Iraq Pullout Da - Z Seniors

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

2

1NC Shell Overview ~~:~:: Links Pullout Pullout Pullout Pullout

..,

...

...

.,

...

...

~~:~~1~.~.~.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.~., ". ..." Good: 2NC . Good: Seven Scenarios Good:Civil War/Stability Good: Terror

~ 9-10

'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ."...

.., .., ..."

Pullout Good: Demo Promo

11-14 ". 15 16 17-18

".. ,...

,

".

"

19-21

Pullout Good: Econ

"

Pullout Good: Laundry List

'"''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Pullout Good: Readiness.. Pullout Good: Heg Pullout Good: Soft Power Pullout Good: Overstretch Pullout Inevitable A2: Congress = Pullout

"

.".

22-23

24

...,..

"

,

25-26 27 28-29 30 31 32

" ...

",,,,,,,,,

"

"

".. ,..

A2: More Troops Solve A2: Demo Promo No Pullout Now Pullout Bad: Terror

,

"...

."

"

"

33 34 35-36 ".. 37

"

,

"'"''''''''''

,

Pullout Bad: Stability

38

,

Pullout Bad: Laundry List Pullout Bad: Demo Promo. ... Pullout Bad: Soft Power

,

""""''''''''''''''''

, ,...

Josh Branson, Chris Lundberg,

3

Zachary Brown, John Warden, Scott Deatherage

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 * 1999 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers

2006 2000 *1999 * 1998 *1996 1989 *1973 *1968 1966 *1962 * * *

39 40 41

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

INC Shell 1. Iraqi Pullout is Coming Newsday 6/27/06

Now

The White House confIrmed yesterday that its tOD general in Iraq has drafted a plan to start bringing U.S. troODS home this fall, then quickly tried to downplay the news. Gen. George Casev has drawn up plans to bring home about 7,000 troODS starting in SeDtember and more than half the U.S. combat strength in Iraq bv the end of 2007, White House aides said. That would total roughly 28,000 out of the 127,000 Americans in Iraq now, administration officials said, though the exact troop level envisioned by Casey's plan was unclear, because it also would include an unspecifIed number of support troops. The plan would seem like good news for a war-battered Dresident who has long given a stock answer to the question of when U.S. troops can start coming home: It's UD to Casev. 2. An increase in forces prevents pullout Johnson 6 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting firm that specializes in counter terrorism investigations, worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, June 25, 2006] U.S. forces not involved in counterterrorism operations are involved with defensive operations -- force protection and supply route protection. The United ,S,tates does not have enough military forces in Iraq to conduct and sustain an effective counterinsurgency calTIDaign. As a result, we are forced into a defensive mode, with the exception of our counterterrorism operations, that has essentially made us spectators to the escalating civil war. How about the training of the Iraqi military? Unfortunately, we are not creating a genuine national. non-sectarian force. We are forming a largely Shia Army that operates more as a local militia. The Surmis who we have trained operate in a similar fashion. They have acquired military skill with the expectation of being able to protect their local communities trom other Iraqis. Our training comes with strings attached. For example, we are not equiDDing the new IraQi Army with the type of helicopter and fIxed wing aerial platforms required to conduct both counterterrorist and counterinsurgent operations. Without a draft or a substantial increase in coalition forces on the ground in IraQ, we do not have the resources to conduct a counterinsurgency campaign. If we decided to gO this route we must be readv to accept that the process will endure several vears and that casualty rates for coalition forces would. at least over the short run. increase dramaticallv. Talking about this is pure fantasy. No political leader in the United States has the stomach or courage go down this road. 3. Pullout key to the war on terror Johnson 5 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting firm that specializes in counter terrorism investigations, worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office ofthe Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, August 25, 2005, "Why We Must Leave Iraq"] The insurgency in IraQ is comDrised of at least 20 grOUps. Some of these are Baathists, some are Surmi Islamic extremists, and a few are Shia. They agree on one thingnthe United ,S,tates is an invader and must be eXDelled. While there is no single leader who can claim the status or mandate as did Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam days, the insurgents in IraQ are as fIrm and serious as those we faced in Vietnam. The continued Dresence of U.S. combat forces and our oDerations against Iraqi civilians is recruiting new iihadists trom around the Muslim world. Notwithstanding U.S. efforts to win the. hearts and minds, of the Iraqi people, the sectarian strife and the images of U.S. soldiers kicking in the doors ofDeoDles. homes while searching for insurgents is creating more anger rather than SUDDort. 4. A terrorist attack causes extinction Sid Ahmed 4 [AI Abram Weekly online, August 26,2004] What would be the consequences

of a nuclear attack bv terrorists?

Even if it fails, it wouldfurtherexacerbatethenegativefeaturesof thenewand

frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and retigions would rise and ethnic

conflicts

would

Droliferate.

It would

order is imperative ifhumaokind is to survive.But the still more critical scenario is no one will When

nuclear

emerge

victorious.

Dollution

also

sDeed

UD the arms

race

and develop the awareness that a different type of world

if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war. trom which

Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without

infects

2005

the whole

Dlanet.

winners

and losers.

we will all be losers.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2003 * 2002 *1999 * \998 *1995 *1994 *1980 *1978 *1973 *1966 *1959 *1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 1999 1998 * 1996 1989 * 1973 * 1968 * 1966 * \ 962 * * *

2

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Overview A lack of troop support is causing the military to begin an internal withdrawal from Iraq. The plan's increase in Armed Service members provides more troops for the conflict, preventing withdrawal. Staying in Iraq turns the case, the US can't impose hegemony or increase readiness if all our troops are bogged down in Iraq. Additionally, the terrorism impact outweighs the case, 3 reasons 1. Timeframea. Perception affects the international community, terrorists, ship, and successfully fight with the plan's new troops. 2. ProbabilityByman

Defeat in Iraq is inevitable,

5 [Daniel Byman, Assjstant

for Middle East Policy at the Brookings

Professor

there's

only a risk pullout

in the Security Studies Program

Institution,lnternationa1

and the Iraqi people instantaneously,

of Georgetown

Institute for Strategic

it would take a long time to train,

solves University's

School of Foreign Service, non-resident

Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

Studies, Spring 2005 issue]

With success on the current course so unlikely. and a major escalation or change in US approach implausible, the case for leaving Iraq looks strong. The parallels to Vietnam seem ominous: an unquenchable insurgency; a government of dubious leg:itimacy; and a failing US military strategy. If Iraq is indeed comparable to Vietnam. the best bet is for the United ~tates and its allies sinmly get out now rather than continue a fruitless fight in the hope of postponing an inevitable defeat. After all, the United ~tates withdrew from Vietnam and the communist capture of South Vietnam - though horrible for the South Vietnamese - was not catastrophic for US security. By withdrawing, the haemorrhaging oflives and dollars would stop - at least on the American side. The legitimacy of the new regime would also grOW initially, as it would no longer be viewed as an alien leadership kept in power only by American might. Muslims who obiect to the US occupation of one of the historic centres of the Muslim world also be appeased. removing at least one source of ol'position to the United ~tates. Resources in Iraq could be used to fight bin Laden and affiliated iihadists in Afghanistan. Pakistan and elsewhere. while the constant irritation in the relationship between the United ~tates and its European allies would be removed. Not surprisingly, calls for withdrawal are coming from beyond the circles of the isolationist far right and far left. Lt. Gen. (ret.) William Odorn, the former director of the National Security Agency, called in the summer of 2004 for the United States to begin a strategic withdrawal immediately. 3. Magnitude- Our Sid Ahmed evidence says a terrorist attack by would be nuclear, global nuclear war, causing extinction and ruining the biosphere.

and the resulting

conflict

would result in

4. The D/A turns case, sending more troops would kill readiness Bytnan

5 [Daniel ByroaD, Assistant

for Middle East Policy at the Brookings

Professor Institution,

in the Security Studies Program of Georgetown International

Institute for Strategic

University's

School of Foreign Service. non-resident

Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

Studies, Spring 2005 issue]

For the US militarv. particularly the US army, the strain is enormous and possibly not sustainable without significant changes. The United States has deployed well over 100,000 troops to Iraq since the end of conventional hostilities in May 2003, and in the run up to the January 2005 election increased its presence from 138,000 to 150,000 to provide additional security. Talk is rampant about the extended deplovrnent in Iraq 'breaking' the force. Readiness for other missions has suffered. as regular forces spend much of their time deployed in Iraq rather than training for hi~h-intensity combat. The !2nited ~tates has resorted to a host of methods to kee~ the force going such as calling up the Individual Ready Reserve. requiring troops to stay deployed even after their term of service is done and halting individual reassignments outside of Iraq until the unit as a whole is ready to leave. Such measures and extended deplovrnents pose challenges for recruitment and retention, particularly for the National Guard and Reserves. The strain on the force is even bigger than that suggested by simple numbers. Occupation requires a different mix of troops than do conventional militarv operations. Armoured divisions. the core of the US Army. are not terribly useful for rooting out insurgents mingled among the population or for winning: over local populations. though they are currently conducting such operations. Special operations forces. light infantry. militarv police and civil affairs officers are often the most iml'°rtant forces in the field. These troops. many of which are also required in Afghanistan or in other 'fronts' in the struggle against al-Oaeda. are in particularly short supply.

2005

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Cbampions 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 * * * * * * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966 *1959 * 1958 National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 *1999 1998 * 1996 *1989 *1973 * 1968 * 1966 *1962 *

3

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Comin2 Now Pullout Coming Now CNN 6/26 [June 26, 2006, CNN.com,

Democrats

Seize on Iraq Pullout Report]

But The New York Times, quoting urroamed U.S. officials, reported Sunday that Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Irng, plans to send home about 7,000 of the 127,000 American troops by September without replacing them. More than 20,000 more would leave by the end of 2007, the Times reported. "Here

we have

a situation

where

Democrats.

80 percent

of us, voted

and again, we got pummeled," Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California General Casev." Military sources told CNN Thursday that Casey was considering but neither the general nor Defense Secretary Donald Rurnsfeld Meanwhile, iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki included a U.S. he outlined Sundav, but the plan sets no specific timetable. (Full

to say we ought

Democrat,

to start

reducing:

our troop

presence

there

--

told CBS. "And now, it turns out. we're in svnch with

pulling 6,000 to 10,000 troops out of iraq as part of a reduction, would confirm that at a news conference the same day. withdrawal among the elements of a national reconciliation I!illn story)

(continues...]

"The reality is, vou cannot sustain 130,000 troops in Iraq indefinitelv unless vou break the volunteer back four and five and six times. so it's inevitable." the Delaware senator said.

Bush Will Pullout Before Midterms CNN 6/26 [June 26,2006, CNN.com,

Democrats

Armv bv having people go

Seize on Iraq Pullout Report]

With a maioritv of Americans in recent polls expressing opposition to the war and with Bush's management of the conflict, Levin told "Fox News Sunday" that manv in Washington expect a withdrawal to be announced before the elections. "It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration," Levin said. "Before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory." And Feingold, another potential presidential candidate, told reporters that Casey's reported proposal "makes me wonder what all this talk was this week in Washington." "The maioritv of the American people support a timeline for bringing our troops out," Feingold said. "The only people who don't get it are the politicians and the pundits in Washington. It's time to end the military mission in iraq." The Bush administration's often-stated strategy in Iraq is to train enough Iraqi police and troops to defend the country's fledgling govemment before leaving. Sen. John Warner, the chainnan of the Anned Services Committee, told Fox the military will discuss the prospect of a U.S. withdrawal with the Iraqis "before we have any timetable as to firm, fixed troop withdrawals." Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, warned that the administration was losing support for the conflict at home and in Iraq. "I had a man who, three years ago, was a very strong supporter of the war in Iraq, come up to me yesterday and say to me, 'Senator, we have National Guard troops from Nebraska going back to Iraq for the third and fourth time. How can that be? What's going on? We were not told that was going to be it,'" Hagel told CNN. "The Iraqi government, the Iraqi people. want the United ~tates out oflraq," Hagel said. "They see us as oppressors, rather than liberators. That's just a fact of life."

Northwestern University Debate Soeiety National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 1966 * 1959 1958 * * * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 *1999 * 1998 *1996 * 1989 *1973 *1968 *1966 *1962 *

4

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Co mine Now Pullout Coming Now, political Baltimore Sun 6/27/06

pressure

Political pressure for a pullback will grOW before the 2008 elections - from Republicans. Moreover, Iraqi officials from nearly all factions say they want U.S. troops drawn down within 18 months. Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, wrote in The Washington Post recently that he expected most of the U.S. troops "to return home bv the end of2007." But neither Mr. Rubaie nor more senior Iraqi leaders want an explicit time line. Instead, they favor a "road map" for troop reductions that depends on achieving goals for improving Iraqi security. They want dates, but dates that depend on meeting those targets

Pullout Coming Now, troop safety BBC 5 [November 17,2005, "Top Democrat

Urges Iraq Pullout,"

news.bbc.co.uk]

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency, they are united against US forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," Mr Murtha said at an emotional "US troops are the common the Iraqis," he said. Mr Murtha

- who

is a member

enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists, of a kev House

of Representatives

news conference

and the foreignjihadists... panel

that oversees

defence

in Washington.

I believe we need to turn Iraq over to spending

- urged

the White

House

to

"immediatelv redeplov US troops consistent with the safety of US forces". The congressman from Pennsylvania also said a "quick reaction force" should be created in the Middle East. Mr Murtha's remarks have dealt a further blow to the Bush administration's attempt to rallv support for the war in Iraq, the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says. Until now comments the Troops Out movement in America has received support only on the political fringes. but that has changed in a dramatic fashion, our correspondent says.

Pullout Coming Now, GOP support GNN 5 [Guerilla News Network, March 29,2005,

gun.tv, An interesting

rurnour or a desperate

plea for protest?,

Staff Writer]

On March 28, columnist Robert Novak, who has a long history of credible reporting and strong contacts in the Bush administration, reported in The Chicago Sun-Times that there is "determination in the Bush administration to begin irreversible withdrawal oru.s. troops from Iraq this vear." Novak gives credit primarily to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who he says "is expected to support administration officials who want to leave even if what is left behind does not constitute perfection." Novak reports that the national consensus and the preponderance of Republican opinion support withdrawal saving: "President Bush.s supporters believe it is time to g.o and leave the task of subduing the insurgents to Iraqis." Indeed, polls show a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush,s handling of the war and according to a recent Harris poll 59% want most of U.S. troops home within a vear even if Iraq does not have a stable goverrnnent.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 1999 * 1998 1995 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate * * Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 1996 1989 1973 * 1968 1966 * 1962 * * * *

5

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Comi02 Now Pullout Coming, support !Tom Rice Novak 5 [Robert Novak, March 28, 2005, Rice Likely to Back Iraq Pullout, rea\clearpolitics.comj Determination high in the Bush administration to begin irreversible withdrawal of U.S. troops fi:om Iraq this vear is reinforced by the presence at the State Department of the most dominant secretarv since Henry Kissinger three decades ago. Condoleezza Rice is expected to support administration officials who want to leave even if what is left behind does not constitute perfection. [continues..]

"She is not controlled by the neo-cons insisting on achieving a perfect democracy before we go," a colleague told me. That reflects not only the national consensus but also the "reponderance of Republican opinion. Without debating the wisdom of military intervention in Iraq two years ago, President Bush's supporters believe it now is time to gO and leave the task of subduing the insurgents to Iraqis. [continues] The central figure in shaping the policy is Rice. Not since the davs of Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft has a secretarv of state had the power position of working with a former deputy at the National,Security ~ouncil, as Rice does now. Furthermore, she is President Bush's closest adviser. During Bush's first term, he spent vastly more time with Rice than with Powell or Rurnsfeld.

Pullout coming now Common Dreams Newscenter

7/5/06

A former

top Pentagon official who served during Bush's first term said he believed there was a "growing consensus" on withdrawing about 40,000 troops before next year's congressional election. That would be followed bv further substantial pullouts in 2007 if it became clear that Iraqi forces could contain the insurgency. "You've got the convergence of domestic pressures, Iraqi pressures and Pentagon [withdrawall plans that have been in the works for a while," said the former official, who requested anonymity. "This is serious." A senior U.S. official said that in signaling hones for a large drawdown next vear, Rice was only "stating the obvious" this week. "It looks like things are headed in the right direction to enable that to happen in 2006," said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

2005

.

6

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions

2003

. . National . . . . . . . . . Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2002

2006

.

1999

2000

1995

1998

1994

1980

1978

1973

. . . . . . . . \999

1998

1996

1989

1973

1968

1959

1966

1966

1962

1958

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Pullout Comio2 Now Pullout by 07 Hefling 5/11106 [Kimberly

Hefling,

Associated

Press Writer, lexis]

Rep. John Murtha, a Vietnam veteran first elected in the anti-war fever of 1974, says American troops will be brought home from IraQ bv 2007. Either President Bush will bow to public opinion or Democrats will have won control of the House of Representatives and increased pressure on the White House, Murtha, D-Pa., said in an Associated Press interview Thursday. Most likelv. there will be a "tidal wave" that propels Democrats into the maioritv. said Murtha. He predicts Democrats will gain 40-50 seats well more than the 15 needed for the ~artv to gain control.

2005

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 *1973 *1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 * 1999 *1998 * 1996 1989 *1973 * 1968 *1966 *1962 * *

7

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Failure Inevitable Failure in Iraq is inevitable, pullout needed to win the war on terror Corn 5 [August 25, 2005, David Com, Washington Editor of The Nation, written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Newsday, Mother Jones] In desperate defense of his war in Iraq, George W. Bush resorts more to rhetoric and repetition than to reason and informed an!Ument. We must stay the course--and take more deaths--to honor the deaths that have already occurred, he told National Reservists on Wednesday. And he vet again misrepresented the war in Iraq as a simPle clash between the United ~tates and Islamic terrorists who want to destroy America due to their hatred offteedom--that is, he ignored the bulk of the insurgency. (I can't see you. I can't see you.) With a fellow like this in charge. the war effort is probably doomed. And if it is doomed, why not support withdrawing troops as soon as possible? After all, as one almost-president once said, who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 *1999 *1998 *1995 *1994 *1980 *1978 *1973 * 1966 *1959 *1958 National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 * 1999 1998 1996 1989 1973 1968 1966 1962 * * * * * * * *

8

Iraq Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Links Increased troop levels prevent pullout Salon 6 [salon.com, February 2, 2006, Mark Benjamin,

lexisJ

It is no secret to Congress that the Army. which is fighting the brunt of the war in Iraq, is facing a severe personnel crisis. A Pentagon-commissioned report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments leaked last week warned that prolonged deployments and recruiting problems were "breaking" the Army. A chapter of that report, titled "A Recruiting and Retention will Crisis?" goes so far as to say that the grind of war on the Army -- rather than any political imperatives ftom Washington accentuate the pace of military withdrawal ftom Iraq. Odom offered a similar interpretation: "We will get out this year. not because we want to: we don't have any more troops to send. What we are seeing is the declining capability of the Army caused by the administration's manning and deplovrnent policies. "

--

Current Schwartz

troop levels are unsustainable, 5 [The Draft: Between

more troops prevent pullout

Iraq and a Hard Place, Michael Schwartz,

April 28, 2005, Con..lnon Dreams Newscenter]

A key reason for the ever-more-evident strain on militarv resources is that more than 40% of the 150,000 soldiers in Iraq are Army Reserves and National Guards. As Army Historian Renee Hylton told Salon reporter Jeff Horowitz, use of these forces creates pressure to "win and get out... there's a definite limit to people's service." When they are called to active duty, these troops risk their iobs as well as their lives; so, when their mandatory two-year terms expire. a significant proportion of them, under the best of circumstances, are likely to refuse further service. And service in Iraq has already proved something less than the best of circumstances. Little wonder then that, just past the two year anniversary of our invasion, the military is under increasing pressure without much of an idea of how to do so. In addition, in order to to replenish this crucial element in the recruitment mix

--

maintain troop strength in iraq at anYthing like present levels. large numbers of active-dutY soldiers must return there for more than one nine-month tour of duty, and this redeployment too generates distrust and distaste. Sooner or later, sizeable numbers of these angry soldiers must nevertheless be convinced to re-enlist. or else the pressure for new enlistees will escalate out of control and beyond the bounds of the present svstem to satisfy. Add to this a constantly increasing casualty toll, now well beyond 30,000, which, in a variety of ways, places yet more pressure on recruitment. Finallv. as embittered double-deplovrnent veterans and angry Reserves, along with wounded and mentally stressed dischargees, return home. they only stiffen the resistance to enlistment among the young in their neighborhoods. None of this was anticipated at the start ofthe iraq Wafby Bushadmioistrationotlicials; theywereconfidentthat the American military could topple Saddam Hussein's government and pacify any left-over "dead end" loyalists of the old regime in about three months. Defense Department figures, reported by the Washington Post on March 19, projected reductions in American troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan fTomjust over 200,000 at the time of the invasion to about 125,000 by September 2003; to 50,000 six months later; and to zero by the end of 2004. -- not counting troops left to garrison the pennanent bases --

They were wrong. of course. Troop levels, after declining according to plan during the sununer of 2003, began climbing again as disaster, and to the brutal nature ofthe American the resistance grew -- in response to a deepening economic and inftastructural military occupation. With some fluctuations, since the beginning of 2004 the numbers of boots on the ground in iraq have remained at about the 150.000 level (not counting expensive private "security contractors" hired by the Pentagon and private fIrms) -- almost double the number that the U.S. could hope to sustain in the long run, given the force levels of the present volunteer militarv. Several recent reports have documented the depth of the impending crisis, including a detailed analysis of troop strengths by Ann Tyson in the Washington Post. So far, over one million U.S. military personnel have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some 341,000 already doing the dreaded double-deployments (and many now entering triple-deployment territory). The military has moved troops into Iraq ftom all over the world, including previously untouchable Cold War detachments in Korea, Germany, and Alaska, and it's still "scrambling" to keep 17 battalions regularly in Iraq. many severely undermanned. Theseshortageshaveledto an increasing dependence on expensive private security contractors, who themselves add to the Pentagon's recruitment problems by hiring away otherwise re-upable military personnel for four times the wages paid in the Anny. To make matters worse, the Defense Department (to protect against a crisis elsewhere) has decided. with Congressional authorization, to increase crunch. the overall size of active-duty forces by 30,000, which can only amplify the retention/recruitment

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 2003 * 2002 * ]999 *1998 *1995 *1994 *1980 *1978 * 1973 *1966 *1959 *1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 1999 *1998 *1996 2006 * 2000 1989 *1973 * 1968 * 1966 *1962 * *

9

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Links Only a lack of troops is preventing pullout Time 5 [Joe Klein, November 5, 2005, Time.com] They're nervous. They see the pons," Senator John McCain. who opposed the resolution, told me last week. As always, McCain has been a model of stubborn independence and utter rectitude in matters of war and peace. He has led a full.throated effort to get the Bush Administration to abjure the use oftorture. But he has also made the strongest and most

detailed

in iraq.

strategic

He believes

American

politicians

fact,

the Senator

very

tough."

argument-most

notably

the war against who

conceded

he said.

"We

want

Islamist

to send

that even needed

more

ifhis

to start

in a speech

radicalism plan

troops were

expanding

should

at the American

to the war zone. approved. the size

Enterprise

be the highest "I don't

he wasn't of the Armv

national think

sure three

Institute-for priority.

I could

where vears

a renewed

effort

to succeed

He is one of the few remaining

get a majority

the additional

for that,"

troops

would

McCain come

from.

said.

In

"It's

ago."

So the Senate resolution reflected not only poll-driven politics but also military realitv. There is strong sentiment within the Pentagon to reduce the number of troops soon-no matter the continuing vehemence of the President's rhetoric-in order to avoid forcing exhausted troops into longer tours of duty. The current level of 160,000 troops could be cut in half by next summer. "The future of our military is at risk," Murtha said in his emotional press conference, accurately reflecting the views of the uniformed brass. "Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deplovrnent. "

More troops preyent pullout Johnson 5 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting finn that specializes in counter terrorism investigations, worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office ofthe Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, August 25,2005, "Why We Must Leave Iraq"] We could potentially defeat the Sunni insurgents if we were willing and able to deplov sufficient troops to control the key infiltration routes that run along the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys. But we are neither willing nor able. It would require at least 380.000 troops devoted exclusively to that mission. Part of that mission would entail killing anyone who moyed into controlled areas, such as roadways. In adopting those kinds ofmles of engagement we would certainly increase the risk of killing innocent ciyilians. But, we would impose effective control over those routes. That is a prerequisite to gaining control over the insurgencv. We cannot meet the increased manpower requirements in iraq without a draft. We do not currently have enough troops in the Army and the Marine Corps to supply and sustain that size offorce in the field. But, even with a draft. we would be at least 15 months away from having the new batch of trained soldiers ready to deploy. More importantly, there is no political support for a draft. In other words, we're unwilling to do what is required to even have a shot at winning.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 1962 2006 * 2000 *1999 *1998 *1996 *1989 * 1973 *1968 * 1966 *

10

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: 2NC

{!ffi

A. Pullout prevents Iraqi civil war, spreads democracy and stability in the Middle East, restores power, is key to the war on terror, and checking the Irani nuclear program. Odorn 6 [May 4,2006, William E. adorn, latimes.com, Iraq: Get out now, Retired General, served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Anny's senior intel1igence officer.]

Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute,

US hegemony,

increases

our soft

professor at Yale, Director of the NSA from 85-88,

The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracv friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, President Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let's consider his administration's most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq. If we leave, there will be a civil war. In reality, a civil war in Iraq began iust weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein. Even Bush. who is normally impervious to uncomfortable facts. recently admitted that Iraq has peered into the abyss of civil war. He ought to look a little closer. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That's civil war. . Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our occupation ofIraQ also encourages the killers precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with a choice: Surrender. or allv with Al Oaeda. They chose the latter. Staving the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in

.

Sunni

grOUPS' turning

security forces must and troops afford to choosing the wrong trainers in the world guns

and civil

war,

against

Al Oaeda

and its sympathizers,

driving

them

out ofIraq.

.

Before

U.S.

forces

stand

down,

Iraqi

stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competence. The problem is loyalty. To whom can Iraqi officers give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So everY Iraqi soldier and officer risks side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. militarY cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. Political power can only be established via Iraqi not through

elections

or U.S.

colonialism

by ventriloquism.

.

Setting

a withdrawal

deadline

will

damage

the

morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president. Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world's only superpower, it's patently phony. A rapid reversal of our jJresent course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then, and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11,2001, the world's opinion of the United States has plummeted. The U.S. now garners as much international esteem as Russia. Withdrawing and admitting our mistake would reverse this trend. VerY few countries have that kind of corrective capacity. We do. Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the U.S. It was in the interests ofIran and Al Oaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Hussein for his invasion of the country in 1980. For Al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the U.S. in the world. diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the transatlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and militarY mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia. we simPly cannot attract the diplomatic and militarY coojJeration necessarY to win the real battle against terror. In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal. all the countries bordering Iraq would likely resjJond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes Al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons. we cannot stop them. But we can engage them. None of these prospects is jJossible unless we stop moving deeper into the "big sandy" ofIraQ. America must withdraw now.

.

2005

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2003 * 2002 * 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958 * * * * * * * * * Speakers * National Debate Tournament Top 2006 * 2000 1999 * 1998 *1996 * 1989 *1973 *1968 * 1966 * 1962 *

11

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: 2NC B. Middle East Democracy

Promotion

Prevents

Pullout DI A Corey Stone

~

Nuke War

Muravchik 1 [Joshua Muravchik, July 11-142001, The American Enterprise Century: Signatory, Coalition for a Democratic Majority: Former director]

Institute,

Scholar Jewish Institute for National

Security Affam:

Adviser. Project for the New American

--

is the spread of democracv. In a famous article, and The greatest iIDDetus for world peace -- and perforce of nuclear peace subsequent book, Francis Fukuyama argued that democracv's extension was leading to "the end ofhistorv." Bv this he meant the conclusion of man's quest for the right social order. but he also meant the "diminution of the likelihood oflarge-scale conflict between states. 1 Fukuyama's phrase was intentionally provocative, even tongue-in-cheek, but he was pointing to two down-to-earth historical observations: that democracies are more peaceful than other kinds of government and that the world is growing more democratic. Neither point has 11

gone

unchallene:ed.

Democracies, surrender" not

onlv

Only a few decades ago, as distinguished an observer of international relations as George Kennan made a claim quite contrary to the first of these assertions. fights in anger... to the bitter end" 2 Kennan's view was strongly influenced by the policy of "unconditional he said, were slow to anger, but once aroused "a democracy...

pursued slow

part of Gennany

in World War n. But subsequent to anger

but

also

quick

that it occupied with extraordinary

experience, to

such as the negotiated

cOIDDromise.

generosity.

settlements

America

And to forgive. Notwithstanding

In recent years a burgeoning

literatme

sought in Korea and Vietnam proved him wrong. Democracies the insistence

has discussed

on nncondilional

the peacefulness

surrender,

of democracies.

are

America treated Japan and that Indeed

the

proDosition

that democracies do not gO to war with one another has been described by one political scientist as being "as close as anvthing we have to an empirical law in international relations. ", [continues] This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracv. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so. the greatest cause for worrv may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not vet exist but where the prospects for democracy mav be still more remote.

C. Hegemony Khalilzad,95

prevents

nuclear

conflict

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 indefmite 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 open and more receptive to American values - understood as democracy, free markets, and the rule oflaw. 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 :itates 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.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tonrnament Champions 2005 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * * Speakers National Debate Tournament Top 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 * 1996 * 1989 * 1973 * 1968 * 1966 * 1962

12

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Pullout Good: 2NC Q.Ml D. Soft Power Key to Leadership Nye 3 [Joseph S. Nye, July 1, 2003, Foreign Affairs, U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq, ksg.harvard.edu] The willingness of other countries to cooperate in dealing with transnational issues such as terrorism depends in part on their own self-interest, but also on the attractiveness of American positions. Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade rather than coerce. It means that others want what the United §tates wants. and there is less need to use carrots and sticks. Hard power, the ability to coerce, grows out of a country's military and economic might. Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. When U.S. policies appear legitimate in the eves of others. American soft power is enhanced. Hard power will always remain crucial in a world of nation-states guarding their independence, but soft power will become increasinglv important in dealing with the transnational issues that require multilateral cooperation for their solution. [continues] The problem for U.S. power in the twenty-first centurY is that more and more continues to fall outside the control of even the most powerful state. Although the United §tates does well on the traditional measures of hard power. these measures fail to capture the ongoing transformation of world politics brought about by globalization and the democratization of technology. The paradox of American power is that world politics is changing in a way that makes it iITIPossible for the strongest world power since Rome to achieve some of its most crucial international goals alone. TheUnitedStateslacksboththeinternarional andthedomesticcapacitytoresnlveconflictsthatare internalto othersocietiesandtomonitorandcontroltransnationaldevelopments thatthreatenAmericansat home.On many of todav's key issues. such as international financial stability. drug trafficking. the spread of diseases. and especially the new terrorism. militarv power alone siITIPlv cannot produce success. and its use can sometinles be counterproductive. Instead, as the most powerful country, the United §tates must mobilize international coalitions to address these shared threats and challenges. Bv devaluing soft power and institutions. the new unilateralist coalition of Jacksonians and neo- Wilsonians is depriving Washington of some of its most iITIPortant instruments for the implementation of the new national security strategy. If theymanageto continuewiththistack,theUnitedStatescould fail what Henry Kissinger called the historical test for this generation of American leaders: to use current preponderant U.S. power to achieve an international consensus behind widely accepted noons that will protect American values in a more uncertain future. Fortunately, this outcome is not preordained.

E. Conflict Hirsch

with Iran goes Nuclear

5 [Jorge Hirsch, Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come, October

17, 2005. Prof. QfPhysics

at University

of California

San Diego]

Conclusion: according to IsraeL the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives. Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technolot!y, No diplomatic oPtions to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Militarv action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitablv lead to the use of nuclear weapons bv the U.S. against Iran.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tonrnament Champions 2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 * 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958 * * * * * * * * National * * Debate Tonrnament Top Speakers *

2006 2000 * 1999 * 1998 1996 1989 1973 1968 1966 1962 * * * * * * *

13

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: 2NC

~

F. Iraqi Civil War sucks in the whole Middle East Telegraph 6 [4/20/06, telegraph.co.uk, Iraq Civil War Could Spread, Say Saudis] Saudi Arabia issued countries. On a day of control. Civil war minister, said. "The sectarian basis. This

a stark warning yesterday that ID!g was in the grip of civil war which threatened to "suck in" neil!hbouring when at least 17 more people were killed across Iraq, Riyadh expressed alarm that events were spirallinl! out is a war between civilians and there is already war between civilians," Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign threat of break-up in Iraq is a huge problem for the countries of the region. especially if the fighting is on a type of fil!hting sucks in other countries. " PrinceSaud'swarningechoedcommentsbyPresidentHosniMubarak,ofEgyp~a weekagoand

contrasted with the cautious optimism about Iraq's future often expressed by America and Britain.

G. Middle East conflict goes nuclear Pugwash

4 [Pugwash.org.

Cnnferences

on Science and World Affairs. Jan. 28, 2004. Towards

The Middle East has long been plal!ued by conflict and tension. use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. [continues)

a WMD-Free

Middle-East)

with the likelihood

stilll!feat

that conflict there could lead to the

More broadly, this process would be greatly facHitatedif the United States, Russia, and the other major nuclear powers lived up to their obligations, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to move expeditiously toward the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Not only have the nuclear powers failed to make adequate progress in this regard. the US demonstrate good faith and real administrarion in parricular seems poised to develop new types of nuclear weapons. Unless the established nuclear "owers progress following escalate

towards suit.

eliminating Until

then.

to the use of nuclear

their

weapons.

the world

will

there face

is little

the continued

prospect threat

of other

nuclear

that conflict

weapons

in the Middle

countries East,

and would-be or elsewhere,

proliferators

could

easily

weapons.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 * 1999 *1998 * 1995 *1994 *1980 * 1978 *1973 * 1966 *1959 *1958 National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 * 1996 *1989 *1973 * 1968 *1966 * 1962

14

Iraq Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Seven Scenarios Pullout ends civil war, restores raises moral Odorn Institute,

hegemony,

creates effective

democracy,

solves terror, checks Iran, ensures regional

stability,

and

5 [Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, August 3, 2005, William E. Odorn, What's Wrong With Cutting and Rwming, Retired General, Senior Fellow with Hudson professor at Yale, Director of the NSA tram 85-88, served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Anny's senior intel1igence officer.] prevent a

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents

civilwarby staying.

have kiHed far more Iraqis than Americans.

For those who reallv WOrry about destabilizing

That's civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can't

the region. the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It

is raoid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Counei1,and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabHizing the area wm the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be fonned. make

things

Russia

worse

or some

while

other

preventing

insecure

a new

nation,

That's one of the great advantages may even enhance our credibility. credibility.

strategic

we might

approach

have

to worry

of being a hyperpower: Staving there damages

Or, what will happen to our credibility

with

Thus

some

about

those

promise

credibility.

who

fear leaving

of success.

a mess

are actually

2) On credibility.

A hvpeq>ower

need

When we have made a big strategic our credibility more than leaving.

helping

If we were

not WOrry about

credibility.

mistake, we can reverse it. And it Ask the president ifhe really worries about US

if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term

credibility

to withdraw

earliertbanlaterinthisevent? 3)Ontheinsurgencyanddemocracy.There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long. we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American. Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal. constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry. PresidentBush'sstatementsaboutprogressinIraqareincreasinglyresemblingLBJ'sstatementsduringtheViemamWar.For instance, Johnson's comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament

weexpecta differentoutcomeinIraqthaninViemam? tbat's They

lust both

imDossible.

endured

Postwar Germany

as constitutional

orders

until

Ask the president

if he intends to leave a pro-American

and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a fun generation

the

1930s.

Thus

General

Clay

and

General

century ofliberal political cbange in Japan and a much longer period in Germany. something

that has never

been

done

before.

MacArthur

ImPosing

were

merely

a liberal

reversing

old) constitutional

a decade

constitutional

and

a half

order

administration practice

their

4) On terrorists. and congress skills

there.

that The

-

be to accoITIPlish

Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world

Iraq

is already

Iraq

is spawning

quicker

orders by the end of the 19th century. returning to nearly a totalitarianism

in Iraq would

Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, occasionally.

Ask the president: Why should

liberal regime in place. Because

a new

a training so many

dictator

wins

ground

for terrorists.

terrorists

In fact,

that they

the political

the CIA

are returning.

power

in Iraq

and even

has pointed

home

and imposes

to many order.

it backslides

out to the other

countries

the sooner

to further

the country

will

stop producing well-experienced terrorists. Why not ask: "Mr. Presiden~ since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qacda-5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US Dolicv in which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?" Iraq

as being

them

so much

in Teheran's

to do. Elections

Sunnis.

If US policy

stir UP trouble.

will

allow

in Iraq

possibly

interests the Shiites

begins

that they to take

to undercut

committing

Shiite

Iran's

militias

have

power

been

advising

legally.

interests.

lraqi

Once then

to an insurgency

Shiite

in charge,

Teheran against

leaders

they

to do exactly

can settle

can use its growing US forces

there.

The

scores

what with

influence

the Americans

the Baathists

among

US invasion

Iraqi

ask

and Shiites

has vastly

to

increased

Iran's influence in Iraq. not sealed it out. Questions for tbe administratiou: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? WiI1 Iranian policy change OHcea Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pun out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists,

Iran.

opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"

But already

today

each

of those

6) On Iraq's neighborsstates

is deeply

involved

The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria. Turkey and in support

for or opposition

to factions

in the ongoing

Iraqi

civil

war- The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, witb. or without US forces in Iraq. 7) On Shiite-Sunoi conflict The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunoi conflict; it merely delays it Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US poHcy virtually ensures. 8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advjsors to train them Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about conunitting their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue. The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military W1its fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's po1iticalleaders lost the war. Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the hkely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military's institutional modemjzation gets ahead of political

consolidation.

9) On not supporting

our troops by debating

an early pullout.

Many US officers in Iraq, especially

at

company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle. they are losing strategically. And according to the New Yark Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those today - are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over on a second tour - probably the maiority with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important questjon is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military -especially the Anny leadership, which is the critical component in the war ~-has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts. 15 Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 1999 1998 * 1995 * 1994 1980 * 1978 * 1973 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * * * National * Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 * 1996 * 1989 1973 * 1968 * 1966 * 1962 *

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good:Civil War/Stability Escalation causes civil war Johnson 5 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting firm that specializes in counter terrorism invesrigarions,worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, August 25, 2005, "Why We Must Leave Iraq"] Iraq has devolved into a tripartite state, split among the Kurds in the North, the Shias in the South, and Sunni tribes in the middle. While things are relatively peaceful in the North and South, the central part ofIraq is in the grips of a defacto civil war. Most of the trained and deployed Iraqi police and military forces are Shia. Most of their operations are directed against Sunni targets. The Sunnis do not feel that they have a legitimate voice in the political process. As a result thev have decided to fight. The Shia majority, long oppressed in Iraq, are not willing, nor likely, to relinquish their new status as the tops dogs. They are receiving significant intelligence, economic, and political support from the !slamist government in Iran. The Shia also are well positioned to control a significant portion of Iraq's vast oil resources. They are not likely to share this wealth with the Sunnis. There is no effective national government in Iraq. The current grOUP meeting inside the Green Zone to draft the constitution has no real clout. True power is held bv tribal chieftains and religious leaders scattered around country. Those leaders are plaving both sides of the fence--keeping a toe in the political negotiations in Baghdad while providing monev and protection to insurgents.

Escalation War

Times

fuels conflict and prevents 3/23/06

[Max Etbawn,

stability

Washington's

Wars and Occupations:Month

in Review #11, war-rimes.org]

These escalating U.S. tactics will fuel- not reduce - the deadlv sectarian conflict raging between Sunni and Shia armed grOUps. A must-read analysis by Michael Schwartz at http://www.tomdispatch.tom describes the ways U.S. policv has fostered sectarian bulk of armed attacks (80% on violence and makes the crucial point - not discussed in the U.S. media - that the overwhelming average) are against the U.S. military and its Coalition allies, not against Iraqi civilians. The killing of civilians bv both Shiite and Sunni sectarian grOUPS and militias is real and terrible, but it is now being trumpeted bv U.S. authorities as a iustification for continuing the U.S. occupation instead of being acknowledged as in large part a result of U.S. occupation policies. Schwartz writes: "All the conflicts of the present moment have metastasized and spread from the ill-fated attempt by American-led forces to pacify Sunni communities... Today, not only is the country edging toward an ever-more virulent civil war, but the Sunni resistance is stronger than ever, registering about 100 attacks a day in January... "This original war remains the central front in the ongoing battle for domination in Iraq and it continues to cast off enough bitterness. suffering. destruction. and rebellion to guarantee its never- ending spread to new areas and grOUps... If the Americans sought to establish the legitimacv of the occupation by crushing early signs of Sunni resistance, that effort has. in the end. only helped convince Iraqis of the illegitimacy of the American presence.

For all its failures, however,

the occupation

has succeeded

in one endeavor.

It has managed to undermine

therefore to buHd a foundation for a new and sovereign Iraq. If one day Iraq ceases to be, splitting chaotically with parts ofSunni cities) will certainly come in for a major share of the blame."

all efforts by other parties to establish thejr own legitimacy

into several entities. the way the occupation

destroyed

sovereignty

and

(along

Pullout key to stability Deutch

5 [JW1e 9, 200S, John M. Deutch, Former Director ofthe CIA, Professor

John Deutch wants U.S. troops withdrawn

at MtT, news.harvard.edu]

'as soon as possibJe.' (Staff photo Rose LincoJn/Harvard

the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT), said that the United ~tates troops to pull out "as soon as possible" during a speech Tuesday (June 7) at Harvard's

University

is not making Sanders Theatre.

News Office) Fonner

CIA Director John M. Deutch, institute professor

at

progress toward kev obiectives in Iraq and ca1ted for American Deutch who deHvered the Phi Beta Kappa oration at the honor society's annual

LiteraryExercises,served as CIA director under President Bill Clinton from May 1995 until December 1996. In his 20-minute speech, he challenged the views of both Republicans and Democrats who say that the United ~tates must stay the course to stabilize the country before disengaging. That position, Deutch said, is based on the assumption that the United ~tates will leave a stable nation behind. But it is also possible, he said, that the United ~tates will fail in its Iraq obiectives and lose international credibility bv staying the course, even as its ability to deal with other crises, such as North Korea. Iran, and the fight against international on our key obiectives in Iraq," Deutch said. "There may be days when security seems somewhat is compromised. "I bel1evethat we are not makinl!:nrol!TCSS improved and when the Iraqi government appears to he funcrioning better, but the underlying destabilizing forces of a robust insurgency and warring

terrorism.. factions

supported

bv outside

governments

2005

is undiminished."

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 1973 * 1966 1959 * 1958 * * * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 1996 * 1989 * 1973 1968 1966 * 1962 * * *

16

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Terror Escalation Engelhardt

causes terror, no risk of stabilization 4 [Tomgram: Jonathan Schell, Why We Must Leave Iraq, Tom Engelhardt, The Nation Institute, Staff Writer, September 22, 2004]

In Iraa. everything we've done from not attempting to stop the initial pulse of looting to dismantling Saddam's army, police, and state, from instituting American right-wing fundamentalist economic policies to our deep belief in the unimportance ofIraqis in the occupation

of their

country

-- we didn't

even

arrive

with

translators,

no less experts

-- not

to speak

of our heavy-handed

use of

--

all have essentiallv favored the military power and torture power in the "liberated" country at the earliest signs of resistance growth of the most extreme elements in Iraai societY and in the region more generally. The administration which turned awav from the real "war" on terror to Iraq for reasons of its own and whose top officials then melded Saddam, 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, and al-Qaeda into a tasty propaganda stew, have now, not sururisinglv. managed to turn fantasv into realitY. Today, according to Time magazine correspondent Michael Ware, who was almost kidnapped by members of Attawhid wal Jihad (Unity and Holy War), a militant group loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, "the most wanted terrorist in Iraq": "The group's black flags flutter from the palm trees and buildings along the Baghdad boulevard where we were stopped, an area known as Haifa Street. It's a nogo zone for U.S. forces. The fact that insurgents tied to al-Zarqawi are patro11ingone of Baghdad's major thoroughfares--within mortar range of the U.S. embassy-is an indication of just how much of the country is bevond the control of U.S. forces and the new Iraai government. It also reflects the extent to which iihadis linked to al-Zarqawi, 37, the Jordanian believed to be al-Qaeda's chief operative in Iraq, have become the driving forces behind the insurgency and are expanding its zone of influence." This is a remarkable, if dark, achievement for the Bush administration. Iraq may indeed now be "the central front in the war on terrorism." A reader wrote me recently, on the subject of withdrawal from Iraq, asking whether we could possibly consider withdrawing without first "stabilizing" the country. But the point is the opposite: You can't put our fundamentalist administration and its Iraai plans in the same sentence with the word "stabilization." The longer we remain. the more destabilizing we will Drove. Let Jonathan Schell, whose book The Unconquerable World puts a frame of history around the events of our moment, take on the issue of withdrawal below in his latest Nation magazine "Letters from Ground Zero" colunm, which the editors of that magazine have been kind enough to let me share with you.

Expansion Byman

of forces spurns terror, would be unsustainable,

5 [Daniel ByroaD, Assistant

for Middle East Policy at the Brookings

Professor Institution,

and take too long

in the Security Studies Program of Georgetown International

Institute for Strategic

Universjty's

School of Foreign Service, non-resident

Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

Studies. Spring 2005 issue}

On the downside, expanding the troop size would increase foreign iihadist resentment of the US presence in Iraa and decrease the legitimacv of a new regime there. To be sure, it would be hard to make the jihadists more angry, and better security is probably worth the cost of decreasing the regime's legitimacy from poor to poorer. More worrisome is the linkage between the US presence and the causes of the insurgencv. Expanding the troop size would bolster insurgent claims that the United ~tates has no intention of leaving Iraq. adding fuel to the fire. Talk of increasing forces, however, has an aspect of unreality: a dramatic expansion is not in the cards. Defeating the insurgency throughout the country. policing the border and bringing crime under control would reauire vast numbers of additional troops - perhaps 250,000 or more - that are sirnuly not available. As noted above, it is not clear whether the United ~tates has the forces to sustain current levels. let alone send tens of thousands of extra troops to Iraa. Even if these extraordinary military demands could be met, the American people mav weary of the constant violence. while the even higher costs of the war would become less tenable as budget deficits rise to record highs. Creating larger forces would be extremelv expensive. as the long-term costs of active-dutY personnel are hil;(h given their benefit packages. training costs and medical care. Squeezing out additional billions was feasible when budget deficits were low. Doubling the cost of the Iraq occupation would require painful spending cuts or additional taxes, neither of which has political support. In addition, large numbers of new forces would take time to recruit and train - vears that might not be an option for the United States in Iraq.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 *1996 *1989 *1973 *1968 *1966 * 1962

17

Iraq Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Terror Escalation Byman

kills the war on terror

5 [Daniel Byman, Assistant

for Middle East Policy at the Brookings

Professor Institution,

in the Security Studies Program of Georgetown International

Institute for Strategic

University's

School of Foreign Service, non-resident

Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

Studies. Spring 2005 issue]

The cost of all this goes beyond Iraq. World opinion of the United S,tates is at its nadir. The US occupation of Iraq has fostered image of the United S,tates as an oppressive power bent on killing Muslims. Polls taken in March 2004 indicate opinion of the

an

!Inited S,tates ranges from poor in many Western European countries to abysmal in most countries in the Muslim world. Arab world satellite television stations regularly iuxtapose footag:e of Americans fighting insurgents in cities such as Falluiah with Israeli soldiers attacking Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Support for al-Qaeda's message that the United States is at the heart ofthe Muslim world's problems has grown. Lamenting the effects of this disaster on the war on terror. one senior intelligence officer declared 'America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally'

Pullout key to the war on terror Johnson 5 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting linn that specializes in counter terrorism investigations, worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, August 25, 2005, "Why We Must Leave Iraq"] The insurgency in Iraq is comprised of at least 20 grOUps. Some of these are Baathists, some are Sunni Islamic extremists, and a few are Shia. They agree on one thing--the United S,tates is an invader and must be expelled. While there is no single leader who can claim the status or mandate as did Ho Chi Minh during the Vietnam days, the insurgents in Iraq are as firm and serious as those we faced in Vietnam The continued presence of U.S. combat forces and our operations against Iraqi civilians is recruiting new iihadists from around the Muslim world. Notwithstanding U.S. efforts to win the. hearts and minds, of the Iraqi people, the sectarian strife and the images of U.S. soldiers kicking in the doors of peoples. homes while searching for insurgents is creating more anger rather than support.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 1980 * 1978 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 *1999 *1998 * 1996 1989 * 1973 *1968 *1966 * 1962 *

18

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Pullout Good: Demo Promo Pullout key to Democracy The Nation 3/15/06

Promotion

and Stability

If such constant mavhem is taken as a sign of progress, three years after the US invasion, then Bush surelv will be thrilled by what the future holds. The British, on the other hand, have seen the handwriting ou the wall and once again have begun to flee an imperial disappointment in Mesopotamia, announcing they are reducing their forces by 10 percent. Clearly, London has grasped what Bush cannot: The three-year occupation bv Western armies is an incitement to guerrilla violence. not an impediment. Of course, Bush would have us believe this expanding civil war is the work of insidious foreigners rather than of competing agendas arising ITom within an Iraq society long stunted by colonialism and dictatorship. It does not occur to him that he is the foreigner who the majority of Iraqis hold responsible for the country's despair, and whose occupation immeasurablv strempnens the hand of extremists on all sides. Bush's neoconservative Svengalis apparently failed to alert him to the possibility that religious, ethnic and nationalist sentiments might trumD his plans for a Western-imposed "democracv," subservient to US interests. Or that US-engineered elections would be won bv allies and disciples of the radical Shiite government in the "evil axis" capital of Tehran.

Pullout Key to effective Democracy Promotion in Iraq Schell 4 [October 11,2004, The Nation, "Why We Must PuUOut of Iraq", Jonathan ScheU,Staff Writer, Harold WiUensPeace FeUowat the Nation Institute] How fortunate we are that Cheney, at least, was factually mistaken! That he was wrong is the bright side, if you like, of the current mess. His disastrous factual errors may have saved us ITom his catastrophic policy errors. Nor has the war brou!):ht with it anv new a story of iustification for itself. On the contrary, it has added ITesh reasons for leaving. If the story of the occupation so far scarcely imaginable incompetence, misfired intentions, collapsing plans, multiplYing horrors and steadilv growing resistance -teaches a single clear lesson it is that the United .s,tates is a radicalizing force in Iraq. The more the United .s,tates pursues the goal of a democratic Iraq, the farther it recedes into the distance. The longer the United .s,tates stavs the course. the worse the actual outcome becomes. Let there be as orderly a transition as possible, accompanied by as much aid, foreign assistance and general sweetness and light as ITom the can be mustered, but the endpoint, complete withdrawal. should be announced in advance, so that everyone in Iraq -beheaders and other murderers, to legitimate resisters, to any true democrats who may be on the scene -> can know that the responsibility for their country's future is shifting to their shoulders. The outcome, though not in all honesty likely to be pretty, will at anv rate be the best one possible. If the people ofIraq slip back into dictatorship, it will be their dictatorship. If they choose civil war, it will be their civil war. And if.by some happy miracle thev choose democracv, it will be their democracv -- the onlv kind

--

worth having.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005*2003 *2002*1999*1998*1995*1994* 1980*1978*1973 *1966*1959*1958 National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 * 1999 *1998 *1996 * 1989 *1973 * 1968 * 1966 * 1962 *

19

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Demo Promo Escalation kills the war on terror and doesn't lead to effective Demo Promo Johnson 5 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting firm that specializes in counter terrorism investigations, worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, August 25, 2005, "Why We Must Leave Iraq"] Staying the course and enduring

further casualties

while the insurgency

grows stronger

is an insane policv. If we persist on that

front we will end up strengthening the hand ofIslamic extremists and their role within the Iraai insurgency. Our choice is simple--either we invest in the military resources and personnel required to defeat the Sunni insurgents and aHowthe Shia and Kurds to consolidate power or we withdraw and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find their own solution. We cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to give their lives and sacrifice their bodies for a new Islamic state. 11is true that our withdrawal wiHcreate a major vacuum and damage our prestige. But the alternative, i.e., that we stay and try to train up sufficient IraQi forces and help the fledgling Islamic Government get on its feet. will leave us the favorite target of insurgents and terrorists. And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled bv Islamists. those Islamists will ultimatelv insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.

Pullout key to Democracy Promotion Islamic Sydney 5 [Speech from Congressman

Murtha,

islamicsydney.com,

US Congressman

Urges Iraq Pullout]

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 200S, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference. and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurate1ymeasure stabiljty and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports.

I am disturbed bv the [mdings in kev indicator areas. Oil production and energy

production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled bv the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last vear. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops. attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism. I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees. Iraq can not be won "militarilv." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to IraQitize. Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgencv. Thev are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreignjihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops. and about 45% of the IraQi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn IraQ over to the IraQis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All ofIraq must know that IraQ is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to ioin the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966' 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 1999 * 1998 * 1996 1989 1973 1968 * 1966 * 1962

*

*

*

*

20

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Demo Promo Pullout key to effective Democracy Promotion Luttwack 5 [Iraq: The Logic of Disengagement,

Edward N. Luttwack,

Foreign Affairs,

Feb. Issue 2005]

Even if the negotiations here advocated fail to yield all they might-indeed, even if they do not yield much at all-the disengagement should still occur, and not only to live up to the initial commitment to withdraw. Given the bitter Muslim hostility to the presence of U.S. troops-labeled "Christian Crusaders" by the preachers-their continued deployment in large numbers can onlv undermine the legitimacv of anv U.s.-supported iraQi government. With iraQ more like Spain in 1808 than like Germanv or Japan after 1945. any democracy it sustains is bound to be more veneer than substance. Its chances of survival will be much higher if pan- Arab nationalists. Islamists. and foreign meddlers are neutralized by diplomacy and disengagement. Leaving behind a major garrison would only evoke continuing hostility to both Americans and Iraqi democrats. Once U.S. soldiers have left Iraqi cities, towns, and villages, some could remain a while in remote desert bases to fight off full-scale military attacks against the government-but even this could incite opposition, as happened in Saudi Arabia. A strategy of disengagement would reQuire much skill in conducting parallel negotiations. But its risks are actuallv lower than the alternative of an indefinite occupation. and its benefits might surprise us. An anarchical Iraq is a far greater danger to those in or near it than to the United ~tates. It is time to collect on the difference.a

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 1998 1995 2005 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * * 1994 * 1980 * * * Natinnal Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 1999 * 1998 * ]996 * 1989 * 1973 1968 1966 1962 * * * * *

21

Iraq Pullout D/ A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Econaal Pullout key to econ The Nation 6/8/06 It is true

that sectors

of the economy

can profit

nom

war in certain

circumstances,

but Wall

Street

really

doesn't

like war--at

least

not the one now raging in Iraq. which is beginning to look like a write-off. The defense industry does like military expenditures. And US capitalists in general do appreciate the role of a robust military budget in bolstering the dollar as the ultimate reserve currency, 1nassuring that the rules of global fmanee are favorable to our interests

andinprotectingaccesstopetroleumproducts.But we really do not like uncertaintY. We like an environment we think we understand. one in which a retum- on-capital analvsis can be based on reliable assUlllDtions of a predictable level of risk. Wall Street hated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Not only were they dramatically disruptive to the business of Wall Street; they also sowed immense uncertaintY in the minds of CEOs and consumers. slowing capital and consumer expenditures. Risk premiums skyrocketed for property and casualty insurance. Nonproductive investments of time and money for security were required. But in time, with the delegation of the Bush Administration's "war on terror" to professional soldjers, for-profit contractors and ftrStresponders, and with casualties occurring at "acceptable" levels, the Street returned to business as usual. [continues] But despite unpopularitv

Wall

Street's

of the Bush

golden

moment.

Administration

the problem is threatening

of risk

and uncertaintY

to create

a seismic

has reasserted shock

to the system.

itself

in an unexpected

way.

The

very

In tinancial circles. the word "incompetent" is now

frequently applied to both Bush's foreign and domestic po1icies. The fiscal profligacy in violation of traditional Republican principles, two weak Treasury Secretaries and the recent loss of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's steady hand have begun to take their toll, creating a flight to quality government bonds even as interest rates rise and the dol1ar weakens.

Wall Streeters now fall mainlv into two camps: Those who think the war in Iraq was itself a horrible mistake and those who think it could have been a good choice but was bungled in the execution. It is not the $800 billion the Iraq War is projected to cost that drives us nuts. A $13 trillion economy can make adjustments. But the troop drawdown and failure to finish the iob in Afghanistan, the bad information in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. the ever-changing rationales. the failure to develop realistic scenarios after the collapse of Sad dam Hussein and the chronic bloodletting without an exit plan--these smack of the type of performance that. in the brutal meritocracy of the Street. would cost us our iobs. Perhaps the fiscal and war-fighting failures could be forgiven, but thev have metastasized into a much larger problem: a lame duck President with a weak hand on the tiller. Even as American support for Bush and his war has sunk to all-time lows, polls show that the ranking of potential terrorist attacks on the nation has faded to a third-tier concern. So we know at some level one of the hidden--and most unfortunate--costs of the war in Iraq has been the Bush Administration's successful conflation of that military adventure with the real challenge: the struggle to protect our country against radical Islamic terrorists. [continues] Wall Street could like a well-organized and properly prioritized "war" on religious extremism. Reordering the education system to playa greater national role with emphasis on teaching the skills necessary to fight a long-term battle, developing an energy policy based on conservation and technology. investing in human intelligence and the type of war-fighting capabilities that the new realities irnply--noneof this would cause any heartburn in the bastion of finance capital because it would involve the steady, predictable investment of resources over time. Data mining and even wiretapping would go down easily in the finance community if such measures were likely to be effective in the real war on our nation. But spending billions in a theater that has demonstrably worsened the problem. creating the very haven for terrorists it was supposed to prevent: This no longer has buy-in. And Wall Street doesn't like to hear about "the long run." We mark to market every day. It may be that in a few years, a securities position will be worth five times what we paid today, but we are still obliged to carry it on our books for what someone will really pay for it now. The Iraq War is now increasingly seen as an ideologically based experiment. one that departed radicallv nom traditional US foreign policv. Leslie Gelb, former head of the Council on Foreign Relations, has one plan for extrication, Hillary Clinton another. But George W. Bush, who struggles to admit even the smallest error, is promoting a stay-the-course program that draws on a reservoir of trust, a pool of political capital that simply doesn't exist. With our dollars piling up overseas and the world economy depending on foreigners' confidence in our model. it is going to be hard for us to hold our breath for two and a half years. The damage to our brand under this management has been severe. and heretofore the cost has been neither paid nor calculated. When the markets finally render their iudgment for this war and this Administration. there is likely to be a very hard landing.

Northwestern University Debate Sodety National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 *1998 * 1996 *1989 * 1973 * 1968 * 1966 * 1962

22

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout 01 A Corey Stone

Pullout Good: Econaill B. Economic Mead

98

Decline

Causes War

[Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations,

The Los Angeles Times. August 23. 1998]

Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the [mandaI markets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plmnmeted, thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn't monev. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to {'ower in Germany. undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia. and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire. even if that meant war with the United ,S.tates and Britain. That's the thing about depressions. They aren't just bad for your 401 (k). Let the world economy crash far enough. change. We stop plaving "The Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Rvan."

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 2003 * 2002 *1999 *1998 *1995 *1994 1958 * * 1980 *1978 *1973 *1966 *1959 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 *1999 *1998 *1996 1989 *1973 * 1968 *1966 * 1962 *

and the rules

23

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Pullout Good: Laundrv List Remaining causes ethnic conflict, risk withdrawal solves. Byman

5 [Daniel Byman, Assistant

for Middle East Policy at the Brookings

kills democracy

Professor Institution,

in the Security

promotion,

bolsters

Studies Program of Georgetown

Intemationallnstitute

Irani counterbalancing, University's

and kills the war on terror.

School of Foreign Service, non-resident

Only a

Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

for Strategic Studies, Spring 2005 issue]

Yet despite these accomplishments, the situation in Iraa todav is troubled and the prognosis bleak. Indeed, in December 2004 the senior CIA official in Iraa privately described the situation as deteriorating with no end in sight. This failure is on multiple dimensions: the scale ofthe violence is wide and perhaps growing, the government of Ira a lacks legitimacv: democracv is troubled: and iihadists are flourishing. Violence continues unabated. Attacks on coalition forces have tripled in the last year, and Violence is particularly concentrated in Sunni the number of insurgents - 20,000 is an oft-cited figure - is dauntingly high. areas, though almost all ofIraq's largest cities, especially Baghdad, have been affected. A New York Times analysis indicates that one half of Iraqis live in districts that suffer insurgent attacks at least once every three days. This violence threatens to ignite a broader sectarian and ethnic conflagration. Civil harmony is built on fragile foundations. A new Shi'ite militia calling itself the Fury Brigade has formed to take revenge on Sunnis for their killing of Shi'a pilgrims and security officers. Outside experts warn that currently peaceful Kurdish cities may erupt into violence if the new government is seen as too' Arab'. Mosul, Kirkuk, and other cities with a mix of Arabs and Kurds may suffer communal violence due to property disputes and rising ethnic tensions. Foreign jihadists are capitalising on, and exacerbating, the strife. Although precise numbers are difficult to gauge, perhaps 2,000 foreign fighters are in Iraq. The problem is not just that these jihadists are killing Americans and are often behind some of the most brutal and indiscriminate attacks. Iraq itself is becoming a new field ofiihad. where newcomers meet. gain combat experience and forge lasting bonds that will enable them to work together in the vears to come even if thev leave Iraq. As Alexis Debat, a former French defence official, contends, jihadists seek 'to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was before autumn 2001: a public relations windfall for their ideologues: a training ground for their "rookies"; and even a safe-haven for their leadership'. Jihadists are not the only unwanted guests. Iran in particular has flooded Iraa with intelligence agents (and, worse, with members of the Lebanese Hizbollah, its long-time partner). Iran for years had worked with the Shi'a and Kurdish leaders opposed to Saddam. With Saddam gone, Tehran is establishing ties with almost all major Iraai grOUps, including such former enemies as loyalists of the old regime. Tehran may even be directing some of its proxies to attack the United .s.tates. At the very least, Iran is gaining influence, particularly in Shi'a areas. Such influence, while not ideal, is far from catastrophic, since stability is also one of Tehran's concems. However, Iran also has the capacitY to change the securitY situation from bad to horrible. As a result. Iran has additional leverage over Washington that enables it more effectivelv to resist US pressure on issues such as its nuclear programme. Perhaps most disturbingly, the United States is the focus of much of the insurgency. As Frederick Barton and Bathsheba Crocker contend, the multinational forces (MNF) in Iraa are necessary to maintain Iraq's peace but, 'at the same time, the MNF themselves are part of the problem. in terms of fuelling the insurgency'. The myriad Iraai factions agree on few thingS other than the short-term desirabilitY of removing the US military presence. Several Sunni factions are making common cause with foreign jihadists whom they otherwise despise. US efforts to reassure Iraqis at times become countemroductive. As James Steinberg and Michael O'Hanlon argue, 'The more we talk about staving "as long as it takes" the more it appears we are trving to inmose our vision on Iraq - further alienating the Iraai public' .

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tonrnament Champions . . 1994 . 1980 . 1978 . 1973 . 1966 . 1959 . 1958 . . . . 1995 2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 National Debate Tonrnament Top Speakers 2006

.

2000

. . . . . . . . 1999

1998

1996

1989

1973

1968

1966

1962

24

Iraq Pullout D/ A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Readiness Casualties in Iraq strain readiness and hegemony, more troops won't solve Axcess News 6/16/06 [Gop Showdown Looms with Dems over Iraq Pullout, axcessnews.com] The President's administration is promoting the war in Iraq using the recent death of al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the establishment ofIraq's new govermnent as progress, while the Pentagon released statistics showing that 2,500 Americans have died fighting insurgents there. "At the opening of this debate, Mr. Skelton asked the House to observe a moment of silence for the 2,500 troops that we have lost in the war in Iraq," said Rep. Pelosi. "2.500 troops killed. 18.000 wounded more than half of them I don't think so." Wbile permanentlv. the strain our military readiness and eroding our reputation in the world. Stay the course -the House vote won over against Dems going into the fall elections, polls show that the Democrats message is starting to be heard by voters who are beginning to favor more Dems this year in Congress.

Continued troop deployment drains morale, readiness, and recruitment, Council on Foreign Relations [April 23, 2004, cft.org]

turning case

"Thev can kee~ this up indefmitely, but thev are going to pav a price," says Lawrence J. Korb, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "There's a real danger that. ifthis pace of operations continues. the Qualitv of the force is going to deteriorate." Peters savs. Among the problems: the forces won't have sufficient time to train and refit for future missions. thev and their equipment will become worn out. and morale will suffer. Ultimatelv. because U.S. forces are made UP entirelv of volunteers. recruitment and reenlistments will fall. This potential manpower loss has been headed off in the short term by the military's "stop-loss" order, which mandates that active duty soldiers and reserves deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan may not leave the service until 90 days after they return home.

Iraq destroys military readiness Washington Post 5 [Ann Tyson, March 19,2005,

Two Years Later, Iraq War Drains Military]

Two years after the United States launched a war in Irng with a crushing display of power, a guerrilla conflict is grinding awav at the resources of the U.S. militarv and casting uncertainty over the fitness of the all-volunteer force, according to senior military leaders, lawmakers and defense experts. The unexpectedlv heavv demands of sustained ground combat are depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be fullv replenished. Shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of units have been broken apart or taxed bv repeated deplovrnents, particularly in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. "What keeps me awake at night is, what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?" Gen. Richard A. Cody, Army vice chief of staff, said at a Senate hearing this week. The Iraq war has also led to a drop in the overall readiness

of U.S.

ground

forces

to handle

threats

at home

and abroad.

forcing

the Pentagon

to accept

new

risks

-- even

as military

planners prepare for a global anti-terrorism campaign that administration officials say could last for a generation. Stretched bv Iraq and Afghanistan. the United S,tates lacks a sufficientlv robust ability to put large numbers of "boots on the ground" in case of a maior emergencv elsewhere. such as the Korean Peninsula, in the view of some Republican and Democratic lawmakers and some military leaders. Thev are skeptical of the Pentagon's ability to substitute air and naval power, and they believe strongly that what the country needs is a bigger Army. "The U.S. military will respond ifthere are vital threats, but will it respond with as many forces as it needs, with equipment that is in excellent condition? The answer is no," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 2005 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 *1994 * * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 * 1999 1998 * 1996 1989 * 1973 * 1968 * 1966 1962 * * * *

25

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq Pullout DIA Corey Stone

Pullout Good: Readiness Escalation kills readiness and causes overstrectch, equipment Washington Post 5 [Ann Tyson, March 19, 2005, Two Years Later, Iraq War Drains Military] As it rounds up troops for deployments, the Armv has had to allocate limited eQuipment. It has shuffled thousands of items !Tom radios to rifles between units. geared up new industrial production, and depleted the Army'S pre-positioned stocks of tanks, Humvees and other assets to outfit units for combat. Army stocks in Southwest Asia are exhausted. and those in Europe have also been "?icked oYer," one U.S. official said. Roughly half ofthe Army and Marine equipment stored afloat on ships has been used up, the official said. Refilling the stocks must wait until the IraQ war winds down, Armv officials say. Meanwhile, a sizable portion of Marine and Army gear is in IraQ. wearing out at UP to six times the normal rate. Battle losses are mounting; the Army has lost 79 aircraft and scores of tanks and Bradlev Fighting Vehicles. "We are equip-stretched. let there be no doubt about it. . . . This Armv started this war not fully eQuipped," Cody said in recent congressional testimony. The Priority on allocating are dropping in readiness. In scarce resources to deployed units means that forces rotating back home -- especiallY reserve units -many cases, they are being rated at the lowest level, C4, because of a lack of functioning equipment, required training or manpower. "The Army in the aggreg:ate is re?orting readiness levels that are less today than they have been in the past," said Paul W. Mayberry, deputy to the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The Pentagon says that by rotating duties, it maintains enough ready forces and pre-positioned equipment to handle a crisis on the Korean Peninsula and other contingencies. But U.S. lawmakers are concerned. Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) said he worries primarilv about the U.S. ability to respond if "some problem should arise on the Korean Peninsula." "How capable are we of handling another maior conflict?" asked Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "It's pretty obvious that it would be incredibly difficult because of the ?ortion of our resources devoted

to IraQ and Afghanistan.

What if a conflict broke out with North Korea or Iran?"

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tonrnament Champions 2005 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 * 1996 1989 1973 * 1968 * 1966 * 1962 * *

26

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Pullout Good: He!! Pullout restores credibility and hegemony to US forces Johnson 5 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting finn that specializes in counter terrorism investigations, worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, August 25, 2005, "Why We Must Leave Iraq"] If the United ,S.tates tries to intervene now to compel power sharing on behalf of Sunni interests we are likelv to trigger a backlash by the Shia maiority, Mullahs like Moqtada al Sadr have demonstrated that thev can mobilize combat units to kill Americans when their interests are challenged. There are some indications that once we are out of the picture that the insurgency will turn on itself. As noted earlier a significant portion of the insurgents are not Islamic extremists. There is evidence that the different groups will fight each other. Sunni tribal chiefs are not likely to cede control of their territory to foreign Islamists once the United States is no longer on the scene. Our departure willlikelv lead to a brutal civil war, but such a war creates opportunities for the United ,S.tates where it can rebuild its credibility with those forces who represent modernity and secular progress.

Continued Conflict in Iraq kills hegemony Time 5 [Joe Klein, November 5, 2005, Time.com] Murtha, a Marine combat veteran of Vietnam,

was speaking

from the heart

He makes weekly visits to Washington.area

military hospitals.

He has spent a lifetime devoted

to what

perceivestobe thebestinterestsnftbe U.s. military.ButunlikeMcCain,Murtha does not seem to believe that the war against Islarnist terrorism highest national Priority. He said IraQ threatened to drain resources from "procurement programs that ensure our militarv dominance."

On the NewsHoUT with Jim Lehrer, he wondered

year."ln an odd way, Murtba sounded

if China were the rea1 threat "down the road" and expressed

an awful lot like Secretary of Defense Donald Rurnsfel!!, who, according

to high-ranking

he

is the

only bought [OUTer five ships this dismay that "we military officials,

has

seemed

slightly

annoved

that the war in IraQ has diverted resources from his real goal of "transforming" the militarv into a high-tech outfit that can scare the beieezus out of China. Rumsfeld's Pentagon has refused to undertake the violent reordering of priorities-more special forces, more intelligence, zero boats-needed to fight a scruffy, labor-intensive struggle against an enemy that thrives in shadows in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rurnsfeld's relative indifference to the shooting war since the fall of Baghdad, combined with the President's garishlv bellicose rhetoric and refusal to ask wartime sacrifices of the public, has led to a national embarrassment-a cloddish superoower that talks big and acts small-and is leading to an inevitable, irresponsible sidle out of Iraq.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 *1996 * 1989 * 1973 *1968 * 1966 * 1962

27

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Pullout Good: Soft Power Iraq Pullout key to Restore Soft Power Huffmgton 6 [4/24/06, Arianna Huffington,

nationally

syndicated

columnist,

huffingtonpost.com]

To win in Iraq. we need to leave Iraq. To win, we need to stop being the issue. To win, we need to give our money, our brains, our support in every way but no longer the lives of our soldiers. Far from signaling U.S. abandonment of Iraq. removing our troops will allow us to focus on the only viable solution to the crisis in Iraq: using our power to influence diplomatic and political advancements, and using our fmancial might to help reconstruct the country and help build a civil society in which democracy might actually take hold. It's not about cutting and running:. it's about shifting our efforts and our resources -- from a reliance on Saddam and remaking hard power to soft I'°wer (check out Joe Nye for more on this). Since his first fevered dreams oftoppling the Middle East, President Bush has always tied the idea of finishing the iob in Iraq to the exercise of hard power. It was a job more for Rummy than Colin or Condi. His only nod to questions of when our troops will come home: "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." But a positive outcome in Iraq will not be the result of our military might. even if we stop-loss our troops for the next hundred years. If civil war in Iraq is to be averted, it will happen not because the Iraqi military is ready but because the peol'le of Iraq have been convinced of the value offmally putting aside their ethnic and political differences. As retired Gen. William adorn, former national security advisor to Reagan, has pointed out: the insurgents are fighting very effectively without US military training, so why aren't the Iraqi security forces? adorn also reminds us that while we trained the Vietnamese military very well, in the end South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war. It's about wimang hearts and minds, not winning body count tallies. And, in their hearts and minds, the Iraqis see us as occul'iers not liberators. This weekend's encouraging developments put a spotlight on the flaw in the CWo By most accounts, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad I'layed a dominant role in ending the four month stalemate on forming a national unity government in Iraq (although much work still remains to be done). His efforts allowed the CW to breathe a sigh of relief and say: "See, we need to be there! We can't leave now!" But, unless I missed something. Khalilzad wasn't on a bombing raid: he was on a diplomatic mission. A mission that will continue long after our troops have been redeployed. Indeed. our diplomatic effectiveness will be enhanced by removing: an impediment to getting other governments involved in the process. This is the ultimate irony the CW seems unable to grasp: Yes, we owe it to the people of Iraq to finish the job. But to fmish the iob. we first must leave. Staying there guarantees never winning and never fmishing the iob.

--

--

Pullout restores Rose

soft power

3 [Brita May Rose, Freelance

Writer, Grad Student in Middle Eastern Studies at City University

of New York, Debacle,

going it alone in Iraq. mideastweb.org)

The US violated international laws by invading Iraq and continues to act independently in the effort to re-build Iraq, once again bypassing the United Nations and monopolizing contracts by hiring US companies behind closed doors. Iraq needs a constitutional assembly and elected representative government. The Governing Council of Iraqis just recently assembled, however may not be acceptable to Iraqis, since it was created by none other than the US and UK. Bush promised that the US would leave Iraq to govern itself. Since the Ba'ath party is no longer a major threat, the US owes it to the Iraqi people to transfer authoritY back to the Iraqis. Iraqis and their sympathizers will tolerate nothing less. and failure to do so will only further expose US imperial interests in the region and increase hostilitv between Iraqis and Americans. Once Iraq is secure, orderly and stable, with the help of UN or multilateral forces, and a more adequate Iraqi police force, US forces should gradually pull out. With US financial support and resources and the oversight of the UN Security Council the US should leave the democratic institutions of Iraq to govern Iraq themselves. This is the only self respecting: and practical solution for the US government if it is to avoid a long. expensive and selfdefeating occupation. Most far-reaching, the war and occupation have further demoralized the Iraqi and Arab population at large. increasing the recruiting base of young Islamic radicals globally. Fighting: terrorism demands the long hard road of intelligence. tracking fmances. border controL international cooperation. and winning the hearts and minds of young Muslims. not the quick fix of unilateral military force. Using'shockandawe' is anoutdatedmethodof intimidationthatonlyalienates.insultsandpatronizestheArnbpublic.whoneednotbereminded of their current weakness. "Successful dialogue requires minimizing power considerations and demonstrating mutual respect...Threats of force, not matter how usefu1in the short term, will entrench the impression of American hostHity and ensure further conflict," states Professor Marc Lynch. (4) As writer Joseph Nye points out America is selling: soft

power short: it is soft power that attracts and persuades, rather than the coercion of hard power or force. "Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals and policies...although the US does well on the traditional measures of hard I'°wer. these measures fail to capture the ongoing transformation of world politics brought about by globalization and the democratization of technology" (5) Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 2002 * 1999 * 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958 * * * * * * * * * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 *1999 *1998 *1996 *1989 *1973 *1968 *1966 1962 *

28

Iraq Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Soft Power Pullout key to Soft Power Whitney

5 [26/11/05,

The Greatest

StTategic Disaster in American

History, Mike Whitney,

Staff Writer, Invesrigaring

New Imperialsim]

As the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, the hostility between the warring elements in the Republican Party is bound to intensify. Odom's views are characteristic of a generation who understood the subtleties of running an empire and using all the tools available; including diplomacv. negotiation, moral authority and, at times, military power. He would prefer to see the administration emplov America's considerable powers of persuasion rather than futile saber-rattling and preemptive war. And, like his contemporaries, he fully grasps the value of discretion in executing unpopular policies. The Bush administration stubbornly refuses to use the "soft power" of diplomacy or negotiation; preferring to rule bv force and deception alone. They have flaunted international law and created the modem icons ofhurnan barbarity at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Their merciless destruction of Falluja, which involved the use of white phosphorous and other banned weapons, has put them in a category of monsters that brings to mind the tyrants of the 20th century. Their failed occupation strategy has so alienated the Iraqi public that the only possibilitY of success is subiugation of the entire population. This is neither a desirable nor realistic solution. All of these have contributed to a steady erosion of American ~ower and prestige. Things can be expected to worsen as the ruling party becomes more splintered and acrimonious. Eventually. Bush will have to give in to some variant ofOdom's plan. The rising probabilitY of social upheaval at home. after five years of economic mismanagement. will push the fantasists and ideologues in the administration towards the Machiavellian strategies of realists like Odorn. By then, the el11Dire will be in serious decline: savaged by an exorbitant war. ballooning deficits. a falling greenback. rising interest rates. and the looming prospect ofhvuer-inflation. by a Bush has paved the way for "the greatest strategic disaster in American history"; a massive economic downturn accol11Danied seismic-shift in the global power structure.

2005

.

2003

.

29

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions

2002

. . . . . . . . 1998

1999

. . . National

2006

2000

1999

1995

1994

1980

Debate Tournament 1998

1996 *

*

1989

1978

1973

1966

. . 1959

Top Speakers *

1973

*

1968

*

1966

*

1962

1958

Iraq Pullout D/ A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Good: Overstretch Iraq Causes overstretch, the Aff would have to triple the size of the anny to solve Council on Foreign Relations [April 23, 2004, cfr.org] Is the annv overstretched? Many experts sav ves. In general, only about one-third of the Army'S divisions should be deployed at anyone time, to give the forces time to retrain and prepare for the next mission, Peters says. But according to current deployment schedules. 3 I of the ArmY'S 33 combat brigades will have been deployed for combat between March 2003 and June 2004, according to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Another problem is that many of the forces in Iraq are being pulled from the reserves. and therefore are limited to two-year deployments. This includes the maioritv of the militarY police. engineering units. civil affairs officers. and hospital personnel serving in Iraq. Some experts say that the regular, active Army should train more troops to perfonn these tasks. "If we are going to have a long-tenn commitment in Iraq, we have to do something to beef up the regulars," Trainor says.

Conflict NSA

in Iraq has strained

Group

[The National

the military

Security

Advisory

to the breaking

point, turns the aff

Group, "The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk", January 2006]

In the current debate over Iraq, there is an elephant in the room that few are willing to acknowledge. While the U.S. military has perfonned superbly in Afghanistan, 1rng and elsewhere, our ground forces are under enonnous strain. This strain. if not soon relieved. will have highly corrosive and potentially long-tenn effects on the force. (continues] These failures have created a real risk of "breaking the force" - a force that is critical to protecting and advancing our national interests. now and in the future. The American militarv deserves better. The American people deserve better.

Pullout solves overstretch Islamic Sydney 5 [Speech

from Congressman

Murtha,

islamicsydney.com,

US Congressman

Urges Iraq Pullout]

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S. Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts. without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 *1999 *1998 *1995 * 1994 * 1980 *1978 *1973 1966 *1959 *1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 * 1999 * 1998 * 1996 * 1989 1973 * 1968 1966 1962 * * *

30

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Pullout Inevitable Pullout Inevitable, but more troops draw out conflict Courant 6 [Hartford Courant, June 25, 2006, courant.com,

No Iraq Pullout,

for Now]

At the same time, reiecting a withdrawal orchestrated by lawmakers does not mean that the U.S. commitment of combat troops in Iraq is open-ended. As Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said, "I believe the IraQis know vel)' well that our commitment is not open-ended. n. 1 personally said that to their leaders directly eveI)' time I've met them here or there." Iraq's government leaders know well that the U.S. commitment has limits. Kings, emirs, presidents and prime ministers in other Arab countries know that, too. Several American militarv figures have raised expectations of a drawdown bv year's end or early next year. without going into exact numbers. Experts have Questioned whether U.S. forces. augmented bv a stressed National Guard. can be sustained for many more years. Leaders of the insurrection must have figured out by now that America's strong military presence in IraQ is not going to last forever.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 * 2002 * 1999 * 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958 * * * * * * * * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 * 1999 1998 1996 1989 1973 1968 1966 1962 * * * * * * * *

31

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq Pullout DI A Corey Stone

A2: COB2reSS = Pullout Bush won't sway to political pressure MSNBC 6/14/06 Bush said he assured worried Iraqi leaders during his 5 1/2 hour visit on Tuesday that he would not bow to political pressure and bring troops home prematurelv. "If we stand down too soon, it won't enable us to achieve our objectives," the president said. He said those goals include an Iraq that can govern. sustain and defend itself.

Politics won't determine pullout Washington Times 6/15/06 President Bush said yesterday that "Islamic fascists" must know he will not bow to political pressure to I'ull out of Iraq, even as the Senate begins debate on setting a timetable. "Don't bet on American politics forcing mv hand. because it's not going to happen," Mr. Bush told reporters at a morning press conference in the White House Rose Garden, seven hours after landing from his surprise trip to Iraq.

Senate won't determine Wizbang 6/22/06

pullout

The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursday reiected Democratic calls to start withdrawing D.S. troops from Iraq by years' end, as the two parties sought to define their election-year positions on a war that has grown increasingly unpopular. "Withdrawal is not an °l'tion. Surrender is not a solution," declared Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, who characterized Democrats as defeatists wanting to abandon Iraq before the mission is complete. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in turn, portrayed Republican leaders as blindly following President Bush's "failed" stay-the-course strategy. "It is long past time to change course in Iraq and start to end the president's open-ended commitment," he said. In an 86-13 vote, the Senate turned back a proposal from some Democrats that would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1,2007, with redeployments beginning this year. Minutes later, the Senate reiected the proposal more popular with Democrats, a nonbinding resolution that would call for the administration to begin withdrawing troops, but with no timetable for the war's end. Tbat was a closer vote, 60-39.

Pullout will depend on troops, not politics CNN.com 6/26/06 Tbe Times reported that by the end of next year, the number ofD.S. combat troops in Iraq could be more than halved. President Bush said Monday anv reduction in the number ofD.S. troops in Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground. Casey discussed the reduction plan with a CNN military analyst, retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, who spoke with CNN's Daryn Kagan on Monday.

Northwestern University Debate S"ciety National Debate Tournament Champions . . . . . 2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 . 1994 . 1980 . 1978 . 1973 . 1966 . 1959 . 1958 National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 . 2000 . 1999 . 1998 . 1996 . 1989 . 1973 . 1968 . 1966 . 1962

32

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout DI A Corey Stone

A2: More Troops Solve 1. The Terror Impact is perception

based, kicking in more doors will just piss off more terrorists,

that's the Johnson

evidence

2. Plan doesn't send nearly enough troops to solve the impact Johnson 5 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting firm that specializes in counter terrorism investigations, worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, August 25, 2005, "Why We Must Leave Iraq"] We could potentially defeat the Sunni insurgents if we were willing and able to deploy sufficient troops to control the key infiltration routes that run along the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys. But we are neither willing nor able. It would require at least 380.000 troops devoted exclusively to that mission. Part of that mission would entail killing anyone who moved into controlled areas, such as roadways. In adopting those kinds of rules of engagement we would certainly increase the risk of killing innocent civilians. But, we would impose effective control over those routes. That is a prerequisite to gaining control over the insurgency. We cannot meet the increased manpower requirements in Iraq without a draft. We do not currently have enough troops in the Army and the Marine Corps to supply and sustain that size of force in the field. But, even with a draft. we would be at least 15 months away from having the new batch of trained soldiers readv to deplov. More importantly, there is no political support for a draft. In other words, we're unwilling to do what is required to even have a shot at winning. 3. Failure

in Iraq is inevitable,

4. More troops exacerbate Heritage

Foundation

only a risk more troops prolong the conflict,

that's in the overview.

the case harms

[Jack Spencer, Large Increases

in Manpower

not Needed at This Time, Backgrounder

1762, The Heritage FOW1dation]

Although U.S. forces are not adequate to sustain the current rate of deployment, simply adding manpower is not necessarily the answer. Clearly, the U.S. needs more capabilities. However, while adding manpower mav seem like the Quickest wav to fill the gpabilities gap. it is not the best wav to solve the problem. There are several reasons for this. * People are expensive. The most effective weapons in the U.S. armed forces are soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. They are also, understandably, the most expensive. Only about one-third of the defense budget is spent on developing and buying weapons. Most of the rest goes to personnel and operational costs. Maintaining personnel beyond the number needed to fulfill U.S. national security requirements takes resources away from important efforts such as modernization and transformation. The result can be inappropriate * deplovrnents. A perceived excess of manpower tempts political leaders to deploy forces on operations that have little or nothing to do with U.S. national security. After the Cold War, this perception arguably contributed to heavy U.s. involvement in peacekeeping efforts in places like Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans. * Manpower is not the only measure of capability. Although manpower end-strength is important, it does not bv itself determine capabilities. For example. a force trained and equipped for the Cold War--regardless of size--would be inappropriate for the war on terrorism. Similarly, a military unit using old technology may not be as capable as a unit half its size using new technology. Structuring the force to reflect modern national security requirements accurately is more important than investing resources in outdated and wasteful organizations.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 * 2003 2002 1999 *1998 *1995 * * 1994 *1980 *1978 *1973 *1966 *1959 *1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 *1999 *1998 *1996 * 1989 * 1973 *1968 *1966 *1962 *

33

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

A2: Demo Promo I. Too late for Democracy in Iraq Jolrnson 6 [Founder of BERG a business-consulting linn that specializes in counter terrorism investigations, worked with the CIA and the DoS' Office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorsim, June 25, 2006] We may even be ~ast the point of no return where we could impose changes that would put Iraq back on course to be a secular, democratic nation without sparking a major Shiite counteroffensive. Therefore the time has come to minimize further unnecessary loss oflife bv our troops and re-craft a new foreign and security ~olicv for the Middle East.

2. More troops make Democracy Byrnan

5 [Daniel Byman, Assistant

for Midd1e East Policy at the Brookings

Promotion

Professor Institution.

impossible,

in the Security Studies Program International

US Presence of Georgetown

Institute for Strategic

destroys legitimacy University's

School of Foreign Service, non~resident

Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

Studies, Spring 2005 issue)

The government ofIraq lacks legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Because of the large number of US forces in the country, ID!Y leader would have a hard time escaping the impression of being a US pu\>pet. Media reports indicate that Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister. had cooperated closely with the CIA before the war and was hand-picked bv the United ~tates as the leader of the provisional government. Diamond, a democratisation expert who advised the Coalition Provisional Authority, noted that one constant problem the Iraqi government faced was that the United ~tates undermined its legitimacy in a constant quest for control. The legitimacy problem is particularly acute in Sunni Muslim areas. Favoured by Saddam's regime, Sunni Arabs, who constitute a minority of about one fifth of the population, are the obvious losers trom a democratic Iraq. Manv Sunnis resent their loss of influence. and the constant violence in Sunni areas has made it politically difficult (and personally dangerous) for leaders!Q cooperate with the new government. The insurgents appear to eniov the support, or at least the tolerance, of much of the Sunni Arab population. Nor have the United ~tates and the interim government delivered economically. further undermining their legitimacy. Unemployment is between 30--40%, and malnutrition rates have doubled since the war began. Foreign capital is understandablv reluctant to invest in a strife- torn and politically turbulent country. Jihadists' targeting of aid organisation personnel, often through kidnapping and at times even beheading, has made Iraq grim even for humanitarian workers with extensive experience of disaster and war zones. This failure to deliver bv the US and the interim government has been compounded bv the unrealistic expectations of most Iraqis, who hoped that Saddam's removal would quickly usher in an era of economic renewal despite the vast structural problems ofIraq's economy.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958 * * * * * * * * * * * * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 *1999 *1998 1996 1989 *1973 1968 1962 1966 * * * * * *

34

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq

Pullout D/ A Corey Stone

No Pullout Now No pullout now Bloomberg News 6/29/06 Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, asked about a report that Sunni insurgents Iraq, said the U.S. won't set a timetable for withdrawing troops from the country.

have made a conditional

offer to halt attacks in

The Associated Press Wedneday said 11 Sunni insurgent grOUpS offered to stop attacks on U.S.-led military forces in Iraq Iraqi government and President Bush set a two-year deadline for withdrawing all foreign troops. Rurnsfeld told reporters that, although he hadn't seen the report, Bush's view "has been and remains that a timetable is not something that is useful. " A schedule for a pullout "is a signal to the enemies that all vou have to do is iust wait and it's vours," he said.

if the

No Pullout War

Times

3/23/06

(Max Elbaum, Washington's War.; and Occuparions:Month in Review #11, war-times.org]

Speaking to the press March 21, Bush made it absolutelv clear there will be no pullout from Iraq while he is President. Asked directlv whether there would come a dav when no U.S. forces are in Iraq, he responded, "That will be decided bv future presidents and future governments of Iraq. " Less than a week earlier. General John Abizaid, U.S. commander in Iraq. sent the same message. The U.S. "mav want to keep a long-term militarv presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect oil sup1;>lies," Abizaid declared. Asked if this meant keeping permanent military bases in Iraq, the general said he "could not rule that out." Two-weeks later, Abizaid was rewarded with an extension of his tenure, making him the longest serving commander in the history of the U.S. Central Command.

No Pullout Reuters 6 [May 23, 2006, Troop Pullouts not Anticipated, Reuters, found on lexis] U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are expected to restate existing positions on keeping troops in Iraq and not set a deadline for withdrawal when they meet in Washington today, the White House said yesterday. "I do not believe that vou're going to hear the president or the prime minister sav we're going to be out in one year, two years, four years," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. "I don't think vou're going to get anv specific prediction of troop withdrawals. I think you're going to get a restatement of general principles under which coalition troops stay or go."

2005

Northwestern University Debate Sodety National Debate Tournament Champions 2003 2002 * * 1999 * 1998 * 1995 * 1994 * 1980 * 1978 * 1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 1999 *1998 * * 1996 *1989 * 1973 *1968 *1966 * 1962

35

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

No Pullout Now Senate stops pullout Reuters 6/24/06 BAGHDAD: Republican senators backed President George W. Bush's Iraq policies vesterdav, reiecting Democratic plans to start pulling out troops after a debate that forced Iraq to the heart of campaigning for November elections. Five US troops were killed in the previous two days, the military said - four Marines in two attacks in western Iraq and a soldier in a roadside bombing south of Baghdad, bringing the number of Americans to die in three years in Iraq to 2,511. Some of Bush's fellow Republicans fear low poll ratings over the war could hurt them in legislative elections. But senators rallied to accuse Democrats of "cutting and running" while their opponents said Republicans were uniting on failed policies.

No pullout-senate BayouBuzz.com

6/22/06

The U.S. Senate decided to "stav the failed course" in Iraq. The Iraq war has become a rallying cry for elections and is a referendum on President Bush. The GOP-controlled Senate on Thursdav rejected the Democratic calls to start U.S. troops trom Iraq bv vear's end. In an 86-13 vote. the Senate defeated a proposal to require the administration all combat troops trom Iraq by July 1, 2007, with redeployments beginning this year. No Republicans voted in favor but there were Democrats crossing over.

in many ways withdrawing to withdraw of the plan

Bush ain't pullin' out New York Times 7/5/06 FORT BRAGG, N.C. - In a rousing Independence Dav speech to hundreds of soldiers and their families, President Bush warned on Tuesday that setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal trom Iraq would be "a terrible mistake" and took the rare step of mentioning the precise number of war dead. "I'm going to make vou this promise," Bush told a cheering throng under a blistering late-morning sun. "I'm not going to allow the sacrifice of 2,527 troops who have died in Iraq to be in vain bv pulling out before the job is done." Speaking against the backdrop of a l5-foot-high bronze statue of a paratrooper nicknamed Iron Mike, the president brought approving hollers trom the crowd when he reminded it that special-operations forces trom Fort Bragg were the first to arrive on the scene after the bombing that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader.

Northwestern University Debate Sodety National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 2003 2002 1999 *1998 *1995 *1994 * * * 1980 * 1978 *1973 * 1966 * 1959 * 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 1999 1998 1996 1989 1973 1968 1966 1962 * * * * * * * * *

36

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Bad: Terror Escalation Hadley

Key to Democracy

Promotion

and War on Terror

5[ Stephen Hadley, Remarks by Stephen Hadley to the American

Israel Public AfTairs Committee

National Summit 2005, October 31,2005,

whitehouse.gov]

The spread of democraCY will make the Middle East a safer neighborhood for Israel. An American retreat from iraq. on the other hand. would only strengthen the terrorists who seek the enslavement of iraq and the eventual destruction ofIsrael. It is the spread of freedom. democracy. and iustice that is the antidote to Islamic extremism. Experience shows that it is not poverty, but rather alienation, that most encourages terrorism, Muhammed Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers were predominantly middle class and well-educated. They and many Islamic terrorists like them are clearly alienated from their societies. Unable to visualize a meaningful future within their political systems, they were susceptible to radical alternatives to it. When people have been denied their fundamental rights. they have little stake in the existing order. The terrorists capitalize on this discontent. They stoke it with a narrative of Arab and Muslim grievance and victimization at the hands of the infidel West and the Zionists, It is precisely because the people the terrorists seek to recruit are powerless that they are vulnerable to this siren song. The antidote to this radical vision is democracv, justice, and the freedom agenda. This agenda offers empowerment as an alternative to enslavement. It offers participation in place of exclusion. It offers the marketplace of ideas to counter the dark world of conspiracy theory. It offers individual rights and human dignity instead of violence and murder. Fundamentally, it means people participating in governing themselves, rather than being governed by others whom they never choose, never change, and never influence.

Withdrawal kills War on Terror CNN 6 [cnn.com, June 22, 2006, Cheney: WASHINGTON

(CNN)

allies vulnerable [continues...}

to new

--Withdrawing attacks,

Iraq pullout American

'worst possible

thing we could do']

troops from Iraq would embolden

terrorists

and leave the United States and its

Vice President Dick Cheney said Thnrsday.

Neither an immediate nor phased withdrawal they'll follow us," he said of terrorists.

would confer any protection

on the United .s.tates, Cheney

said. "If we pull out.

"It doesn't matter where we go. This is a global conflict. We've seen them attack in London and Madrid and Casablanca and Istanbul and Mombasa and East Africa. They've been, on a global basis, involved in this conflict. (Read the full interview transcript) "And it will continue -- whether we complete the job or not in Iraq -- only it'll get worse. iraq will become terrorists. Thev'll use it in order to launch attacks against our friends and allies in that part of the world." Cheney said a pullout would signal the United .s.tates would not stand its ground in the war on terror.

2005'

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2003' 2002' 1999' 1998 '1995 '1994 '1980 '1978 '1973' 1966 '1959' National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006' 2000 '1999 *1998 '1996 * 1989' 1973' 1968 *1966' 1962

a safe haven for

37 1958

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Pullout Bad: Stabilitv Escalation Byman

solves Democracy

5 [Daniel

Byman. Assistant

for Middle East Policy at the Brookings

Promotion Professor Institution,

and stability

in the Security Studies Program International

of Georgetown

Institute for Strategic

University's

School of Foreign Service, non-resident

Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

Studies, Spring 2005 issue]

The current approach can boast of several accoIIlPlishments. The large-scale civil strife that many predicted before the war has not taken place, in large part due to the pacifying role of coalition forces. Kurdish areas remain relatively free of the crime and violence that has plagued other parts of Iraq. Turkey has not intervened to crush Kurdish political activity. Iraqis retain some confidence in their own police and security organs. Shi'a unrest. which looked to be nearing a crisis as late as October 2004, for now appears contained. Although far more troubled than early US hopes, Iraq's democratisation process is serious and has gone far. In the run up to the January elections, 200 or so political grOUpS cOIIlPeted, a number that is perhaps too large but nevertheless suggests an Iraai enthusiasm for democracy. Civil society is develo?ing in many areas. Shi'a leaders. including firebrands such as Moqtada al-Sadr, endorsed, or at least accepted the elections and are otherwise working with US and interim Iraqi government officials, suggesting they have some faith in the system. One of the worst nightmares, that the Shi'a majority would turn violently against the occupation, appears far off for now.

Escalation Byman

solves stability

and terror

5 [Daniel Byman, Assistant

for Middle East Policy at the Brookings

Professor Institution,

in the Security Studies Program of Georgetown International

Institute for Strategic

University's

School of Foreign Service, non-resident

Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

Studies, Spring 2005 issue]

In theory, a dramatic expansion of the US ?resence might solve manv of the problems of the current approach. As Senator John McCain has commented, 'The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives'. Improving security would be the biggest benefit of a much larger US force. More troops might be able to decisivelv defeat, or at least severely inhibit, the insurgents and leaven Iraqi forces that are tasked with providing security. In future battles along the lines of the November 2004 Fallujah operation, the United States could occupy the city more effectively and conduct simultaneous offensives elsewhere, making it far harder for insurgents to simply slip away. This larger force might also do a better iob of policing Iraa. helping Iraais confront the scourge of crime. This additional security. in turn. would make peaceful political activity more plausible and would also intimidate interfering foreign countries such as Iran. A larger force would also demonstrate to foreign iihadists. Iraais and the world that the United .states is committed to finishing what it started.

2005

Northwestern University Dehate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 1999 1998 *1995 *1994 *1980 * * * 1978 *1973 *1966 *1959 *1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 2000 *1999 *1998 1996 *1989 *1973 *1968 1966 * 1962 * * *

* 2003

2002

38

Iraq Pullout D/A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Bad: Laundrv List Pullout causes destabilization, Byman

5 [Daniel Byman, Assistant

for Middle East Policy at the Brookings

Irani counterbalancing, Professor Institution,

kills democracy

in the Security Studies Program of Georgetown International

Institute

promotion, University's

and results in a terrorist

School of Foreign Service, non-resident

attack. Senior Fellow at the Saban Center

for Strategic Studies, Spring 2005 issue]

Pulling out ofIraQ, however, could be even more disastrous than staving put. Foreignjihadists would justly tout a pullout as a victory, arguing that the United States left under fire. IraQ would become a place where radicals come to meet. train. fight and forge bonds that last when they leave Iraq for the West or for other countries in the region. The jihadist presence in Iraq may be limited to a few thousand fighters, but they would exert disproportionate influence in the absence of any counterweight. Entire regions of IraQ, particularly Sunni areas like al- Anbar province, might be under their sway. From this base, jihadists couId organise and train to strike at US or allied facilities around the world. including in the US homeland. They would be particularly likely to reach out and strike Saudi Arabia given the long, lightly patrolled border between the two countries and the jihadists' high interest in destabilising the Al Saud regime. Such a development might lead the United .s.tates to again have to invade IraQ as it did Afghanistan to extiI:pate the iihadist base. Here is where the Vietnam parallel breaks down. From Iraq, iihadists would continue their worldwide struggle against the United .s.tates and US allies in the region: the equivalent of the Viet Cong deciding to strike California and Australia after they had won Saigon. Saudi Arabia in particular would be vulnerable, given the jihadist-linked unrest in that country and its long and open border with Iraq. Moreover, in contrast to Vietnam, Iraq is a resource-rich country in a critical region. Because there are, for now, few competent Iraqi forces to fill the security vacuum that would be left by departing US forces, strife would grow tremendously and IraQ could easily collapse into civil war. Iraqi forces trained by the United States would fmd themselves outgunned. Security service members would be even less capable than they are today of protecting their families trom retaliation, making them reluctant to contront insurgents or criminals. Cooperation with government opponents or wholesale defection would be likely. Iraq's Shi'a population, which so far has not attacked other communities, might resort to communal war ifleft without any government to protect it. Violence in ethnically mixed areas such as Kirkuk would be particularly likely. The Kurds, who have the most organised indigenous military force in Iraq, would probably push for even greater autonomy or even independence. In response, Turkey might intervene. The hopes for democracv. and "ossibly even for a unified Iraqi state. would dim in the absence of the security provided bv the United .s.tates. The elected government would have no muscle to back up its decrees. Fearful Iraqis would naturally turn even more to warlords to protect them trom crime and trom rival groups. Groups could not trust each other to adhere to long-term bargains. Kurds, for example, might fear that a new government in Iraq might go back on promises of a high level of autonomy once it consolidated power, leading them to reject any compromise. If the US withdrew, Iran would be tree to exploit its already strong influence. It would be an overstatement to say that IraQ would become an Iranian proXy: Iran is neither loved nor admired by most nationalist Iraqis, including most Shi'as. Nevertheless, Iranian influence would be tremendous. as Tehran's resources and agents would be able to undermine leaders hostile to Iran and bolster those who favour Iran's interests in a chaotic political environment.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 . 2003 . 2002 . 1999 . 1998 . 1995 . 1994 . 1980 . 1978 . 1973 . 1966 1959 . 1958 * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006' 2000 * 1999 * 1998' 1996 * 1989 * 1973 * 1968' 1966 * 1962

39

Iraq Pullout D/ A Corey Stone

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout Bad: Demo Promo Escalation Hadley

Key to Democracy

5 [Stephen

Hadley, Remarks

Promotion

and War on Terror

hy Stephen Hadley to the American

Israel Public AfTain; Committee

National Snmmit 200S, October 31, 200S, whitehouse.gov)

The smead of democracv will make the Middle East a safer neighborhood for Israel. An American retreat from Iraq, on the other hand, would onlv strengthen the terrorists who seek the enslavement of Iraq and the eventual destruction ofIsrael. It is the spread of freedom, democracv, and iustice that is the antidote to Islamic extremism. Experience shows that it is not poverty, but rather alienation, that most encourages terrorism. Muhammed Atta and the other 9/11 hijackers were predominantly middle class and well-educated. They and many Islamic terrorists like them are clearly alienated from their societies, Unable to visualize a meaningful future within their political systems, they were susceptible to radical alternatives to it. When people have been denied their fundamental rights. thev have little stake in the existing order. The terrorists capitalize on this discontent. They stoke it with a narrative of Arab and Muslim grievance and victimization at the hands of the infidel West and the Zionists. It is precisely because the people the terrorists seek to recruit are powerless that they are vulnerable to this siren song. The antidote to this radical vision is democracv, justice, and the fteedom agenda. This agenda offers empowerment as an alternative to enslavement. It offers participation in place of exclusion. It offers the marketplace of ideas to counter the dark world of conspiracy theory. It offers individual rights and human dignity instead of violence and murder. Fundamentally, it means people participating in governing themselves, rather than being governed by others whom they never choose, never change, and never influence.

2005

.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions

2003

40

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999

2002

1998

National

2006

2000

1999

1995

1994

1980

1978

1973

Debate Tournament

Top Speakers

1998

1973

1996

1989

1968

1966

1966

1959

1962

1958

Iraq

Northwestern High School Debate Institute 2006 Zarefsky Seniors

Pullout DI A Corey Stone

Pullout Bad: Soft Power Pullout Kills soft power DFP

5 [Dartmouth

Free Press, February

25,2005,

Welton Chang, Dartmouth

Free Press, Iraq's New Democracy,

Who's In Charge?,

Dartmouth.edu]

The last factor. the exercising of "soft power:' will depend mainlv on the men and women of the U.S. militarv. With many lessons learned from the first three iterations of Operation Iraqi Freedom (we are currently headed into OIP 4), many units rotating back into Iraq have already been there. The 10 I st Airborne, General Petraeus' old unit, is scheduled to rotate back into Baghdad in August. The 101st's security and reconstruction efforts during the original Operation Iraqi Freedom were widely recognized as immenselv popular and effective. The soft power approach will win hearts and minds back home too. as the American people, M much as the Iraqi people. need to be convinced that the militarv knows to do the "right thing". One thing remains clear. though: the United States and its troops have invested too much time. energv. blood. sweat. tears and heart to pull out ofIraq now. Coalition forces owe it to the Iraqi people to see this matter through.

Northwestern University Debate Society National Debate Tournament Champions 2005 2003 2002 1999 1998 1995 1994 1980 1978 1973 1966 1959 1958 * * * * * * * * * * * * National Debate Tournament Top Speakers 2006 * 2000 1999 *1998 1996 1989 *1973 1968 *1966 1962 * * * * *

41