Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

War on Drugs Add-On – Uniqueness – Funded by U.S.

The security of the US supply chain comes from Warlords – The US supports Warlords!
USFG June (Report of the Majority Staff, Rep. John F. Tierney , June 2010 “Warlord, Inc.” pg 67–8)KFC

Security for the U.S. Supply Chain Is Principally Provided by Warlords. The principal private security subcontractors on the HNT contract are warlords, strongmen, commanders, and militia leaders who compete with the Afghan central government for power and authority. Providing “protection” services for the U.S. supply chain empowers these warlords with money, legitimacy, and a raison d’etre for their private armies. Although many of these warlords nominally operate under private security companies licensed by the Afghan Ministry of Interior, they thrive in a vacuum of government authority and their interests are in fundamental conflict with U.S. aims to build a strong Afghan government.

War on Drugs Add-On – I/L – Hurts War on Drugs

Growing reliance on contractors hurts the war on drugs- less accountable and makes the CIA too dependent on outside workers

Glanz 9 (James, Baghdad Bureau chief of the NY Times, NY Times, Sep 1-9) ET

The report says the reliance on contractors has grown steadily, with just a small percentage of contractors serving the Pentagon in World War I, but then growing to nearly a third of the total force in the Korean War and about half in the Balkans and Iraq. The change, the report says, has gradually forced the American military to adapt to a far less regimented and, in many ways, less accountable force. The growing dependence on contractors is partly because the military has lost some of its logistics and support capacity, especially since the end of the cold war, according to the report. Some of the contractors have skills in critical areas like languages and digital technologies that the military needs. The issue of the role of contractors in war has been a subject of renewed debate in Washington in recent weeks with disclosures that the Central Intelligence Agency used the company formerly known as Blackwater to help with a covert program, now canceled, to assassinate leaders of Al Qaeda. Lawmakers have demanded to know why such work was outsourced. The State Department also uses contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, although both the department and the C.I.A. have said they want to reduce their dependence on outside workers.

War on Drugs Add-On – Impact – War on Drugs Good

Drug trafficking finances terrorism, war on drugs is key to solve.
Koelbl 9 (Susanne Koelbl, 02/09/2009 “Afghanistan Foreign Minister 'We Need Help from the West'” http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,606481,00.html)KM

Do all Afghanistan's drug traffickers support terrorists, as NATO High Commander General Bantz John Craddock seems to assume? Spanta: That there is a close relationship between the drug mafia and terrorism is a fact. That's why Afghanistan's government has asked NATO to attack drug barons involved in armed combat whenever necessary, even if it means using deadly force. Drug caravans should, above all, be destroyed: heavily armed bands, moving westwards from the south in the direction of Iran.
War on drugs is key to all other successes in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.
Lacouture 8 (Matthew Lacouture, University of Denver, “Narco-Terrorism in Afghanistan: Counternarcotics and Counterinsurgency”, 10/24/2008, http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/39)KM

Since the 2001 invasion and the lifting of the Taliban opium ban, opium production in Afghanistan has increased from 70 percent of the overall global illicit opium production to 92 percent today. This increase has occurred in tandem with the declining security situation precipitated by the 2001 coalition invasion of the country. The loose relationship between terrorist organizations, violence, decentralized governance, and poverty that existed prior to the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in Afghanistan, has coalesced into a truly narco-terrorism-driven system. The implications of this are severe to both Afghanistan’s and America’s long-term goals. Corruption, lawlessness, instability, violence, and human suffering all contribute to, and result from, the precipitous increase in opium cultivation and narcotics production and trafficking. Thus, in attempting to subdue the Taliban- and al-Qaeda-led insurgencies, and to forge a stable and effective government in Afghanistan, there must also be effective and socially conscious measures undertaken to eliminate the pervasive narco-economy. As President Karzai has stated, “The question of drugs . . . is one that will determine Afghanistan’s future. . . . [I]f we fail, we will fail as a state eventually, and we will fall back in the hands of terrorism.”

Spending Adv. – PMC Profits

PMC’s are earning about $250 billion annually from Iraq and Afghanistan
Lendman 10 (Stephen, Research Assoc. of the Centre for Research on Globalization, http://www.rense.com/general89/outs.htm) GAT

Since 2003, Iraq alone represents the "single largest commitment of US military forces in a generation (and) by far the largest marketplace for the private military industry ever."   In 2005, 80 PMC’s operated there with over 20,000 personnel. Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, it's grown exponentially, according to US Department of Defense figures - nearly 250,000 as of Q 3, 2009, mostly in Iraq but rising in Afghanistan to support more troops.   Not included are PMC’s working for the State Department, 16 US intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, other branches and foreign governments, commercial businesses, and individuals, so the true total is much higher. In addition, as Iraq troops are drawn down, PMC’s will replace them, and in Afghanistan, they already exceed America's military force.   According to a September 21, 2009 Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report, as of June 2009, PMC’s in Afghanistan numbered 73,968, and a later year end 2009 US Central Command figure is over 104,000 and rising. The expense is enormous and growing with CRS reporting that supporting each soldier costs $1 million annually, in large part because of rampant waste, fraud and abuse, unmonitored and unchecked.   With America heading for 100,000 troops on the ground and more likely coming, $100 billion will be spent annually supporting them, then more billions as new forces arrive, and the Iraq amount is even greater - much, or perhaps most, from supplemental funding for both theaters on top of America's largest ever military budget at a time the country has no enemies except for ones it makes by invading and occupying other countries and waging global proxy wars.