BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Coalition withdrawal is more likely to damage Iraq than help it

"Why they should stay". Economist.com. Sep 13th 2007 - "The strong case is that if America leaves, things will get even worse. This can only be a guess, but it is more plausible than the alternative guess that America's going will nudge Iraq in the right direction. In the past two years, violence has tended to decline where American troops are present and to rise in the places they leave."
"Success" in Iraq is impossible so withdrawal should come sooner than later

While failure in Iraq is unlikely to arise, it is also unlikely that the US will "win" or that any measure of "success" will ever arise. This is encapsulated by Gen. David Petraeus's observation that "there is no light at the end of the tunnel that we're seeing."[3] This was precisely the situation that arose in Vietnam, in which a war was prolonged that would see neither victory nor defeat. It simply went on and on with no real purpose until the United States was tired and exhausted. The US must realize that it has entered a no-win situation that will simply drain it of its resources and for no clear or achievable goals, and that withdrawing sooner than later is simply the lesser of two evils.
It is wrong to believe that we need to fight terrorists in Iraq to prevent them from coming to the US.

Some proponents of the war argue that it is necessary to fight terrorists in Iraq so that they don't come across the Atlantic to the United States. This is wrong on many levels. First, very few terrorists in Iraq have the resources to get to the United States to attack. Second, our Homeland Security apparatus is designed to prevent this from happening. Third, terrorists are already trying to enter the United States to wage war there, but are failing. Fourth, the presence of the United States can only inflame the desire of terrorists to come to the United States to wage war.
Withdrawing coalition troops from Iraq would increase the likelihood of a civil war between Kurds and Arabs.

Neither Sunnis nor Shiites have forgotten that the Kurds supported Iran in its war against Iraq in the early 1980s. Arab animosity toward the Kurds has been worsened by Kurdish demands for autonomy and control over the oil wealth of Northern Iraq. If the US withdrew, there is a good chance that the Kurds would seek to stake these claims. Without coalition forces acting as arbiter, Arab Iraqis and the central government may respond with force, inciting a Kurdish-Arab civil war.
Withdrawing from Iraq may embolden terrorists, but the war itself emboldens them

Critics of a withdrawal often argue that it would embolden terrorists. While this may be true, this completely ignores the fact that the war itself emboldened terrorists more than anything else. It continues to embolden them with a cause. While withdrawing may be a "success" for terrorists, and embolden them in this way, it will take away their cause of "expelling the crusader", which is the foundation of their support across the Muslim world.
While publics do want the US to leave, they also express a desire to see a stable Iraq.

Citizens expect their government to provide strong leadership, taking difficult decisions and staying the course even in adversity. This explains why the leaders of the USA, UK and Australia have all been returned in elections since 2003. Many of those now calling for the troops to be pulled out supported the war and the aim of securing a free and democratic Iraq, and have now changed their tune for unprincipled, opportunist reasons. We can assure our citizens that our troops will not remain in Iraq a day longer than is necessary. Over the next year we should be able to gradually reduce our forces there as Iraq's own police and army assume more responsibility for security. But the situation on the ground remains unpredictable and it would be wrong to issue a timetable and stick blindly to it.
An early withdrawal from Iraq would embolden terrorists

Withdrawing from Iraq would concede a major victory to terrorists around the world that would be used as evidence of the "success" of a global Jihadi movement and would be used to advance the continuation of the war on broader fronts and theaters around the world, particularly in inspiring recruits to join the fight. Instead of running, we have to confront and overcome the terrorists in Iraq, sending a message that we are determined, and are prepared to persevere in the face of hardship for a noble cause. This will demoralize terrorists, and cause them to retreat and give up.
The coalition can succeed in Iraq with more fine tunings of its strategy

The troop surge is certainly an encouraging sign. But, its success must also be placed in the context of a broader adjustment in strategy that complimented the increase in troops. This has included more "forward bases" in which US troops are placed among Iraqis and Iraqi Security Forces, increasing interaction, trust, and training. It has also included the realization that much of Iraq's insurgents fight for economic reasons. Paying Iraqis to join Iraqi Security forces, therefore, is something that has been initiated to a much greater extent in Iraq in 2007 and 2008, with signs of success. These kinds of strategic adjustments and fine-tunings are taking place constantly, and make "success" a real possibility.
The US has to make the best of Iraq irrespective of faulty justifications going in.

While the justifications can be debated until the cows come home, the reality in Iraq and the US presence there must be addressed at face value. Actions now must be based on considerations of the best interests of the United States, Iraq, the region, and the world at large. Any withdrawal that is based purely on the legal justifications going into the war would turn a blind eye to the present moral considerations, and would thus be amoral and possibly immoral.
Many Iraqis support the continued presence of US forces

Sheikh Mahmood Ejemi, head of the Ejmani tribe in Hiyt, believes the improved security could quickly unravel without sufficient US support. - "I advise the Americans to withdraw only when Iraqis can secure and achieve security and have a strong and capable military force to protect the borders and the populace. We need to have a national government that protects Iraqis, not works to isolate and kill them, like it is doing now. We need US support in fighting sectarian militias and al-Qaeda."[22]
Iraqi nationalism will prevent Iranian influence after US withdrawal

Nir Rosen. "The case for cutting and running". Atlantic Monthly. 2005 - "Would Iran effectively take over Iraq? [...] No. Iraqis are fiercely nationalist—even the country's Shiites resent Iranian meddling. (It is true that some Iraqi Shiites view Iran as an ally, because many of their leaders found safe haven there when exiled by Saddam—but thousands of other Iraqi Shiites experienced years of misery as prisoners of war in Iran.) Even in southeastern towns near the border I encountered only hostility toward Iran."
Genocide won't occur in Iraq, where factions are evenly armed

Barry Posen. "The risks of staying vs. leaving Iraq". Boston Globe. April 19th, 2007 - "Genocide. The humanitarian consequences of this intensified fighting could be grave. But genocide happens against unarmed populations; all groups in Iraq are heavily armed. Still, the violent ejection of minorities from particular areas is likely. Instead of convincing minorities to stay in neighborhoods where they are vulnerable to murder by local majorities, the United States can help people resettle in parts of Iraq that are safer."
The war in Iraq is a central front in the war on Islamic fundamentalism

Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest threat facing the United States, coalition countries, the West, and democracies around the world. It is nearly equivalent in stature to the threat communism posed in the Cold War. And it is the root cause of Jihadi terrorism. Iraq has become the central front in the fight between Islamic fundamentalism and Western democratic principles. If coalition forces withdraw and Iraq is lost, a major battle in the war against Islamic fundamentalism will be lost. This cannot be allowed to happen. This is the view of former Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who wrote on January 18, 2007, "The war in Iraq is part of another war that cuts across the Shiite-Sunni issue: the assault on the international order conducted by radical groups in both Islamic sects."[5]
An early withdrawal from Iraq would result in a Shiite genocide of Sunnis.

The animosities between Sunnies and Shiites are very high in Iraq, resulting in heavy sectarian fighting that some have called Civil War. And, yet, there are many more Shiites than there are Sunnies in Iraq. Shiites constitute roughly 60% of Iraq's population, with Sunnies representing roughly 15 to 20%. This creates the potential that, in the event that the United States withdrawals early from Iraq, that Shiites will viciously attack and overwhelm the Sunni population, in what could become known as a genocide. Adding to this threat is the fact that the United States has been arming predominantly Shiite militias and police forces as a result of the reality that the insurgency and Al Qaeda are predominantly Sunni.
You cannot ignore the problems involved in the War in Iraq and hope they will go away.

Am example of this was Neville Chamberline in WW2. He came back from Berlin, after talking to Hitler, and said he had secured "Peace of are time." The next few days go by and Hitler invades the rest of Czechloslovakia. Then he goes and invades Poland, and WW2 happened. You cannot ignore a problem and hope it will go away! The United States needs to stay focused on the problem in Iraq (Islamic Fundamentalism), as it is central to both its Middle East strategy and the war on terror. It needs to confront the problem now, succeed now, and not delay success into the future where it will come at a greater cost.
The domino theory relies on a highly questionable notion of Iraq turning Islamist.

The domino theory depends on the premise that, if the US withdraws, Iraq will turn into an Islamist country, which will then cause other countries to become increasingly Islamist. But, it is a highly questionable notion that Iraq would turn into an Islamist country after a US withdrawal. This depends on Iraq first turning into a failed state and its democratic government crumbling, which is questionable, and then Islamism becoming the dominant political force in the country such that it would influence other countries to adopt Islamism, which are also both highly questionable premises.
If the US withdraws from Iraq, it will become an Islamist base for Al Qaeda

Mortimer B. Zuckerman. "Seeing the Job Through". U.S. News and World Report. December, 4th, 2005 - "The consequences of leaving Iraq prematurely could be a radical Islamic regime funded with oil revenues, an unfettered platform for terrorist attacks, destabilizing the Middle East and threatening America itself. Know the enemy. Zarqawi has a long history of terrorist activities. He organized the assassination of Lawrence Foley, a U.S. Agency for International Development official, in Amman in 2002, he planned terrorist attacks in Germany a year later, and he plotted last year to attack Jordan's intelligence service and prime minister's office, as well as the U.S. and Israeli embassies there. Three al Qaeda operators crossed from Iraq into Jordan, smuggling seven Katyusha missiles in the underbelly of an aging Mercedes with a hidden second gas tank. Moreover, Jordanians discovered a warehouse of chemical substances and 20 tons of explosives. The 71 types of chemical substances included nerve gas and substances that cause third-degree burns and asphyxiation. Ultimately, the terrorists were diverted, but this is the kind of mayhem we can expect if al Qaeda is permitted to establish paramountcy in Iraq. This year, of course, it was Zarqawi who masterminded the suicide attacks on the three tourist hotels in Amman in which dozens died."
We should trust that democracy will appeal to Muslims no matter what happens in Iraq.

To argue that the success of democracy in the Middle East and in the Muslim world depends on the results of the Iraq War, is to argue that democracy does not have its own inherent appeal. Democracy is, rather, the inherently best form of governance in the world. We must trust, therefore, that the Middle East and Muslims will come to adopt it for this reason, and irrespective of what happens in Iraq.
The Iraq War has benefited Iran by eliminating its Iraqi adversaries

Historically, Iraq has been Iran's primary adversary, with the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) being the primary, bloody, expression of that adversarial relationship. By invading Iraq, the United States eliminated one of Iran's key adversaries in the region. This makes it odd that supporters of the war are now arguing that the United States should not withdraw from Iraq because this would benefit Iran. It's odd that supporters of the war initially ignored how the invasion would benefit Iran and now emphasize how withdrawing would benefit Iran. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Withdrawing from Iraq despite risks of genocide would further desensitize world

Ron Rosenbaum. "Getting Comfy With Genocide. Is the word losing its power to shock us into action?". Slate. Aug. 1, 2007 - "One has to admire the honesty of Barack Obama, who argued in the recent Democratic YouTube debate that even if rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq might lead to genocide, he'd favor going ahead and getting the troops out. He wasn't saying he was happy about the possibility—he was just expressing the view that the word genocide shouldn't freeze all discourse: He wouldn't let it be a deal-breaker.
The US has obligations to the world that must be considered over obligations to just Iraqis.

Iraq cannot be taken in a moral vacuum. The US does not simply have an obligation to Iraqis. It has an obligation to international security as well. The War in Iraq has damaged the United States' ability to uphold its obligations to maintaining international security. Not only has it been a drain on resources and a distraction from US international obligations, but it may even actually damage international security, subsequently damaging the US obligation to upholding international security. Any obligation to the Iraqis cannot be detached from these other obligations. By better enabling the US to live up to its global responsibilities, withdrawing would uphold the principle of "the greater good for the greater number".
Withdrawing from Iraq would undermine democracies in region

Ardalan Hardi. "Leaving Iraq, a Catastrophe to U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East". KurdNet. June 4th, 2007 - "Those who advocate a quick withdrawal without offering a realistic solution to the crises seem to over look the consequences of the future U.S. national interest and the possibilities of an all-out regional war with a domino affect that will eventually draw us back into a larger war with no credibility.
Companies that out-source cheaper labor aren't investing enough in innovation

Thea Lee and Ralph Nader, The case against free trade; Happily never NAFTER, there's not such thing as free trade. Earth Island Press, 1993 ISBN 156431694. Chapter 5, pp. 71. - "As for efficiency, it is not much to get excited about when the savings come from cheap labor rather than better technology or easier access to resources. In fact, as firms shift production to Mexico, lured by wages of $1 or $2 an hour, they lose some incentive to invest in cutting-edge techniques that improve productivity. For years, U.S. firms have been setting up "maquiladora" factories just over the Mexican border, and NAFTA would simply speed the trend."
It is managed trade, not free that is the problem

Some criticize the results of some modern attempts at free trade, such as NAFTA. But, others contend that such examples may not be a fair example of "fair trade" as it would be ideally constructed, but rather of a highly managed form of trade. Therefore, the failures of managed free trade up to this point should not be used too sharply as a condemnation of the potential of real "free trade" in the future.
Free markets and trade benefit the environment

“Is Globalization Causing A 'Race To The Bottom' In Environmental Standards?” - "A 1998 World Bank study of organic water pollution found that pollution intensity fell by 90 per cent as per capita income rose from $500 to $20,000, with the fastest decline occurring before the country reached middle income status (Figure 6. Hettige, Mani and Wheeler, 1998). Average air quality in China has stabilized or improved since the mid-1980s in monitored cities, especially large ones - the same period during which China has experienced both rapid economic growth and increased openness to trade and investment."
Free trade can benefit the hostile interests of some countries

Patrick J. Buchanan. "Free Trade is Not Free, Mr. President". The American Cause. May, 2001 - "A third cost of free trade is the corruption of conservatism and the mass conversion of American capitalists into the pimps of hostile powers. Since 1990, China has amassed $400 billion in trade surpluses with the U.S. That cash hoard has financed the largest military buildup in Asia since Japan in the ‘30s. Beijing had used it to buy Russian destroyers, subs and Sunburn anti-ship missiles and Lavi fighters and Python air-to-air missiles from Israel. What is this Chinese arsenal for? To fight and kill the U.S. Pacific fleet."
The alternative to free trade is a faulty protectionism model

Laurence M. Vance. "The Moral Case for Free Trade". LewRockwell.com. February 4, 2004 - "The alternative to free trade is protectionism, whether in the form of tariffs or import quotas. Besides making imported goods more expensive, tariffs merely give the government additional revenue. But why should the state be entitled to more money? Doesn’t the state already spend over $2 trillion a year? To question the legitimacy of free trade while at the same time saying that protectionist measures are not the answer is to attempt a middle-of-the-road position, which, as Mises showed, leads to socialism."
Free trade and openness correlate to higher wealth generation

Marian L. Tupy. "Free Trade Benefits All". Washington Times, January 3, 2006 - "Evidence supports the idea nations more open to trade tend to be richer than those that are less open. Columbia University economist Arvind Panagariya wrote in a paper 'Miracles and Debacles: Do Free-Trade Skeptics Have a Case?': 'On the poverty front, there is overwhelming evidence that trade openness is a more trustworthy friend of the poor than protectionism. Few countries have grown rapidly without a simultaneous rapid expansion of trade. In turn, rapid growth has almost always led to reduction in poverty."
The main goal of free trade is to maximize profits not welfare.

There are two ways to maximize profit, either to increase sales or to cut costs. The easier one to do is cut costs because increased sales is ultimately dictated by the laws of supply and demand. The biggest cost to most multinationals and large corporations is salary pay or wages, so to cut that cost jobs are sent overseas to developing countries where real wages are much lower and the price of doing business is adequately cheaper. In turn that deteriorates the number of existing jobs domestically.
Agricultural protectionism causes overuse and degradation of land

"The argument for free trade". BBC. February 12, 2003 - "Thus, the European Common Agriculture Policy results in overproduction of many goods, lowering the amount that developing country producers of these goods receive. The fact that such subsidies also encourage overuse of marginal land, drainage of wetlands, destruction of hedges and overuse of pesticides and fertilisers, makes them doubly heinous."
African tariffs and protectionism have been economically harmful

Marian L. Tupy. "Free Trade Benefits All". Washington Times, January 3, 2006 - "Under the World Trade Organization's "special and differential treatment" rule, many sub-Saharan African countries have been permitted to retain significantly higher import tariffs than rich countries. Combined with "preferential treatment" of their goods in rich countries' markets, sub-Saharan African producers enjoy a substantial advantage over other foreign competitors.
Protectionism is a poor way to promote infant industries

Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works?. Yale University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-300-10777-3. pp 88. - "protection is an indirect an ineffective policy for promoting infants. Apart from the cost it imposes on consumers, it has two other seriously negative side-effects:first, it limits the new industry to the domestic market, since protection, by definition, raises returns only on domestic sales; and, second, it provides protection from the world's most potent competitors. The first limitation may not matter much for countries with relatively big and rapidly growing domestic markets (such as the United States in the nineteenth century), but it is significant for most developing countries, which have tiny markets: Nigeria's dollar purchasing power in 2000 was less than a tenth of London's. The second limitation means that, protected from effective competition, the infants almost always fail to grow up."
Trade liberalization is fueling global warming

Les Leopold.” Globalization Is Fueling Global Warming”AlterNet.December 28, 2007 ”Global free trade proponents skillfully argue for comparative advantage, opening up markets, and economies of scale. They point to the communications marvels that have flattened and shrunken the world, putting us all in contact and in competition with each other for the best ideas and products. Global warming, however, puts a kink in this new global utopia because it demands that we also include the costs of externalities -- the carbon dioxide emitted from shipping and flying goods all over the globe -- goods that could easily be produced much closer to the point of consumption.It may be marvelous to text message your colleague in Bangalore, but from a CO2 perspective, it's folly to fly fresh raspberries from Chile to California. And under current trade policies, we will import the next wave of high-efficiency light bulbs to save energy while wasting some of the gain on the carbon used to transport them here from around the globe.But the elephant in the room is hyper-development. Expanded trade indeed has contributed to the enormous economic growth rates in China (and India). As a result, China's appetite for fuel and power has grown exponentially: As The New York Times reported (June 11, 2006), every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant comes online in China large enough to serve a major U.S. city.”
Infant industries should be protected from free trade

Melitz, Marc J, “When and How Should Infant Industries Be Protected?”Department of Economics,The University of Michigan October 11, 1999 "First formulated by Alexander Hamilton and Friedrich List at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, the case for infant industry protection has been generally accepted by economists over the last two centuries. Although some of the arguments supporting protection have come under successful attacks over the years, most economists would nonetheless agree to a list of specific circumstances that would warrant the temporary and limited protection of an infant industry. In his famous statement supporting the case for infant industry protection, John Stuart Mill alluded to one of the main circumstances on this list: the presence of dynamic learning effects that are external to firms.1 Mill recognized that certain additional conditions must also be met in order to justify protection. He specifically mentioned that protection must be temporary and that the infant industry must then mature and become viable without protection."