on the battlefield and dramatically increase the size and capability of the Afghan national security forces," Panetta said. The U.S. and its allies plan to turn over all security responsibilities to the Afghans in 2014.
39
Obama has been successful at getting Afghanistan to sign peace agreements. Joshua Foust, American Security Project, "Measuring Success: Are We Winning? 10 Years in Afghanistan May 2012 Update" americansecurityproject.org/featureditems/2012/measuring-success-are-we-winning-10-years-in-afghanistan-may-2012update/ During his most recent trip to Afghanistan, President Obama signed a strategic partnership agreement with the Afghan government, signaling a shift in bilateral relations. While the wars overall objectives have not changed, President Obama emphasized that the current goal of U.S. forces in the country is to successfully transition primary responsibility for Afghanistans security from international forces to local ones thus allowing for a withdrawal of combat troops. Recent attacks in Afghanistan have been unsuccessful. Joshua Foust, American Security Project, "Measuring Success: Are We Winning? 10 Years in Afghanistan May 2012 Update" americansecurityproject.org/featureditems/2012/measuring-success-are-we-winning-10-years-in-afghanistan-may-2012update/ None of those attacks, taken in isolation, killed very many people the deadliest was the Intercontinental Hotel attack, which included seven dead insurgents and they werent meant to. Even Septembers attack on the U.S. embassy wasnt very complex, and the insurgents did not demonstrate any particular tactical genius.
40
Pro Blocks
A/T Inherent Hate Because of Religion 1. Even if the Israelis and Arab Muslims hate each other this doesnt mean that the US foreign policy cant be linked to making the situation worse. 2. Having a third party negotiator is frequently effective in lots of mediations. The Cons side evidence doesnt provide reasons why the US couldnt be more effective in the Middle East.
41
The Forensics Files November 2012 A/T Israel & Palestine
1. Israel and Palestine are just one example; they are ignoring several other countries in the Middle East such as Egypt where things have gotten really bad. 2. This topic is more about the recent events in Egypt and Syria, not about Middle East negotiations.
42
The Forensics Files November 2012 A/T Iraq
1. Iraq is just one country; the Con side ignores several other countries in the Middle East such as Egypt where things have gotten really bad. 2. The US is almost completely out of Iraq. The US really doesnt have a current foreign policy with Iraq. Thus, this argument isnt on topic.
43
The Forensics Files November 2012 A/T Afghanistan
1. Iraq is just one country; the Con side ignores several other countries in the Middle East such as Egypt where things have gotten really bad. 2.The US is rapidly withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan. The US really doesnt have a current foreign policy with Afghanistan. This topic is really about the Arab spring not about a troop surge that occurred several years ago. Thus, this argument isnt on topic.
44
Con Blocks
A/T Debt Is A National Security Concern 1. Debt is not a national security concern. We still have money that we borrow; and we pay it back, slowly but surely. 2. Not all of our problems in the Middle East are related to debt. There is a lot of religious conflict and history that wouldnt be resolved even if we were out of debt. 3. Although the US has debt to other countries, other countries are in debt to the US, so US debt is relatively minimized.
45
Con Blocks
A/T Terrorism Is A National Security Concern 1. Its true that terrorism is a national security risk, but terrorists have not been very successful in the past 11 years. This shows that current policies are working. 2. Moreover, terrorists have been historically at using nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons on a mass scale. Therefore, the security risk is low. 3. Finally, although terrorism is scary, its really what motivates terrorists to become terroristsi.e. religious conflictthat is the national security risk.
46
Con Blocks
A/T Egypt 1. The Pro side cant link Egypt and other incidents against US embassies to current US policies. These have been brewing as a result of USs historic support for Israel. Obama is the President who has been the least supportive of Israel, ever. Hes Muslim. 2. Obamas support for Egypt helped make it a democracy. Thus, there will be more room for change.
47
Con Blocks
A/T Obama Doctrine 1. The Pro Sides evidence is horrendous at explaining what the Obama Doctrine actually is and how specifically, it has made things worse in the Middle East. 2. The Obama Doctrine is not responsible for the thousands of years of religious strife between the Israelis and Arab Muslims. This is a ridiculously absurd argument.
48
The Forensics Files November 2012 PRO CASE #1 PREFLOW Russia The US remains heavily involved in the Middle East both militarily and diplomatically and this wouldnt change even if we reduced our oil dependence. Adam Wilmoth Despite the purported end of the Cold War, Russia is still eyeing Middle East countries for allies to take down the U.S. This is the a big threat to national security. The Jerusalem Post 2012
49
The Forensics Files November 2012 PRO CASE #2 PREFLOW First, the US is currently relying on Saudi Arabia for oil. Amy Jaffe, 2012
Second, relying on foreign oil markets results in international economic instability. Jaffe 2012 Third, the US funding of Saudi Arabia enhances its ability to acquire nuclear weapons. Jaffe 2012
50
The Forensics Files November 2012 CON CASE #1 PREFLOW
The US is distrusted by Middle East countries; and that distrust is shared globally. Julian Borger and Tom Clark 2012 The Jews and Arabs hate each other; this is a result of thousands of years of fighting each other. There is no one policy that the US can have that will undo thousands of years of history. Zvi Bar'el, 2012 The IsraelPalestinian conflict is a national security threat to the US. Bruce Riedel, Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis 2011
51
The Forensics Files November 2012 CON CASE #2 PREFLOW Failing to secure the Israel-Palestine conflict will threaten US national security. Frank Anderson, Philip Wilcox, Brian Katulis, 2011
Only Obama can solve the current Israel-Palestine conflict. Riedel, Anderson, Wilcox, and Katulis 2011
Obama has been successful in engaging Israel and Palestinian authorities to work toward peace. Riedel, Anderson, Wilcox, and Katulis 2011
52

Forensics Files Nov 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forensics Files Nov 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012 Source: Macmillan Dictionary 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012 PRO CASE #1 [Russia 2 of 2]

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012 PRO CASE #2 [Saudi Arabia 1 of 2]

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012 PRO CASE #2 [Saudi Arabia 2 of 2]

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012 CON CASE #1 [Alternate Causes2 of 2]

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012 CON CASE #2 [Israel-Palestine 1 of 2]

The PFD File Middle East

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East

The Forensics Files November 2012

The PFD File Middle East