34. The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

//DEFINITIONS: Okay, I accept// I'd like to remind the judges that my definition of Timetable was: "A plan to which only entails the removal of troops from Iraq." and that I included this (unchallenged) observation: "Observation 1: That the resolution is in the present tense ("should adopt"), which means that my opponent must prove why the US should adopt his plan *right now*. Saying that an action must be taken first, THEN withdrawing is a negation of the resolution." So my opponent's claim of "WE CAN DO BOTH." is negated immediately, based on my warranted definition and unchallenged observation. ==Re: Iraqi Opinion== My opponent tries to disprove my argument by saying that the Iraqis do not want a soft partition. I note that his article is dated in 2006. Mine is dated in 2007 - a more recent, and more accurate picture. This is critical, because Iraqi leaders and citizens are beginning to recognize soft partition as the only viable option. But all of this pales in the face that Iraqi citizens ARE moving - look for yourself at how separated the religious populations of Iraq are: globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/iraq-ethnic-map2.jpg So the Iraqis are making their opinions known with their mouths - by voting - and with their feet - by leaving. For reference, the Sunni, Shia and Kurd are the three main groups in Iraq, and comprise more than 95% of the population. It is about them who we are debating. ==Re: US Causes the Problem== I agree that to a degree that US presence is an issue in Iraq - but I do not think my opponent is taking the ignorant position to say that the ONLY problem in Iraq the fact that the US is there. Surely he is not saying that the religious differences that plague the region are no problem. The problem in Iraq right now is not the U.S. presence; its the sectarian violence that plagues the region. Ethnic cleansing is EVERYWHERE. It plagues every region, and is a constant and violent problem. Joseph Biden. "The Way Forward in Iraq" May 1, 2007. biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=254933 Some will ask whether this plan will lead to sectarian cleansing. The answer is that it's already happening. According to the Iraqi government, 90,000 people have fled their homes since the February bombing of the Samarra mosque for fear of sectarian reprisals. That's a rate of more than a 1,000 people a day. This does not include the tens of thousands of educated Iraqis from the middle class who have left the country. We must build in protections to prevent more cleansing and to improve security in the big cities, which the Administration has failed to achieve. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely-populated areas with mixed populations would receiveboth multi-sectarian and international police protection. A global political settlement won't end the Sunni insurgency, but it should help to undermine it. The Zarqawi network would no longer have the sectarian card to play. Sunni Nationalists and neo-Baathists would still be unhappy but they would be easier to contain. === Joseph, Edward P. and O'Hanlon, Michael E. "Soft partition much better than sectarian genocide" The Washington Times. January 8, 2007. COMMENTARY; Pg. A16. Lexis Nexis. We must not wait for slaughter in Iraq to reach the exhaustion point before finally confronting the reality of mass ethnic movements. Facilitating ethnic movement is not risk free. But it may soon become the only option before condemning Iraq to years of Bosnia-like fratricidal violence. ===== What's going on in Iraq is a genocidal, ethnic, religion-based slaughter. It is displacing families, causing deaths, and is the primary cause of problems in Iraq. Iraq is not some unified state that is unifiably hating the US - rather, it is a congregation of ethnic groups who were unwillingly put together by British colonialists, and now the impossibility of their "unity" is coming out, as per the US Ambassador to Iraq. ==== "Forced unity will continue to fail in Iraq" Galbraith, Peter W. [Former U.S. Ambassador]. Time. November 13, 2006. Vol. 168, Issue 20. A U.S. effort to put Iraq back together would involve endless micromanagement of Iraqi affairs and an open-ended presence of large numbers of U.S. troops. Breaking up Iraq, on the other hand, could provide an exit strategy for U.S. troops, mitigate the worst effects of civil war and give all Iraqis a greater stake in shaping their future. Few Americans imagined that 3 1/2 years after "liberating" Iraq, the U.S. would be presiding over the country's demise. But in a war in which there have never been good options, partition is the best we have left. Iraq has never been a voluntary union of its peoples. Winston Churchill, as Britain's Colonial Secretary, created Iraq from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire in 1921, installing a Sunni Arab King to rule over the Shi'ite majority and a rebellious Kurdish minority. CHURCHILL LATER DESCRIBED IRAQ'S FORCED UNITY AS ONE OF HIS BIGGEST MISTAKES. In 2003 the U.S. not only unseated the last and most brutal of Iraq's tyrants but also destroyed the institutions--notably the army and the Baath Party--that held Iraq together. The sectarian slaughter that followed the Feb. 22 bombing of the Shi'ite Golden Mosque in Samarra accelerated Iraq's disintegration. -------- So to sum this up for you - the problem in Iraq is that there is sectarian violence, motivated PRIMARILY by these starkly different religious and cultural people's being forced to constantly rub shoulders. US presence is admittedly a factor; but it is not the primary factor, and it is completely eliminated by the Soft Partition. -------- Now to discuss the remaining issues: My opponent contends that Soft Partition is immoral. He then compares it to US segregation. What he does not realize is that this is not analogous at all. The British threw a bunch of different ethnic groups (who HATE each other) together. It wasn't like the US situation at all. ===Re: Soft Partition Inevitable=== My opponent contends that my contention is abusive. He is incorrect because he could argue that the US must make efforts to prevent it, or that the US should try to mitigate its effects. OR he could possibly even just say that we should leave anyway. My advocacy is that the US should SUPPORT it; he can argue against that all he wants. One reason to support it, however, is that it is naturally going to happen, but violently; so we may as well try to facilitate it peaceably. This is why this article holds weight, and should be considered as a Neg point. ===Re: 1 Million Dead=== I gave you an expert opinion from the The Saban Center for Middle East Policy, who said that similar situations dictate that it is a reasonable estimate to fear over 1,000,000 dead. My opponent just says "There's no proof" but gives no reason to disbelieve this expert, nor why it is not a comparable situation. ===Re: Morality=== The fact that I have proven that the best method for leaving Iraq is Soft Partition, combined with the fact that NOT Soft Partitioning may lead to 1,000,000 civilian dead, means I win this point. My opponent's refutation is that the US is the problem, and leaving fixes that. However, I disproved this by showing it was not the primary problem, nor the driving force of violence in Iraq. ===Re: Cost=== My opponent admits that a soft partition is one of the fasted viable options for leaving Iraq "albeit making it go quicker". He says it will cost more, but provides no explanation for this, as the main cost factor is TIME. We decrease time, and therefore cost. So to sum this round up, my opponent has the idea that the US is the only problem in Iraq. I've disproved that. From there, his entire framework falls. I've shown how Soft Partition is the best idea, and is superior to a timetable. I answer all of his contentions. Vote Neg