Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound Strategy

Although my opponent was given 10,000 characters to state a case, he has used far less than that, which is unfortunate. Many of CON's statements are extremely weak arguments substantiated by nothing other than his opinion. He uses NO SOURCES, which is almost insulting to both his opponent and the reader, and misstates widely known facts.Finally, most of CON's statements seek to question the justification of the invasion, even though the rules of this debate are explicitly clear that both parties are to assume that the invasion has already occurred, and is not debatable.RebuttalR1) CON states that "it matters little if cultural sensitivity was the priority," even though as already noted, this obviously worked for MacArthur in Japan. CON does not bring any evidence to counter my arguments. Instead, he brings up Ireland, and how the IRA resulted from English treatment during "the Troubles". My rebuttal to this is simple - the English did not rule Ireland under martial law during this time. Maybe had they done so, they may have achieved better results and would have prevented a terrorist organization from forming. As it stands, CON's point is totally irrelevant to the resolution, akin to bringing up the Civil War in a discussion about global warming. R2) My use of MacArthur's example stands untouched by my opponent. CON cites that "all he had to do was nuke Japan twice and then offer to recognize the Emperor," even though the nukes occurred during wartime, and this debate is about the occupation AFTER wartime. The US also firebombed Japan, killing millions of civilians, and the architect of this campaign, Gen. Curtis LeMay, said himself that "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal..."[5] the point being that Japan suffered far more than the Irish in the conflict preceding the occupation, and had much more reason to be angry with the Americans, yet the Japanese were much more pliable to American persuasion following an exceptionally brutal bombing campaign that included nuclear weapons. I'm not sure what CON's argument is. Does extreme brutality make a populace much more pliable? Is CON lamenting that the Irish were not brutally culled before the English occupied their island? I contend that brutality does not make a populace more pliable, that what made the Japanese much more pliable to US demands was the fact that the US treated their culture and society with a healthy amount of respect during the occupation, and went to great lengths to secure the country. If anything, CON's example of the English in Ireland, in the haphazard and uneven approach the English applied to Ireland, much more resembles what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz advocated in Iraq, and that CON is actually strengthening PRO's case by offering yet another valid example of how lack of control by the occupying power leads to resentment and disdain from the occupied.Finally, Ireland suffered less than 5% of the casualties over the course of 30+ years than what Iraq suffered in less than 10 years, and what Japan suffered in one brutal year of bombing - Ireland's body count from "the Troubles" is under 5,000, [6] whereas Iraq's is well over 100,000, [7] and "between 80,000 and 130,000 Japanese civilians were killed" in just one day of firebombing. [8] I do not understand how CON can find any valid comparison between Ireland and the latter two events. He is comparing mountains to molehills, and somehow expecting his argument to carry any weight. His arguments trivialize the matter at hand, and are IMHO insulting.R3) CON asks a lot of questions about the war bonds. They are simply loans to the American populace, an expectation of sacrifice by the people in order to pay for this distant campaign. War bonds were floated during WWII and had a 10 year maturity. [9]In regards to "profit", this is war. War is about destruction and sacrifice. The government would have paid off these obligations from the federal budget - the government was running surpluses shortly before 9/11, so this would not have been a concern. Had the war costed over $100 bln/year for the first few years during the costliest portion of a proper occupation, that would have been around 10% of federal revenues during those years. The costs including interest would have been relatively small in comparison to existing federal outlays and to the American economy at large. [10] This is the price America pays for securing the homeland after a devastating and brutal assault - 9/11 - it is called "self-sacrifice" for the good of the nation.R4) CON mentions that "On the issue of forwarding US interests, remember that you will anger people in Iraq by flat out invading, it will cost money and will also make America seem cruel and unfavorable on a global scale."Again, as stated in round #1 and therefore as a parameter of this debate, this debate is not about the invasion. As already stated, we are assuming the invasion of Iraq has already occurred. This debate is about how to handle the occupation. CON is not debating the resolution at this point, but whatever he fancies to be his views and opinions about the Iraq war in general. His statements are unfortunately irrelevant to the matter at hand.Regardless, we toppled a brutal dictator through the invasion. American "cruelty" would have been much less so under the plan I laid out han what had actually occurred due to the Bush administration's policies. Martial law would have been much more humanitarian and much more palatable to the Iraqi populace. Nothing CON notes challenges this scenario nor any aspect of my case.R5) CON asks "Why would occupying a former trading partner help protect you any better from terrorists?" as if we were trading with Iraq while they were under sanctions. This is a non-starter...CON is not citing well-known facts but is instead fabricating a wholly inaccurate historical record to suit his opinion. We were not trading with Iraq prior to the war.Also, CON's argument here questions the justification for the invasion of Iraq. For the fourth time, we are assuming the invasion of Iraq has already occurred.R6) CON's solution is "Simple. Just leave." This is problematic given that the invasion had already occurred. AFTER THE INVASION, had America just left, we would have created a gigantic power vacuum that Iran, Iraq's closest and most belligerent neighbor, would have filled. CON's solution would have strengthened the enemies of the US. CON's alternative does not forward US interests.R7) CON mentions that "If America wants to remain safe, then they should play defensive, [for example] the way it funded Europe post WW1 to help them avoid resorting to Communism."The rebuttal to this is simple - what occurred after WWI was a monumental failure by the US to engage with the world properly...American isolationism and "defensive" actions led to WWII.This is not a proper alternative. America MUST engage with the world in order to gain the respect of the world and to make it more attuned and more willing to adhere to US interests.ConclusionCON is not arguing the resolution. A parameter for accepting this debate was to accept that this debate is not about the invasion, and that it is assumed that the invasion has already occurred. CON does not challenge the details of my strategy. CON does not refute that cultural sensitivity, combined with adequate security would have led to a much more pliable populace. CON does not challenge that this policy could have been paid for through war bonds. CON does not challenge my case in any substantial manner.I challenge CON in the final round of argumentation that he actually forward a substantial case.[5] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[6] http://cain.ulst.ac.uk...[7] http://www.iraqbodycount.org...[8] http://www.history.com...[9] http://www.u-s-history.com...[10] http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...