Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Spec. Ops. Adv. – I/L – Training Colombia

US Special Forces are training Colombian forces
Rozoff 9 (Rick October 2 Global Research http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14503 TBC 6/27/10)

In early 2007 Marine Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Colombia and spent two days meeting with the country's military and political leadership. Shortly afterwards Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, about whom more will be said later, returned the favor and visited the Pentagon where he met with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. A Defense Department report of the visit quoted Pentagon officials as saying that "U.S. military support for Colombia, previously focused on combating drugs, has expanded to helping the Colombian military confront the country’s rebel insurgency" and that "U.S. Special Forces troops in Colombia provide Colombian forces military training...."[17]

Spec. Ops. Adv. – Colombia Module – Heg

Instability in Latin America tanks hegemony

Rochlin, 1994 (James Francis Professor of Political Science at Okanagan University College. “Discovering the Americas: the evolution of Canadian foreign policy towards Latin America,” p. 130-131)JFS

While there were economic motivations for Canadian policy in Central America, security considerations were perhaps more important. Canada possessed an interest in promoting stability in the face of a potential decline of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. Perceptions of declining U.S. influence in the region -- which had some credibility in 1979-84 due to the wildly inequitable divisions of wealth in some U.S. client states in Latin America, in addition to political repression, underdevelopment, mounting external debt, anti-American sentiment produced by decades of subjugation to U.S. strategic and economic interests, and so on -- were linked to the prospect of explosive events occurring in the hemisphere. Hence, the Central American imbroglio was viewed as a fuse which could ignite a cataclysmic process throughout the region. Analysts at the time worried that, in a worst-case scenario, instability created by a regional war, beginning in Central America and spreading elsewhere in Latin America, might preoccupy Washington to the extent that the United States would be unable to perform adequately its important hegemonic role in the international arena -- a concern expressed by the director of research for Canada's Standing Committee Report on Central America. 88 It was feared that such a predicament could generate increased global instability and perhaps even a hegemonic war. This is one of the motivations which led Canada to become involved in efforts at regional conflict resolution, such as Contadora, as will be seen in the next chapter.

Spec. Ops. Adv. – Colombia Module – China Econ

Colombian oil pipelines are key to oil exports to China

Ellis 5 (Evan, June, Strategic Security Institute, http://tinyurl.com/2bd4o9d)JFS

Although Chinese trade with Colombia is small, it is both expanding and touches upon strategically important industries. In terms of volume, Colombia-China bilateral trade grew by 60 percent over 2003. One of the most strategically significant emerging relationships between Colombia and China involves petroleum products. Although China does not currently have a publicly acknowledged role in the deal, Colombia and Venezuela are currently engaged in engineering-level talks concerning the construction of a series of oil and gas pipelines that ultimately would allow Colombia to export significant quantities of these products to China via its Pacific ports. With respect to oil, the Colombian oil firm, Ecopetrol, and the Venezuelan national oil company, PDVSA, began studies in 2002 on the construction of a 1,100-1,300 km-long petroleum pipeline to carry Venezuelan oil from the Maracaibo region across Columbia to the Choco region of Colombia, and potentially to the Pacific port of Tribugal. The pipeline would thus facilitate the export of oil to the Western United States and Asian markets, including China. Commitment to the pipeline was a key element of recent summits between Chávez and Uribe, including meetings on July 14 and September 9, 2004. although recent statements by both governments have raised some doubts about the future of the deal. In conjunction with the pipeline, Colombia has discussed the construction of a future oil port on its Pacific Coast with the explicit purpose of refining and exporting petroleum products to China and other Asian markets.92 Such a pipeline would not only provide an outlet for Colombian oil sales to China, but would also significantly increase the viability of Venezuelan oil sales to China, given the inability of modern supertankers loading on Venezuela’s Atlantic coast to pass through the Panama Canal.
Chinese oil imports are key to the Chinese economy

Franz 8 (Paris, International Affairs at Suite 101, http://internationalaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/chinas_economy_and_the_importance_of_oil)JFS

China’s economic boom has changed the situation drastically. The economic reforms of the late 1970s have lead to an annual growth rate of nearly 10 percent on average, a rate that has only slowed with the onset of the global financial crisis. Chinese oil demand is increasing by around one billion barrels per day annually. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that by 2030 Chinese oil imports will equal those of the US.

China became a net importer of oil in 1993, surpassing Japan in 2003 to become the second largest international oil consumer after the US. The new economic realities have pushed the search for a stable supply of energy to the top of the Chinese agenda, as continued economic growth is central to the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy. In a speech celebrating 30 years of reform in December 2008, Chinese President Hu Jintao emphasized the importance of maintaining stable and relatively rapid growth.

Such growth looks set to continue, if at a reduced rate, and China’s search for secure energy supplies will also continue, along with its wooing of the oil-rich Middle East. To quote the movie Casablanca, this could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
China economic decline would cause WWIII asian style

Strait Times 3 (UCLA Prof, June 27, Strait Times¸ http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/commentary/...,197074,00.html ) ET

But imagine a China disintegrating - on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much less outright military invasion - because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don't want them and can't handle them; some in Japan might lick their lips at the prospect of World War II Revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That would send Singapore and Malaysia - once occupied by Japan - into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia-style. That's why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth - the very direction the White House now seems to prefer. If neo-conservatives really care about Mr Bush, they ought to find their common sense and get off his back. He has enough on his plate with Iraq. In the final analysis, neo-conservative insanity is more of a danger to the Bush presidency than China.

Spec. Ops. Adv. – Impact – Spec. Ops. Good

Special forces rock – they have much more experience and training that is key to mission success
Isenberg 4 (David BASIC RESEARCH REPORT September http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004PMC2 TBC 6/25/10)

Many PMC personnel, hired as independent contractors (IC), are not merely ex-military, but former members of elite units, usually in the special operations forces community (SOF).42 In the United States that means former Rangers, Green Berets, Delta Force, and SEALs.43 In the United Kingdom it means former Special Air Service (SAS),44 former police officers from Scotland Yard's royalty protection squad (SO14), who specialize in close protection work, and members of the Special Boat Service (SBS), the Royal Navy equivalent of the SAS.45 Why SOF? Within the contracting world the type of individuals working as security contractors escorting convoys or providing static and roving protection of individuals and installations are far more likely to have a background in the combat arms sector, or policing at a minimum, if not special operations training and experience. In the role of security operator they are able to bring a lifetime of training and experience to a specific job. Most of the actual security teams operating on the ground frequently are composed of former and retired senior NCOs, men in their 30s and early 40s. This level of experience contributes to a more relaxed environment that simplifies operations. Leaders trust their operators to ensure basic tasks have been performed as second nature, and that their staff is highly professional and disciplined. In contrast a young Army soldier or Marine, recently graduated from his or her basic training and specialty school is just that: young and inexperienced. The typical SOF soldier is far more accustomed to interacting with foreign nationals than the average service member. Language skills and cultural appreciation are skills taught in their military training and carried over into the professional approach taken as a civilian specialist. Reconnaissance and tactical analysis of intelligence is a basic part of any special operations mission; within the conventional military, analysis is the realm of a limited few.

British special forces key to operations in Iran
Smith 7 (Michael October 21^st The Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2691726.ece TBC 6/25/10)

BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed. There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shi’ite militiamen. The unreported fighting straddles the border between Iran and Iraq and has also involved the Iranian military firing mortars into Iraq. UK commanders are concerned that Iran is using a militia ceasefire to step up arms supplies in preparation for an offensive against their base at Basra airport. An SAS squadron is carrying out operations along the Iranian border in Maysan and Basra provinces with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operations troops.

Spec. Ops. Adv. – Impact – Military Adventurism

Unrestrained military adventurism ensures cycles of endless war and termination of the planet

Kellner 3 (pf social sciences- ucla, Douglas, An Orwellian Nightmare: Critical Reflections on the Bush Administration, http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/orwelliannightmare.pdf)KM

Moreover, it is by now well known and documented that Bush’s policy of launching a preemptive strike on Iraq was based on deception and lies. Bush and others in his administration constantly made false claims about alleged Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” and the threat that the Iraqis posed to the U.S. and the entire world. The failure to find such threatening weapons and media exposure of claims that U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies were skeptical of these claims have led to critical scrutiny of the case for war offered by the U.S. and Britain. In the latter country, a major inquiry is now going on presided by Lord Hutton into government deception over Iraq. Robert Greenwald’s remarkable 2003 documentary Uncovered contrasts statements by members of the Bush administration including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice with critique by former members of the US intelligence and political establishment demonstrating that Bush administration claims were utterly bogus. Former intelligence analysts dissect Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations claiming to document Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction and show in detail how key statistics Powell appealed to were simply false, his satellite imagery pictures claiming to present Iraqi weapons were appallingly misinterpreted, and his major claims concerning the immediate threat of Iraqi weapons were utterly fictitious in what has to be the nadir of US diplomatic argumentation before an international audience. The documentary also presents critics such as former Ambassador Joseph Wilson convincingly arguing that Bush administration claims concerning ties between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime are completely unproven, while a variety of critics argue that the Iraq occupation has created new terrorist enemies for the US and has not made the US safer, as Bush administration officials continually claim.11 After the collapse of the Baath regime in April 2003, the Bush administration began threatening Syria and there have been reports that the neo-conservatives in the administration have planned five more wars (see Clark 2003). The Bush administration policy of Terror War raises the possibility that Orwell's 1984 might provide the template for the new millennium, as the world is plunged into endless wars, as freedom and democracy are being snuffed out in the name of freedom, as language loses meaning, and as history is constantly revised (just as Bush and his scribes constantly rewrote his own personal history). There is thus the danger that Orwell’s dark grim dystopia may replace the (ideological) utopia of the “information society,” the “new economy,” and a prosperous and democratic globalization that had been the dominant ideology and vision of the past decade. Questions arise: Will the Bush administration Terror War lead the world to apocalypse and ruin through constant war and the erection of totalitarian police states over the façade of fragile democracy? Or can more multilateral and global solutions be found to the dangers of terrorism that will strengthen democracy and increase the chances for peace and security? There is indeed a danger that Terror War will be a force of historical regression, and the motor of destruction of the global economy, liberal polity, and democracy itself, all to be replaced by an aggressive militarism and totalitarian police state. It could well be that Orwell will be the prophet of a coming New Barbarism with endless war, state repression, and enforced control of thought and discourse, and that George W. Bush and his minions are the architects of an Orwellian future. It could also be the case, however, that the Taliban, bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, and the Bush administration represent obsolete and reactionary forces that will be swept away by the inexorable forces of globalization and liberal democracy. The opposing sides in the current Terror War of the Bush administration reactionaries and Al Qaeda could be perceived as representing complementary poles of an atavistic and premodern version of Islam and nihilistic terrorism confronted by reactionary rightwing 9 conservatism and militarism.12 In this scenario, both poles can be perceived as disruptive and regressive forces in a global world that need to be overcome to create genuine historical progress. If this is the case, Terror War would be a momentary interlude in which two obsolete historical forces battle it out, ultimately to be replaced by more sane and democratic globalizing forces. This is, of course, an optimistic scenario and probably, for the foreseeable future, progressive forces will be forced to confront intense battles between the opposing forces of Islamic terrorism and rightwing militarism. Yet if democracy and the human species are to survive, global movements against militarism and for social justice, ecology, and peace must emerge to combat and replace the atavistic forces of the present. As a

Spec. Ops. Adv. – Impact – Military Adventurism

new millennium unfolds, the human race has regressed into a New Barbarism unforeseeable prior to September 11. If civilization is to survive, individuals must perceive their enemies and organize to fight for a better future. And now is the time for liberals, conservatives and those who believe in truth in politics to demand straight talk from the Bush administration and other politicians, and for the media and critics of the politics of lying to take the Bush administration to task for its Big Lies. As the history of recent totalitarian regimes demonstrates, systematic deception and lying rots the very fabric of a political society, and if U.S. democracy is to find new life and a vigorous future there must be public commitments to truth and public rejection of the politics of lying. To conclude: as a response to the September 11 terror attacks, the Bush administration has answered with an intensified militarism that threatens to generate an era of Terror War, a new arms race, accelerated military violence, U.S. support of authoritarian regimes, an assault on human rights, constant threats to democracy, and destabilizing of the world economy. The Bush regime also provides political favors to its largest corporate and other supporters, unleashing unrestrained Wild West capitalism, exemplified in the Enron scandals, and a form of capitalist cronyism whereby Bush administration family and friends are provided with government favors, while social welfare programs, environmental legislation, and protection of rights and freedoms are curtailed. Consequently, I would argue that Bush administration unilateralist militarism is not the way to fight international terrorism, but is rather the road to an Orwellian nightmare in which democracy and freedom will be in dire peril and the future of the human species will be in question. These are frightening times and it is essential that all citizens become informed about the fateful conflicts of the present, gain clear understanding of what is at stake, and realize that they must oppose at once international terrorism, Bushian militarism, and an Orwellian police-state in order to preserve democracy and a life worthy of a human being.