Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound Strategy

While I have not been shy about my disappointment, I am glad CON did not take it personally. CON has a point about the nature of this debate, how since it isn't scored, sources are not that significant, and reasoning much more so. However, sources also keep us honest, in that it forces us to find corroborating information to substantiate our arguments. CON's arguments in round #2, especially in regards to the relevancy of the Troubles to this debate, and his mischaracterization of US/Iraq trade relations, belied inaccuracies that strained credulity, and made this debate less substantive overall than it could have been. Sources would have helped to ameliorate such a problem. I will first rebut CON's latest salvo, and then conclude with a recap of my case. RebuttalR8) CON makes a very strange assertion, that "Ireland was not under martial law during the Iraq war, but neither was Japan. " CON's mistake comes in assuming that application of martial law is predicated only upon the narrow time frame of 2003-2011, the time during which the US occupied Iraq. This is simply not true. It is irrelevant that Japan was not under martial law during 2003-2011. What is relevant was that Japan was under martial law while it was occupied shortly following WWII. Similarly, Iraq SHOULD have been under martial law while it was occupied shortly following the invasion of Iraq. What about Ireland? As already stated, the British did NOT intend to occupy northern Ireland, and thus did not impose martial law on the region. Because the British did not, the IRA formed and became one of the world's most prominent terrorist organizations. This failure by the UK mirrors the botched US occupation of Iraq, and is NOT an optimal state of affairs. Had Britain been more forceful in controlling the situation in Northern Ireland, it is possible that the Troubles would not have come to existence. Whatever CON's intent may have been in his statements, the lack of clarity in CON's statements is vexing. R9) CON totally ignores my arguments, and asserts again that "You cannot ignore the fact that Japan at the time would not risk defying MacArthur for fear another act of genocide might be committed against their people," against which I ask again: "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. "Bottom line, Japan has been the envy of most of the world following WWII. Ireland has not, as evidenced by the Troubles, and is currently part of the PIIGS debacle (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) stemming from the financial meltdown of 2008. R10) CON mistakenly believes that via martial law, the US would have "established themselves as the new rulers [and] would cause outrage. "Again, looking at the Japanese example, this simply did not occur. Martial law was implemented due to the lack of a viable civilian government that could govern by itself. When that civilian government was firmly established, martial law was lifted. The US-written constitution remained. Apply this example to Iraq. Of course martial law is a transitional phase that would eventually lead to self-governance by the Iraqi people under "light supervision" by the US. It is not an overt declaration of imperialism. R11) CON asserts that "Democracy, while flawed in Iraq, still exists," as if democracy alone is some sort of universal panacea for the world's political troubles. I remind CON that Hitler was democratically elected. R12) CON asserts that "WII [sic] did not occur as a result of America's isolation, it occurred because of a rise in Facism across eastern and southern Europe," failing to take into account that the US stood idly by as fascism and communism spread across Europe before WWII. There's no reasonable explanation for why the US ignored the rise of a power in 1933 that would have not only threatened US allies, but may have eventually threatened the US itself if left unchecked. Instead of assisting its allies, the US waited until most of Europe was a smoldering ruin before engaging. As stated in round #1, I believe this was a monumental foreign policy failure by the US, similar in significance to the US failure in Iraq. R13) CON states that "Europe is independent of the US, and doesn't have to adhere to its interests," failing to realize that the US has occupying forces across most of Western Europe, to include Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Greece, among others. This is not independence - Europe is dependent upon America for its security. The US spends more on defense than the next 26 nations combined, even though the percentage of the federal budget going to military spending in the US is approaching the lowest point it has ever been since the end of WWII - this is mainly because most of the US's allies do NOT spend adequately on defense, as they depend upon America to provide it. ConclusionMy case is simple - in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound Strategy. By sending an overwhelming contingent of US forces, we would have taken full responsibility over the security of Iraq. To make this state of affairs more palatable for Iraqis, this force would have been deployed concomitant with a robust policy prioritizing cultural respect, and consisting of an active campaign involving the best and the brightest minds on Middle Eastern affairs that America had to offer. With fewer breaches of security coupled with a deep respect for the Iraqi people's customs and traditions, the probability of sectarian violence erupting in Iraq would have been greatly reduced. We would have given the country time to heal from crippling sanctions and the policies of Saddam Hussein, a mad dictator. Once fully healed, we would have returned governance back to Iraq, like we did for Japan in 1950. My plan has precedence in Macarthur's military governorship of Japan shortly following WWII. It succeeded for MacArthur because of the same reasons that would have made this plan successful - full control and responsibility over security assumed by the US, coupled with a deep cultural understanding and respect for the nation's customs and traditions. Like WWII, the US would have floated war bonds, perhaps named "9/11 bonds", that would have paid for the war in the name of national security. In order to prevent jihadist extremists from threatening the homeland again, we would take a much more forceful and create a much more sizable footprint in the Middle East, in order to more fully control the affairs of the Muslim world, and to align our interests with theirs. We would do this, like we did in Japan, to prevent that region of the world from threatening the US, directly or indirectly. It worked for Japan, it would have worked for Iraq. This self-sacrifice has a tertiary benefit in that instead of reckless and indiscriminate borrowing, war bonds would have controlled US spending, which would have curtailed our profligate ways that nearly led us to the brink of economic Armageddon in 2008. Therefore, martial law in Iraq would have been a "sound strategy - a strategy that would have been feasible, actionable, and would have forwarded US interests. " ---Here is another way to view martial law in Iraq:Think of martial law like a car jack - when a car (civil society) breaks down, you call a mechanic who brings a car jack (the military) to help him fix the car. The mechanic, on top of his or her personal skill in the matter, also needs for 1) the jack to secure the vehicle, 2) made of appropriate strength, and 3) to make sure the jack itself does not permanently damage the car. What occurred under the Bush administration failed in all three aspects:1) Iraq was anything BUT secure, akin to the vehicle slipping and sliding all over the place while being jacked up.2) the US military was dangerously overstretched during the occupation due to reluctance from the White House to utilize adequate forces, akin to using a car jack fit for a sedan on a mack truck.3) The occupying forces harmed Iraq greatly by causing widespread remorse, sectarian violence, and attracting insurgents into Iraq, akin to the car jack inflicting permanent damage onto the truck by perhaps erroneously using the fuel tank to prop up the truck. Unless the truck undergoes extensive repairs, the damage will be permanent - the fuel tank more than likely sprung some leaks and may explode at any time. Martial law would have ameliorated all of these concerns:1) Iraq would have become secure, akin to the vehicle being held stable while we repaired whatever was wrong with it.2) By bringing in a proper occupation force, the US would have been recognized as fully responsible for the security of Iraq. We would have implemented a military governorship in order to properly administer forces on the ground. This would be akin to using a car jack fit for a sedan on a sedan.3) The occupying forces would have done minimal harm to Iraq. Instead, what would have occurred is that the reconstruction efforts (which largely failed under Bush) would have succeeded, and the crippling effects that both sanctions and Saddam had on the Iraqi economy would have been ameliorated during the US occupation. Instead on focusing on the inconvenience of having to use a car jack, the owners of the car would instead be impressed that their car is now working again, and would drive it away thankful for the assistance. Thank you for reading this debate.