Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound Strategy

IntroductionThis debate is impossible to accept. If you would like to debate this resolution, either PM me or leave a comment on this debate, thank you. Resolution: Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound StrategyBackground:This is an attempt at articulating an alternate framework for the occupation of Iraq, which I consider to have been a monumental failure of American policy. I have no beef with the invasion, and am neutral to the Bush Doctrine, i. e. a policy of pre-emption. However, given how the occupation was executed, and that the occupation was inseparable from the invasion proper, I consider the war in Iraq to have been the largest policy blunder the US has undertaken since non-participation in the League of Nations. Regardless, this background is opinion, and not up for debate. What this debate will be about is whether or not a strategy surrounding full US military control and responsibility for Iraq during the years following the invasion would have been a sound strategy, instead of the immediate, knee-jerk reaction towards "nation-building" that prioritized propping a puppet "democratic" government in Iraq before it had the means to adequately defend itself. Three examples of martial law which I will be using as a prototype in how I model this hypothetical Iraqi military government:1) Japan after WWII, where MacArthur was the military governor of the country,2) Korea after WWII, where there was an initial phase of self-determination in the South, followed by martial law and overt US military control over South Korean security matters, and3) Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War, where Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang ruled via martial law until 1987. The latter two regimes were for all intents and purposes authoritarian dictatorships where generals were heads of state. All three of these regimes received generous US support in its fight against communism. I will welcome anyone as an opponent who has shown a capacity to debate with rigor, and has demonstrable evidence that they typically do not forfeit debates, and of course has a real interest in this subject. Definitions:Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions on an emergency basis. Martial law is usually imposed on a temporary basis when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e. g. , maintain order and security, or provide essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread. Fundamentally it is a requirement put on civilian government when [the civilian government] fail[s] to function correctly. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Sound Strategy - a strategy that would have been feasible, actionable, and would have forwarded US interests. Rules:This will be a NO SCORING debate. I am far less concerned with the scoring mechanism of this website, and much more interested in furthering constructive dialogue on this matter. I see the scoring mechanism as being extremely politicized and subject to all manners of corruption, and also see it as an inhibitor to constructive dialogue as many people who vote simply do not want their vote challenged or discussed. Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to make a decision on this debate, declare a victor, and leave (hopefully) an insightful RFD, I merely ask that no one score this debate. I will make exception to the scoring of conduct. Any forfeited rounds, ad hominem attacks, or breaching of the rules of this debate will merit a conduct point against the offender. Otherwise, no scoring, thank you. Although the definition of martial law has been sourced from wikipedia, I humbly ask that the majority of research from both debaters be outside of wikipedia, although you are more than welcome to cite the sources within wikipedia for the purposes of this debate. Burden of proof is on PRO. If CON decides to bring up a counter-scenario, they are more than welcome to do so, as long as by doing so, they demonstrate that PRO fails to uphold burden of proof. This debate assumes that the invasion of Iraq occurred.