Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Readiness – I/L – US Retention

The benefits of PMC’s incentivize people into joining contractors instead of reenlisting, there are more PMC’s than soldiers in combat.
Ward 10 (10, 2010 Wolfgang Ward, “Many Choose Private Security over Reenlistment” http://www.militaryspot.com/news/item/many_choose_private_security_over_reenlistment/)KM

Before the modern wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ratio of military to private security contractors was 50:1. Now with the increase in outsourcing, private security pulls ahead with 1.6:1. That’s right; there are more contractors on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel, than the military. There are many choices that you can make when you are looking into your career opportunities and choices as you are coming up on the end of your enlistment term. Many veterans, whether combat or not, consider looking at the advantages of going into private military companies (PMC) as an alternative. Wasn’t this the warning of President Eisenhower claiming the military–industrial complex? Or is it this just another case of changing times and the inevitable? “Why wouldn’t I just go into one of the millions of security companies if they are willing to pay me ten times as much and do one-quarter of the work,” says Marine Corps veteran Scott Olson, a recently discharged veteran. “All my friends are doing it.” Is it really all that surprising that people are choosing to go into these PMC’s and not reenlisting? Veterans have the opportunity to weigh the benefits of how they think the best option is for them and their family. Both military and private security delivers benefits for both. Which one provides you the best benefits and options is an individual choice. An increasing awareness of these companies has had different perceptions from people getting into the military and people coming out of the military. “I have a friend who is a contractor in Iraq and makes over $100K a year,” stated Neil Fogel, a recent high–school graduate entering the Navy. “That’s why I’m going in. To get my military experience to get a job with a private security company.” Recruiters from PMC’s are not setting up booths at high–schools to get these young Americans to join. There seems to be a common viral message encompassing the route of how people should consider their career. Should they go into the military or into private security?

Readiness – I/L – 5 Star Generals Retention

Private firms destroy professional development in the career military – eliminates the best 5 star generals

Singer 4 (Peter W, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative and a senior fellow in Foreign Policy at Brookings, http://www.dcaf.ch/_docs/pp04_private–military.pdf, AD: 6/22/10) jl

However, there are also brewing concerns within the military itself about what this industry will mean for the health of the profession, as well as general resentment over firms and individuals using the profession (and the training and human investment that the military provided) for personal or organizational profit. Soldiers look at many of the roles taken over by firms – from training to technical support – and understand why they were outsourced, but worry whether the loss of these professional skills and functions will be permanent and/or hamstring the military in the future. For example, interviewees in both the military and the PMF industry agree that many of the top logisticians and combat skills trainers in the world (including those that train U.S. forces before they deploy into Iraq) now lie in the PMF industry,. Likewise, an increasing number of the teaching slots at military command staff colleges are outsourced. In the past, such warrior-intellectual slots served as the breeding ground for future generals (by some reports almost half of all U.S. Army division commanders in World War II). With military privatization, this is lost.

Readiness – I/L – Retention Key to Heg

Prolonged troop shortages will cripple American hegemony

Kagan and O’Hanlon, 2007 (Frederick and Michael *P.h.d from Yale, professor at Westpoint** Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution, April 2007 “The Case for Larger Ground Forces” Stanley Foundation, Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide)KM

The Future of the Two–War Planning Framework—and Future Military Contingencies for the United States US defense planning since the end of the Cold War has been organized around the need to be prepared to fight two overlapping wars. In 2001 the George W. Bush administration modified the two–war concept somewhat, but kept much of the basic logic and the associated force structure (which Kagan has argued was, from the beginning, always inadequate to support the strategy).1 In the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, further changes are now needed in America’s armed forces and their undergirding defense strategy. The deterrent logic of being able to do more than one thing at a time is rock solid. If involved in one major conflict, and perhaps occupied in one or more smaller ongoing operations around the world, the United States also needs additional capability to deter other crises—as well as maintain its forward presence at bases around the world and on the seas, carry out joint exercises with allies, and handle smaller problems. The current conflict in Iraq highlights the limitations of our two–war force structure, since the US military is patently unable to contemplate another “major theater war” at the present with anything other than horror. But our inability to cope with such a scenario only increases the likelihood that one will emerge, as opportunistic enemies take advantage of our perceived weakness and overcommitment.

Readiness key to hegemony

Spencer 00 (Jack, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security for the Institute for International Studies, http://www.heritage.org/Research/ MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm )

Military readiness is vital because declines in America’s military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.