BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government is not in control

While a factional, corrupt government that can’t control its territory is an impediment to peace it is not the United Nations main responsibility. MONUSCO has done what it can in coordination with other United Nations agencies, donors and non-governmental organizations, providing assistance for the reform of security forces, and the re-establishment of a State based on the rule of law. It has more than 2,000 civilian staff helping to build institutions. In the years after the Lushaka agreement revenue collection doubled from 6.5% in 2001 to 13.2% of GDP in 2006 showing that the government bureaucracy is being put back on its feet even before the conflict is completely ended.[1] It also shows the government does still have control. As a result international investment has started to flow in and life is better for the large majority of Congolese, especially in the calmer western areas. [1] Harsch, Ernest, ‘Building a state for the Congolese people’, Africa Renewal, January 2008, http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/january-2008/building-state-congolese-people
Allegations of misconduct by peacekeepers

While such incidents are abhorrent and the UN has recognised “that an ugly stain is left on these heroic efforts by the appalling misconduct of a minority of peacekeepers”[1] such instances do not jeopardise the overall mission. Few minor instances should be treated as criminality not equated with a country in civil war. [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘In Africa, Annan stresses that peacekeepers must adhere to conduct standards’, UN News Centre, 30 January 2005, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13179&Cr=peacekeeping&Cr1=#.UvJbPrQUrDw
Elections have been a success

The elections process is moving ahead well. While elections cannot be said to be an unqualified success there have been two general elections, in 2006 and 2011. Local media is vibrant and competitive. And there were a large number of candidates. In the 2011 elections the observers from the African Union and other organisations welcomed “the successful holding of elections” and “the spirit of cooperation and solidarity”.[1] Moreover the whole election process is moving ahead; the country’s first ever local elections are planned for 2014.[2] This will provide the people with much more say over their daily lives. In a country with little centralised power like the DRC local elections are as important as national ones. [1] African Union et al., ‘Joint Declaration on the presidential and parliamentary elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, au.int, 30 November 2011, http://www.au.int/en/sites/default/files/Joint_Statement_-_English%5B1%5D.pdf [2] Enough Team, ‘A First for Congo: Local Elections Announced for 2014’, enough, 26 November 2013, http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/first-congo-local-elections-announced-2014
There has been disarmament and demobilisation

In a war-torn society MONUSCO helps with disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR). DDR is of crucial importance for the future stability of the DRC. They have used the latest technology and decades of UN experience with visible success. Thousands of ex-combatants have already been returned to their homes and reintegrated into the lives of their communities. By March 2011 almost 210,000 ex-combatants had been through the demobilisation process – out of an estimated total of 300-330,000.[1] And almost 32,000 of 39,000 child soldiers had been reunited with their parents.[2] [1] ‘Democratic Republic of Congo: Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) and reform of the army’, Amnesty International, 25 January 2007, http://www.refworld.org/docid/45b99e572.html [2] ‘Demobilization and Reintegration in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)’, The World Bank, 11 March 2013, http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/03/11/demobilization-and-reintegration-in-the-democratic-republic-of-congo
Saddam Hussein is gone and Iraq is now functioning as one of very few democracies in the Middle East

It's important to be clear that this debate is looking at the results of the Iraq war and, by any definition Iraq is in a much more stable and secure position than it was in 2003 when American, British and other international troops arrived in the country. Whatever one thinks of the initial justifications for the war there is no doubt that the country, the region and the world are better and safer places without Saddam Hussein[i]. It is easy to criticize the allies but it is worth bearing in mind that the alternative was leaving in power a man who had committed genocide was a vicious and brutal dictator under whose regime extra-judicial execution and detention, mass-murder and torture were commonplace[ii]. [i] Richard Miniter. “Was the Iraq War Worth It?”. Hudson New York. 2 September 2010. [ii] Interview with Donald Rumsfeld. Inside Politics. NPR. 14 February 2011.
Although there has been a huge cost in human life the alternatives may well have been worse Saddam had made quite clear his intention to hand over power to his sons

Without intervention there is little doubt that Saddam or one of his still more murderous sons would be running Iraq. Even though there were no WMDs, it seems reasonable to assume that neither Saddam nor his sons would have ignored Iran’s attempts to secure fissile material and develop a bomb. Iraq had attempted to build a nuclear reactor in the 1970’s but it was destroyed by Israel in 1981[i] and Iraq and Iran had fought a far for most of the 1980s for political dominance in the Gulf and the Shi’ite, Sunni religious divide.[ii]So we would now be watching an arms race in the Middle East between the two with Israel on a hair trigger. This wasn’t just about removing one tyrant; the regime had dynastic ambitions, and a failure to act would have created the equivalent of North Korea. However, this particular hermit kingdom would have been sitting on top of the second largest reserves of oil in the world. It would, therefore, have the capacity to create the sort of fear and chaos Kim Jong Il can only dream of. [i] BBC On This Day, ‘1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor’. [ii] Pipes, Daniel, ‘A Border Adrift: Origins of the Iraq-Iran War’, The Iraq-Iran War: Old Conflict, New Weapons, 1983
His removal provides stability and security not only for Iraq but for the Middle East as a region

The Middle East is a tinder box at the best of times. Having an unpredictable megalomaniac sitting in the middle of it was dangerous, not only for Iraqis but for other peoples in the region. Hussain was a danger to the Middle East as he had proved many times, through his invasion of Iran[i] which was followed only a couple of years later in 1990 by an invasion of Kuwait which sparked the Gulf War[ii] and his use of scud missiles on Israel which was otherwise uninvolved in the conflict.[iii] It was better to remove this threat than risk being drawn into a multi-player conflict when he next attacked a neighbor. [i] Pipes, Daniel, ‘A Border Adrift: Origins of the Iraq-Iran War’, The Iraq-Iran War: Old Conflict, New Weapons, 1983 [ii] BBC on this day, ‘1990: Iraq invades Kuwait’. [iii] CBC Digital Archives, ‘Scud vs. Patriot missiles’, 19 January 1991
The war was illegal and the removal of Saddam should have been left to the Iraqis Yet another puppet regime is not what the Middle East needs

Events from the Arab Spring have demonstrated, more graphically than anything else could have done, that Arab peoples are more than capable of dealing with their own dictators and do not need to be patronized by fading imperial powers. Imagine what the situation in Iraq would be now following a genuinely democratic uprising rather than the imposition of yet another puppet regime by the West. Since the creation of the state of Iraq as a modern state by the British in 1932, a succession of rulers, of various stripes of dictatorial ruthlessness, have been brought in to ensure that the oil wealth continues to flow to Washington, London and other foreign capitals. The allies were never interested in Iraqi freedom, this was yet another grab for oil and the results look set to be the same round of misery and tyranny for the people of Iraq.
An entire generation has been turned against the West and fundamentalist clerics have gained enormously in influence

The aftermath of the war has been to create an entire people with no reason to love the West and more than100,000 reasons to hate it as a result of an estimated 105-115000 dead.[i] The country is teetering on the brink of civil war, with the leader of the sunni block having said Iraq is heading towards a “sectarian autocracy that carries with it the threat of devastating civil war”[ii] unemployment is rife and the reputation of the ‘liberators’ lies in tatters[iii]. It is not hard to see how this combination is likely to lead to chaos in Iraq and insecurity for the West. Millions of young people with a perfectly justifiable grudge, little education, no job and a desire to do something to make things right.[iv] It is difficult to imagine a situation more likely to produce violence, terrorism and instability. [i] Iraq Body Count [ii] Loney, Jim, ‘Iraq on the brink of ‘devastating civil war’: Former PM Allawi’, National Post, 28 December 2011 [iii] Malou Innocent. “The Iraq War: Still a Massive Mistake.” Christian Science Monitor. 5 April 2010. [iv] Benmelech, Efraim et al., ‘Economic Conditions and the Quality of Suicide Terrorism’, Journal of Politics, Vol. 74, No. 1, January 2012, pp. 113-128
Saddam Hussein is gone and Iraq is now functioning as one of very few democracies in the Middle East

In the unlikely event that something resembling a democratic government survives in Iraq after the international troops leave then that would, of course, be welcome. However, some context is required to establish whether the price was worth paying. Over a trillion dollars, 4,000 American dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis, US reputation destroyed in the region to establish a puppet government whose only real chance of survival is a continued American presence in the country. The alternatives are all unpleasant – a theocratic regime allied to a nuclear Iran, a simple meltdown of the state or the emergence of a new strongman along the lines of Saddam's regime. Assuming the US can't sign up in perpetuity then one of these outcomes seems likely and those lives and resources will have been squandered for no reason whatsoever[i]. [i] Francis Fukuyama. “Iraq May Be Stable, But The War Was Still A Mistake”. Wall Street Journal. 15 August 2008.
Although there has been a huge cost in human life the alternatives may well have been worse Saddam had made quite clear his intention to hand over power to his sons

There is little evidence that the Ba’ath Party would have tolerated a handover of power to Saddam’s sons. Even in North Korea, the issue of Kim Il Sung’s succession became fraught, and hotly contested amongst the North Korean political elite.. However, the issue of who should run Iraq was and should remain a matter for the Iraqi people. The current puppet regime has little power outside Baghdad and, frankly, not that much inside, this lack of central control is as damaging as too much would be as is shown by the failure of Somalia and resulting civil war and piratical attacks.[i] In many ways the war has encouraged the world’s rogue states to pursue nuclear weapons as, in an era of ‘pre-emptive defense, they are the only surety against invasion and overthrow[ii]. Iran is continuing to persue nuclear weapons even without the threat of Iraq on its borders, instead it is worried about Israel and the United States. One more threatening state would therefore have made little difference.[iii] If the aim of the war was to insure against future threats then leaving a nation bitter and resentful, where barely a family has not lost someone to the conflict, a radicalized younger generation, emboldened militant clerics and a weak central government seems a very strange way to go about doing it. The West will almost certainly have to return to Iraq within a generation, if not a decade. [i] Blair, David, ‘Somalia: Analysis of a failed state’, The Telegraph, 18 November 2008 [ii] Francis Fukuyama. “Iraq May Be Stable, But The War Was Still A Mistake”. Wall Street Journal. 15 August 2008. [iii] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Iran nuclear issue’, 23 January 2012
His removal provides stability and security not only for Iraq but for the Middle East as a region

By empowering the Shi’a majority, the outcome of the war has provided an obvious link to Iran, an equally obvious threat to Israel and has implication for nations “from Lebanon to Pakistan.[i]” The weakness of this government represents a far greater threat to security and regional stability than any dictator, however bloodthirsty. Iraq looks set to join the other lawless regions of Asia such as the Pashtun Valley as an obvious place for terrorists and Criminals to base themselves. [i] Vali Nasr. “Regional Implications of Shi’a Revival in Iraq”. The Washington Quarterly • 27:3 pp. 7–24. The Centre for International and Strategic Studies and the Massachusetts Institute for Technology. Summer 2004.
The war was illegal and the removal of Saddam should have been left to the Iraqis Yet another puppet regime is not what the Middle East needs

The sands of Iraq are as soaked in blood as they are in oil. For once the Iraqis have actually got something out of their mineral wealth, which has otherwise served as a curse for over a century. There has been a functioning civilization around the Tigis-Euphrates Valleys for at least ten thousand years it was only with the discovery of oil and the importation of the Industrial Age that this began to function as a curse. For once their oil wealth has worked to their advantage, leading to the removal of a dictator rather than the imposition of one. As the troops step back it seems likely that Iraq has the opportunity to become that rarest of things; a Middle Eastern, oil producing state that is democratic and stable. As a result they can negotiate with oil consuming nations on an even footing.
An entire generation has been turned against the West and fundamentalist clerics have gained enormously in influence

Iraq now has a professionally trained army and police force accountable to a democratically elected government and, through them, to the people. Unusually among Arab nations the security forces should now act as upholders of the law rather than the personal armies of local and national strong men used to settle grudges and silence dissent. The torture chambers are closed and the courts are functioning. There is, of course, work still to be done in terms of creating jobs but at least those jobs will go to people on the basis of ability rather than political loyalty. Iraq still faces problems but is better equipped to deal with them than it has been in a century and more.
Even if the outcome is a stable democratic Iraq, the war was still a costly, illegal, ideologically-driven mistake

The cost of the Iraq war has been astonishing both in the lives and treasure spent and the resentment and chaos stored up for the future. Even if the result had been Switzerland on Sinai, it would still not have been worth it. There have been more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths[i].  It has been the most expensive US war other than WWII in constant 2011 dollars, costing more than $400 billion more than Vietnam,[ii]and what is left is a failed state in the making. The war was poorly conceived, recklessly enacted and devastatingly badly concluded. The secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted the war fought “on the cheap” using a much smaller force than the pentagon or independent analysts thought was necessary.[iii] With the allies now withdrawing from Iraq the world’s best hope is that the US and its allies will be sufficiently cowed by public opinion as to never try such folly again. That, perhaps, would be a benefit. [i] Iraq Body Count [ii] Daggett, Stephen, ‘Costs of Major U.S. Wars’, Congressional Research Service, 29 June 2010 [iii] Weinraub, Bernard, and Shanker, Thom, ‘A NATION AT WAR: UNDER FIRE; Rumsfeld’s Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield’, The New York Times, 1 April 2003
Truth and reconciliation are more important than retribution following violent and long term conflicts

It is important to uncover the real truth of what happened during periods of violence and/or repression. Uncertainty as to the fate of loved ones, the identity of informants or the motives for certain actions can maintain the grip of a conflict over the minds of its victims for many years[i]. The unreason and capriciousness of certain actions can undermine an individual’s identity and capacity to trust. A victory is supposed to bring rapprochement, reason and stability to a conflict zone – but it is unable to have this effect on individuals without some method of rationalising a conflict[ii]. This result can only ever be achieved with the cooperation of those responsible; the individuals who had access to relevant documents or even participated in violent acts[iii]. Without this collective revelation of grief and guilt, the families of the victims will never know the truth about their suffering, and so will not be able to mourn them with dignity. The nation must also confront its past so that those who did not commit violence themselves, but who supported violent groups or repressive regimes, even if only passively, can no longer claim, "I did not know" but must acknowledge their part too and commit themselves to building a better society. [i] National Healing and Reconciliation in Zimbabwe: Challenges and Opportunities. P 9. 2010, Pamela Machakanja. http://www.ijr.org.za/publications/pdfs/IJR%20AP%20Monograph%201%20Zimbabwe%20WEB.pdf [ii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 1, 54-58. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/index.htm [iii] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report, Volume one. pp 142-143. 1998, The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/index.htm
International and inter-governmental bodies are better able to secure justice for the victims of war crimes

The United Nations, the ICC and other international bodies have great experience and expertise in dealing with post-conflict situations, including running war crimes trials. They can draw upon the lessons to be learnt from other countries and apply them in partnership with local politicians and lawyers. The involvement of inter-governmental bodies is important because conflicts are rarely entirely domestic, often spilling over into neighbouring states, as in the Balkans, South-East Asia and West Africa. International courts can also avoid the suspicion of bias and corruption which an entirely national process can suffer. Post conflict societies are often lack a stable professional class. Access and cooperation with lawyers, clergy and academics is often necessary to ensure that a reconciliation commission can run effectively and can verify the testimony that it hears. The international community can provide skilled individuals of this type.
Reconciliation can be used to conceal political corruption and patrimony

Truth and Reconciliation commissions are a mask, behind which political bargains can be made that allow the guilty to go free[i]. Power is traded in return for amnesty. People may be required to confess to their crimes (although in South Africa middle-ranking bureaucrats were the main scapegoats, while their political masters mostly escaped close scrutiny), but they will not be punished for them[ii]. South Africa is a unique exception to the rule that reconciliation commissions do nothing more than legitimatise dealings between equally dubious and unaccountable elites where violence was often committed by agents of the state for purely political reasons, and where the end of repression was negotiated rather than brought about through victory for one side. Elsewhere political and criminal or economic violence are hard to separate (e.g. Sierra Leone, Cambodia), and violence was ended by victory for one party, often with external help (e.g. Sierra Leone, Cambodia, again, but also Rwanda). [i] “’I cannot betray Kony’ – Museveni”, The Daily Monitor, 16 August 2006, http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/165/29608.html [ii] Apartheid did not die. 1998, John Pilger, johnpilger.com. http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/apartheid-did-not-die
The South African reconciliation commission has proven itself to be ineffective

Frequently cited as the most successful post conflict restorative justice programme in recent history, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process has failed in a number of ways. Polls show that different races are more polarised after its work, rather than less[i], so reconciliation seems to be failing[ii]. As the journalist Peter Storey comments, “some have decried the absence of repentance in many amnesty applications [made to the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission]. Apart from the fact that this is a further damning judgment on perpetrators, the legislation does not require repentance, only the truth.” Storey notes that “The issue of amnesty has been… controversial. Some victims’ families challenged these provisions in South Africa’s highest court[s].”[iii] The South African Reconciliation Commission also promised financial redress for victims and their families, but this has largely failed to appear. [i] Ubu and the Truth Commission. Director’s note. 2007, Jane Taylor, University of Cape Town press [ii] “Antonette’s story”, BBC News Online, 29 October 1998. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/10/98/truth_and_reconciliation/203132.stm [iii] “A Different Kind of Justice: Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa”, The Christian Century, 10 September 1997. http://gbgm-umc.org/NWO/99ja/different.html
The reconciliation process provides access to justice in post conflict states

Terrible crimes deserve appropriate punishments. Ignoring the past may not be a good idea, but war criminals (especially the leaders of violent groups) should be brought to justice in public trials. This approach is the only way to ensure that dangerous men are not allowed to continue to act in and influence vulnerable societies.  Such individuals are often opportunistic, using periods of peace to re-arm and refresh political sympathies, before resuming campaigns of violence. Indeed, the notorious Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony took advantage of peace negotiations initiated in early 2008 to rearm his followers and to forcibly recruit child soldiers for communities in south Sudan and Congo[i]. Adversarial justice also allows punishment to be proportionate, distinguishing between individuals who planned violence and repression, and those who followed their orders, rather than granting all the same amnesty. Most importantly, treating communal and political violence as a crime sends a message to other would-be warlords and dictators, both at home and abroad, that justice will not be denied; the easy assumption of amnesties will only encourage future violence. [i] “Lord’s Resistance Army uses truce to rearm and spread fear in Uganda”, The Times, 16 December 2008. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/207/39842.html