Answers to: Military Bases Increase Sexual Violence

Turn — We prevent war. Absent increased NATO commitments, Russian forces will invade the Baltics and put their troops there, triggering every impact they read. And war itself results in rape:

Encyclopedia Brittanica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/rape-crime/Rape-as-a-weapon-of-war

The rape of women by soldiers during wartime has occurred throughout history. Indeed, rape was long considered an unfortunate but inevitable accompaniment of war—the result of the prolonged sexual deprivation of troops and insufficient military discipline. Its use as a weapon of war was gruesomely demonstrated during World War II, when both Allied and Axis armies committed rape as a means of terrorizing enemy civilian populations and demoralizing enemy troops.

Non-Unique: If the military forces aren’t in the Baltics countries won’t just retire the soldiers, they’ll station them elsewhere. In fact, given that we are drawing-down our troops in Afghanistan, we are just deciding where to send them.  In fact, it’s now just a question of where to relocated US troops, not if they will go to foreign bases to challenge China

Richard Fontaine, June 25, 2021, Fountaine is the chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, 2021, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/afghanistan-us-withdrawal-china/619286/m How the Afghanistan Withdrawal Costs the U.S. With China

Announcing the withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan two months ago, President Joe Biden invoked the need to focus on Washington’s No. 1 foreign-policy priority: China. Ending the war would, the president argued, permit America to redirect its energies toward new, more pressing challenges, foremost among them “extreme” competition with an assertive Beijing. As a rising authoritarian superpower threatens to eclipse the United States technologically, militarily, and economically, the thinking goes, we can hardly afford to be tied down in an endless war….In practical terms, advocates of withdrawal offer three major ways that leaving Afghanistan could strengthen Washington in its intensifying rivalry with Beijing. It could liberate military resources currently tied down in Afghanistan, allowing them to be redeployed to the Indo-Pacific theater.

The alternative is Central Asia

Radio Free Europe, April 23, 2021, https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-military-bases-in-central-asia-part-two-/31219781.html

Some recent media reports suggest the U.S. military will seek to reposition some of its troops in Central Asia after its big decision to withdraw from Afghanistan after nearly two decades in the country.

Turn — Placing them in Asia to challenge China will cause a war with China

Charles L. Glaser is professor of political science and international affairs and director of the Elliott School of International Affairs’ Institute for Security and Conflict Studies at The George Washington University, December 14, 2016, New York Times, China’s Rise Can be Peaceful if the U.S. Doesn’t provoke it, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/14/can-trump-get-tough-with-china/chinas-rise-can-be-peaceful-if-the-us-doesnt-provoke-it

China’s rise will continue to redefine international politics in East Asia. Contrary to many pessimistic assessments, China can rise peacefully. Its growing military and economic power pose major challenges to U.S. dominance in the region, but need not lead to conflict. However, China’s peaceful rise is far from assured. Both ambition and insecurity could lead China to challenge the status quo, generating an armed class with the United States. U.S. strategy must therefore strike a careful balance: its policies must effectively deter attacks against U.S. vital interests, while at the same time not posing a serious threat to China’s security. Even appearing to be moving toward supporting Taiwan’s independence would be seen by China’s leaders as a highly provocative act. China considers Taiwan to be part of its homeland and unification remains a key political goal for Beijing. The growing centrality of nationalism to the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party makes Taiwan’s future essential to the regime’s survival. China has made clear that it will use force if Taiwan declares independence. Consequently, president-elect Trump’s telephone call with the leader of Taiwan and his seemingly cavalier attitude toward upending the United States’ long-standing Taiwan policy are deeply misguided. Shifts in U.S. policy that encourage Taiwan to believe that the United States will support its moves toward independence increase the probability of war. For example, the United States could change Taiwan’s expectations by revising the conditions under which it will come to Taiwan’s aid. The United States currently tries to constrain Taiwan by making its defense commitment conditional — the United States will respond only to unprovoked Chinese attacks; that is, it will not come to Taiwan’s defense if a Chinese attack is provoked by Taiwan’s declaration of independence. Eliminating or blurring this conditionality could embolden Taiwan. A variety of dangers could follow. If Taiwan declares independence, war between China and Taiwan is the likely outcome. Even moving to far in that direction could fuel a major crisis. And if the United States actually would come to Taiwan’s defense, then conventional war between China and the United States also becomes more likely. Conventional war between two nuclear powers increases the probability of nuclear war. Other paths to conflict could also result. In response to a newly provocative policy toward Taiwan, China might adopt still more assertive policies in the South China and East China Seas. The United States could then get drawn into conflict to protect a friend or ally. China might accelerate its buildup of conventional forces to further improve its ability to coerce Taiwan, which would intensify military competition with the United States and strain political relations. If any change is in order, the United States should be moving in the opposite direction — reducing its commitment to Taiwan to improve U.S. relations with China

Turn – A combative defense posture with China means a world war

Aboyami Azikwe, Center for Research on Globalization, December 13, 2016, US-China Relations and Trump’s Military Agenda, http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-china-relations-and-trumps-military-agenda/5562026

Trump has given clear signals that he will seek a shift in the current character of relations with the People’s Republic of China. A telephone conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-Wen caused concern in Beijing. The president-elect says that his administration will not be bound by the “One China” policy which recognizes Beijing as the sole legitimate government for the country. The Chinese government has expressed its opposition to such statements and is threatening retaliation for the abandonment of the policy which has been in effect since January 1979. In an editorial published by Global Times in China, the newspaper stresses: “The One China policy is not for selling. Trump thinks that everything can be valued and, as long as his leverage is strong enough, he can sell or buy. If a price can be put on the U.S. Constitution, will the American people sell their country’s constitution and implement the political systems of Saudi Arabia or Singapore? Trump needs to learn to handle foreign affairs modestly, especially the China-U.S. relationship. More importantly, a hard struggle against Trump is needed to let him know that China and other world powers cannot be easily taken advantage of. If Trump gave up the One China policy, publicly supported Taiwan independence and wantonly sold weapons to Taiwan, China would have no grounds to partner with Washington on international affairs and contain forces hostile to the U.S. In response to Trump’s provocations, Beijing could offer support, even military assistance to U.S. foes.” These are strong words coming from a nation which has the largest conventional military force in the world along with nuclear capability encompassed by a state which has the second largest economy that conducts enormous trade with the U.S. The heightening of tensions with China could provoke conflict between Washington and Beijing leading the possibility of another international conflagration. The Trump pronouncements are a reflection of the confused state of U.S. domestic and foreign policy imperatives. Facing the overall declining level of economic growth and political influence, the ruling class is seeking ways to reassert the dominance of the Pentagon and Wall Street. It is highly unlikely that such a strategy of global dominance can be achieved even with another world war. Such an international military conflict that would risk nuclear confrontation could bring about the effective destruction of U.S. imperialism as a whole.

Empirically nations must secure peace before investigating gender; otherwise real change will be suppressed

Berkman 1990, Joyce, Ph.D., Yale (1967), “Feminism, War, and Peace Politics: The Case of World War I” in “Women, militarism, and war: essays in history, politics, and social theory,” by Jean Bethke Elshtain and Sheila Tobias, p 141-156 WM

On October 30, 1914, well before America entered the war and only five days after the Pankhursts had addressed an audience in Carnegie Hall, Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence spoke on the same platform, urging women to “overstep the miserable bounds of nationality and race” and to campaign for peace. 26 Rosika Schwimmer, Pethick-Lawrence’s sometime traveling companion and an acclaimed feminist leader in her own right (from Hungary), exhorted audiences similarly throughout the midwest,21 Together they called upon American feminists to stop at nothing less than the formation of a Peace Party. Local women’s peace committees did form and before long, assisted by Jane Addams, a Women’s Peace Party in America was formally in place (1915). Until 1917, when America entered the war, peace activism enjoyed some popular support among males and females. Once America joined the Allies, however, that support crumbled and, crumbling, sundered the American women’s movement just as the issue had divided British and European feminists three years before. The dilemmas were not merely theoretical. Once America was engaged in warfare, feminists and other peace politicians could be prosecuted, certainly harassed. It was far easier for the feminist to row with the patriotic tide than to set her oars against it.

Even if the troops get shifted back to the US, problems of sexual violence will remain

Enloe 93 – Professor in the Department of International Development, Community, and Environment at Clark University, Ph.D in Political Science from UC Berkeley (Cynthia Enloe, “The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War” p. 150, MT)There is no evidence thus far that being compelled by the forces of nature and nationalism to shut down two of their most prized overseas bases has caused U.S. military planners to rethink their prostitution policies. Shifting some of the Philippines operations to Guam or Singapore or back home to the United States does not in itself guarantee new official presumptionsabout the kinds of sexual relations required to sustain U.S. military power in the post Cold War world