Khalilzad ’95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, Washington Quarterly, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold Water”, 18:2, Spring, L/N)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more openand more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Perception of combating debt solves china
[Chua Chin Hon, US Bureau Chief for The Straits Times, "US to cope with evolving Chinese army;
But Obama's security doctrine focuses on country's economic and domestic problems
" 5/29/10, Lexis]
Elsewhere in the report, the White House acknowledged Beijing's rising influence and impact in the world. It cited China, alongside India and Russia, as '21st-century centres of influence' that the US must enhance cooperation with. Though analysts regard China as the biggest long-term strategic challenge to US power, the broad-ranging report released on Thursday made it plain that the real test of American dominance in the 21st century was whether the country could get its own house in order. 'Our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home. We must grow our economy and reduce our deficit,' President Barack Obama wrote in the preface to the report, adding that the US must invest more in education, alternative energy and innovation. The report's extensive focus on economic and domestic policy challenges was a sharp departure from the Bush administration's emphasis on terrorism and pre-emptive strikes on enemies abroad. This is unsurprising, given the sputtering economy, two costly ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lingering anxieties from the financial meltdown of 2008 and the soaring US deficit, now estimated at US $13 trillion (S $18.2 trillion). Some senior US military figures have even come to regard the massive deficit as one of the biggest threats to the country's national security. Unless steps are taken to bring down the deficit, they warned, America's dealings with countries holding large amounts of US debt, such as China, could well be undermined. Speaking at the Brookings Institution soon after the report was released, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the White House shared that concern. She said: 'We cannot sustain this level of deficit financing and debt without losing our influence, without being constrained in the tough decisions we have to make about diplomacy, defence and development. '(A strong US economy) matters when we go to China. That matters when we try to influence Russia. That matters when we talk to our allies in Europe.' In another clear departure from the policies of the Bush years, the latest strategy report also adopted a more nuanced, if relatively muted, tone on the promotion of democracy and human rights abroad. The changes are all the more striking when seen in the context of the language used on China. In 2002, the first NSS report issued by the Bush White House pointedly said the 'democratic development of China is crucial' to a prosperous future for the mainland and the Asia Pacific. An updated report in 2006 said 'China will face a growing demand from its own people to follow the path of East Asia's many modern democracies, adding political freedom to economic freedom'. The passages on China in Mr Obama's report, however, made no direct reference to democracy or political reforms. There was a cursory mention of the fact that Washington would be candid about 'our human rights concerns', though that was quickly followed up by a caveat that the disagreements should not get in the way of bilateral cooperation. Some observers see this as another sign of the changing balance of power between the twogiants. Others, however, chalk it up to Mr Obama's insistence on 'seeing the world as it is'. 'To succeed, we must face the world as it is,' the latest report said. 'We must recognise that no one nation, no matter how powerful, can meet global challenges alone.'
Iraq costs over 2 times as much as Afghanistan
[Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11” 8/28/09, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf]
If the Administration’s FY2010 war request is enacted, total war-related funding would reach $1.08 trillion, including $748 billion for Iraq, $300 billion for Afghanistan, $29 billion for enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 69% would be for Iraq, 28% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security. On August 30, 2009, General Stanley McChrystal, Commander in Afghanistan, submitted a strategic assessment and a request for additional troops was reportedly given to Secretary of Defense Gates on September 26 , 2009. That request is unlikely to be vetted either within DOD and the Administration until additional ongoing White House reviews of the strategy are completed.