Resolved: The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition in Iraq.

I am sorry it took so long to post this; I had a chemistry test today that I had to study for. The most "straightforward" option was to try to create a new federal government after Saddam; we have been trying that since we ousted him over 4 years ago. Its time for a new strategy that will work when US troops are not in the country. The only reason violence in Iraq has gone down during the surge is because of the huge level of troops in the country, once they leave (if a long-term solution has not been reached) the violence will likely increase again, possible higher then before. "Same issues that are unresolved now would remain unresolved" What issues are you talking about, oil, boundaries, what? The issue of oil distribution is a prerequisite to the soft partition. The new Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions (which I previously called states, but regions is a more accurate term) would most likely be made up of the old provinces, so the boundaries are already drawn. "Much of the insurgency currently occurring in Iraq is a result of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda" this statement is only partially true, the insurgence is being lead by terror organizations. However, those organizations are not like Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a multi-national organization devoted to its own radical version of Islam that it believes all others must follow. Much of the insurgency on the other hand, is made up of Iraqis that feel they are being oppressed/not heard and/or marginalized. These groups are not devoted to changing the world like Al-Qaeda; they merely want some say in their government. Take the Kurdish region for example; it is one of the safest. Why? Because it is a semi autonomous region. It has its own laws (much like our states do), its police and army are Kurdish, and its people do not feel left out. By following this example and encouraging Iraq in making semi autonomous regions for Sunni's and Shiite's (a soft partition), then we will finally have a way out of Iraq. As far as "unaffiliated" terrorist organizations (Al-Qaeda), the government does not support them, nor to people. Once a functioning army/police force is created (the current one is not yet functioning outside of Kurdistan), those organizations can be chased out of Iraq without US assistance (I know I sound a little optimistic/glossing over things here, I would go into it further, but there is a word limit). This is an interesting (for you to bring up) point. However, it does have some rather large flaws, for instance, as part of the UN; the US would still be encouraging a soft partition. Also, as the main outside presence in Iraq, and one that would be crucial to the implementation of a soft partition if one were to occur, we should help the Iraqis find peace. We were the ones that through Iraq into ruins, and because of that we have the moral responsibility to pacify Iraq, that means we have to do everything we can to bring about peace, and that means encouraging a solution (soft partition). "Even if a soft partition is the best option to stop the violence and support a stable democracy, then there is no doubt that it is too important of a matter to be left to an entity such as the United States," see above "Separating Iraq would do away with the largest counterbalance in the region to Iran" I am glad you bring up Iran, you see, Iraq lead by Sunni (as has been the case since its inception until we ousted Saddam) is a counterbalance. However, because Iraq is 60% Shiite, Iraq now is more of a pawn in Iran's "back pocket". Iran has even said that it will fill the power vacuum when the US leaves. The simple fact of the matter is, a democratic Iraq is going to be in Iran's pocket (Iran's president was the first, and best received Iranian leader ever, leader from another country to visit Iraq), if we soft partition it then only the Shiite region will be, if we don't, then the entire country will. I am not sure where you are going with your civil war point, are you saying that civil war is inevitable? If you are then I must disagree, civil war is not inevitable, nor will it "stabilize the country". As far as your point about consistency (with regard to bush's position on Iraq), its obvious that staying the course is not working, the only reason violence has fallen is due to the sheer number of forces we have there. If we continue to wait for the Iraqi government to settle its differences, then we will be in Iraq forever. During his presidency bush has "believed the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday" (credit to Stephen Colbert), and that has gotten the US into a lot of hot water, especially with regard to foreign policy. Its time to admit that "staying the course" (as bush calls it) is not working, and that its time for a new strategy, such as soft partition. You are correct in saying that we cannot force soft partition on the Iraqis, however (as much as I dislike using the resolution to discount an argument) the resolution is not mandating that we implement a soft partition, only that we encourage one, as in suggest that the Iraqi government look into it. On top of that if a soft partition was implemented it would have to be voluntary, not mandatory. You cannot force someone to leave their home after all. However, for the people who no longer feel safe in their homes, or even in their neighborhoods, soft partition offers a safe way to move to an area that is more homogeneous. That is where displaced Iraqis often go. A few months ago, the Washington Post reported the story of an Iraqi family forced out of their home in Baghdad (in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood) by Shiite militants (they were Sunni), the family moved into a nearby neighborhood that was predominantly Sunni. When asked if they felt safer, they said that they were no longer scared of militants coming to their door, or feared being shot in the street. They did not move 2 miles from their old home. Iraqis seek safety among members of their own religious sect, so if they feel threatened (as many do) they can move to a safer area. If some do not feel like moving immediately, but change their minds, then they can still go to the region for their sect. For the "too interconnected" argument, see above. As I said before the surge is merely working because of the sheer number of forces we have in Iraq, once we begin to draw down troops the violence will likely increase again. The US encouraging a soft partition alone would not make one possible, the Iraqi government would have to work some things out (the specific boundary, how to share the oil profits, but that will likely be based on population) As I have said, the reason you should vote pro is encouraging the soft partition in Iraq would allow us to move forward. To admit that our previous strategy is not working and to try to do what is best for Iraq's stability. That is why you should vote pro. Thank you.