1. Unstable now - Post-election Iraq is an unstable sectarian mess – no chance of national unity
Ricks, 10 [Thomas, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security who covered the war in Iraq for The Washington Post, is the author of “Fiasco” and “The Gamble.” He also writes the Best Defense blog for Foreign Policy magazine. February 23, 2010, “Extending Our Stay in Iraq ,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/opinion/24ricks.html]
IRAQ’S March 7 national election, and the formation of a new government that will follow, carry huge implications for both Iraqis and American policy. It appears now that the results are unlikely to resolve key political struggles that could return the country to sectarianism and violence.
If so, President Obama may find himself later this year considering whether once again to break his campaign promises about ending the war, and to offer to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for several more years. Surprisingly, that probably is the best course for him, and for Iraqi leaders, to pursue.
Whether or not the elections bring the long-awaited political breakthrough that genuinely ends the fighting there, 2010 is likely to be a turning-point year in the war, akin to the summer of 2003 (when the United States realized that it faced an insurgency) and 2006 (when that insurgency morphed into a small but vicious civil war and American policy came to a dead end). For good or ill, this is likely the year we will begin to see the broad outlines of post-occupation Iraq. The early signs are not good, with the latest being the decision over the weekend of the leading Sunni party, the National Dialogue Front, to withdraw from the elections.
The political situation is far less certain, and I think less stable, than most Americans believe. A retired Marine colonel I know, Gary Anderson, just returned from Iraq and predicts a civil war or military coup by September. Another friend, the journalist Nir Rosen, avers that Iraq is on a long-term peaceful course. Both men know Iraq well, having spent years working there. I have not seen such a wide discrepancy in expert views since late 2005.
2. Iraq won’t escalate – tons of other civil wars disprove
Yglesias, 07
(Matthew Yglesias, “Containing Iraq”, 9/12/07, http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/containing_iraq.php)
Kevin Drum tries to throw some water on the "Middle East in Flames" theory holding that American withdrawal from Iraq will lead not only to a short-term intensification of fighting in Iraq, but also to some kind of broader regional conflagration. Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, as usual sensible but several clicks to my right, also make this point briefly in Democracy: "Talk that Iraq’s troubles will trigger a regional war is overblown; none of the half-dozen civil wars the Middle East has witnessed over the past half-century led to a regional conflagration."
3. US military is already withdrawing from Iraq – instability is inevitable
CNN 09
(CNN, 2/27/09, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/obama.troops/index.html)
President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010. Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 -- the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. "By any measure, this has already been a long war," Obama said. It is time to "bring our troops home with the honor they have earned." Obama's trip to Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base, was his first trip to a military base since being sworn in. Administration officials, who briefed reporters on the plan, said the remaining troops would take on advisory roles in training and equipping Iraqi forces, supporting civilian operations in Iraq and conducting targeted counterterrorism missions, which would include some combat. But the ultimate success or failure of the war in Iraq, Obama said, would rest with the Iraqi people themselves. The U.S. "cannot police Iraq's streets indefinitely until they are completely safe," the president said. It is up to the Iraqis, he said, to ensure a future under a government that is "sovereign, stable and self-reliant." "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime and you got the job done," he said, referring to the troops.The U.S. military had also "exceeded every expectation" suppressing the insurgency in the years that followed. Al Qaeda in Iraq had been dealt "a serious blow," the president added. "The capacity of Iraq's security forces has improved, and Iraq's leaders have made strides toward political accommodation" through steps such as January's provincial elections.
AT: Iraqi Democracy
No chance of Iraqi Democracy – corruption kills it
Brinkley 10 [Joel Brinkley, Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times, “Iraqi democracy crippled by widespread corruption”, The San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/26/IN0D1E0R29.DTL]
As American troops withdraw from Iraq this summer, expect the democratic freedoms Iraqis have enjoyed in recent years to recede as well. Already, the Iraqi government is restricting freedom of the press, expression and assembly. It's toying with Web censorship, torturing political prisoners and killing political opponents. Even with all of that, Iraq remains freer than every other Arab state except Lebanon. The United States wrote democratic freedoms into Iraq's constitution, including protections for women and minorities, offering as a tacit guarantee the active presence of 150,000 American troops. But now the guarantors are leaving. A large part of the problem is corruption. Under American stewardship, Iraq has become one of the half-dozen most corrupt nations on earth. "Significant widespread corruption" afflicts "all levels of government," the State Department says. Nothing can so quickly cripple a democracy as the need by the nation's leaders to protect their cash flow and hide all evidence of their thefts. That leads, at least, to electoral fraud and press censorship. How can corrupt officials survive if the press is free to rep
Share with your friends: |