The Instigator
SweetBags
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
bigbass3000
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Resolved: The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition in Iraq.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,543 times Debate No: 3362
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (11)

 

SweetBags

Pro

this was the NFL's October public forum debate topic, and i feel like debating it again.
Resolved: The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition in Iraq. My partner and I affirm this resolution with the following points. Point one: Soft partition is an eventuality. Point two: Soft partition is better then staying the course. Point three: Soft partition will split up the warring factions. I will handle the first point while my partner will handle the last two.
Seeing how the resolution is about Iraq a brief history of the country would be beneficial to the debate. According to Dr. Henry Grab, a Middle East history professor at the University of Maine, The Middle East we know today was created by the French and British in 1918, after World War 1. They decided to split an oil rich region of the Ottoman Empire between them. This region was made up of the countries we now know as Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Which was previously three separate, unaffiliated regions, consisting of three different ethnic groups who had no desire to be in the same country as one another. The southern region had Shiites, the central region had Sunni, and the northern region had Kurds. The British installed a puppet government led by a Saudi Arabian Sunni monarch, starting a brutal tradition of oppression of the Shiite and Kurds by Sunni, until we ousted Saddam in 2003. Since the resolution also revolves around a soft partition, I should explain how one would work in Iraq as well. According to Senator Joseph Biden's five-point plan for Iraq, the country would be slit up by sect, as allowed in the constitution, meaning that Baghdad would have limited power. According to his plan the only things the government could do was control border defense, foreign policy and the distribution of oil revenues to the regions based on population. There are two choices for Iraq, staying the course and change. We could stay the course, and if were willing to have 150,000 troops in Iraq until the end of time we just might stabilize the country. Or we could start to solve the underlying problems. As I said before Iraq was created from three regions that wanted nothing to do with one another and was held together by brutal dictators. The separate militias are fighting to get control over Baghdad, as to gain control over the rest of the country. So when you consider how the country was made and why the militias are fighting one another, it only makes sense to soft partition the country and let the regions rule themselves.
Our first point is that Soft partition is an eventuality. The two main Islamic sects, the Sunni and Shia, are fighting each other for control of Baghdad. The fighting has gotten so bad that according New York Times correspondents Edward Wong and David Cloud, the U.S. military has had to build a wall around a neighborhood to curb the violence. It has become obvious that these two groups will not reconcile in Iraq, at least in the foreseeable future. That is why unless the government in Baghdad decides to separate the Sunni and Shia, much like a bartender separating two people fighting in a bar; the country will probably never be at peace. In fact, the Shia militias, who far outnumber the Sunni militias, may decide that they have had enough of the Sunni and decide to kill them all off. Then the Sunni will be in forced to prove the "security dilemma", which according the Brookings Institution report entitled "The Case For Soft Partition in Iraq" is quote "a phenomena in which displaced persons seek security through homogeniality" end quote. That means the Sunni would come together in a homogeneous area for security. What, you may be asking is the difference between this and a soft partition? Well in this scenario, according to the Brookings institution, millions would be killed in the process of forming this homogeneous region. And that is defiantly not in the U.S.'s interest. So, we are left with a choice, should we encourage the safe, controlled implementation of a soft partition, or should we let ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence do it for us?
Our second point is that soft partition is better than staying the course. There are two options for Iraq, staying the course, or solving the problems facing the country. Because the current situation in Iraq is that whichever group controls Baghdad, controls the country, the country will probably not be in peace for the near future. Therefore, least violent, if not easiest, way to progress in Iraq is to lessen Bagdad's power. But how, you ask, is that possible? Well, we have to give power to regions within Iraq. If we continue down the road, we are on in Iraq then the end result will be a no holds bar civil war. As long as all the power is concentrated in one place then the sects will continue to fight over it. To quote dr. grab again "the cause of the fighting in Iraq is over control of the country, splitting it up [partitioning it] will allow them to co-exist." According to a recent USA Today poll, 100% of Baghdad Shiites say that ousting Saddam was right. They are tired of Sunnis leading the entire country and oppressing them. Since only one group can be in charge, the solution is to divide the power into regional governments, that way the Sunni and Shiites will not have to fight each other over control of the entire country and can instead assume control over their own region and make laws based on their beliefs.
Our third point is that a soft partition will spit up the warring factions. Iraq today is much like a large bar fight. It seems like the Sunni and Shiite will continue fighting each other for control of Baghdad, and the country. So the problem becomes how do you stop two people fighting who do not want to stop. The only way to stop them is to separate them, and then take away what they were fighting over. If the power is taken away from Baghdad and given to separate regions, then what is there left to fight over? The entire point of a soft partition is to split up the warring factions and then let them decide things for themselves, so they do not fight each other over them. If the Sunni and
Shiites have their own regions then they will not have to fight over control of the country, because most of the power will be with the regions, because Baghdad will only have limited power.
bigbass3000

Con

Expert conclusions prove that partition fails to stop future war
Sambanis, Associate Professor of Political Science at Yale University, 2000 [Nicholas, Partition As A Solution To Ethnic War, World Politics 52, July, Project Muse]
This paper poses a serious challenge to partition theorists by providing a rigorous test of the theory with a comparison of post–civil war realities in both partitioned and nonpartitioned states. It focuses on countries that have experienced civil war; it does not consider cases of peaceful partition.8 I begin by summarizing other authors' critiques of partition theory in the next section. I then identify the main determinants of war-related partition and test the three core hypotheses of partition theory: (1) that partitions facilitate postwar democratization; (2) that they prevent war recurrence; and (3) that they significantly reduce residual low-level ethnic violence. My tests lead me to reject the most critical tenets of partition theory. I find that partitions do not help prevent recurrence of ethnic war and that they may not even be necessary to stop low-level ethnic violence. Although it may seem like a clean and easy solution, partition fares no better than other outcomes of ethnic civil war. I turn now to a summary of the debate.

Partition theory relies on unrealistic premises
Sambanis, Associate Professor of Political Science at Yale University, 2000 [Nicholas, Partition As A Solution To Ethnic War, World Politics 52, July, Project Muse]
Furthermore, even if successor states were homogeneous, the mobilization perspective of ethnic conflict would suggest that, unless partition is accompanied by regime or leadership reform, there is no guarantee that ethnic groups in successor states will not be mobilized into another war against residual minorities.19 So again the theory's claims depend critically on unrealistic premises about the ethnic composition and political institutions of successor and predecessor states.

A partition of Iraq could result in an all out state on state war – this is magnified by the fact that the US does not have the human power necessary to suppress mass violence
The Washington Post, 2006 [Merits of Partitioning Iraq or Allowing Civil War Weighed, April 30, http://www.washingtonpost.com... ]
Even carrying out a planned division of Iraq may prove more difficult than it appears, warned an officer now serving in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division, which is on its second tour there. "It's a simple, blunt approach to preventing sectarian violence," he said. "However, it won't stop all infiltrations and violence, and it may simply result in armed camps that eventually resort to all-out, partitioned state-on-state war."
Preventing major ethnic and sectarian massacres such as occurred in the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan would require huge investments of time and money, hard to come by four years into the war, warned Hammes, the counterinsurgency expert. "We will have to develop and fund some kind of displacement agency to move the families and set them up -- very manpower and civilian expertise intensive!" he said in an e-mail interview.

A partition is impossible and would have violent unintended consequences
The Washington Post, 2006 [Merits of Partitioning Iraq or Allowing Civil War Weighed, April 30, http://www.washingtonpost.com...]
Others think that dividing Iraq itself is a pipe dream because it wouldn't solve the basic problems racking the country.
"There is no way a partition would work," said Army Reserve Lt. Col. Joe Rice, who recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, expressing his personal opinion. Baghdad is a deeply mixed city, he noted: "The largest Kurdish city in Iraq? Baghdad. The largest Sunni city? Baghdad. The largest Shiite city? Yep, Baghdad." Also, he said, it would be difficult to parcel out Iraq's greatest treasure, its oil reserves, in a way that all three major groups would find acceptable.
What's more, if partition actually happened, it probably would have several unintended consequences, such as creating a hard-line, anti-American Sunni mini-state, possibly giving al-Qaeda a new haven, said Michael Quigley, a former expert on terrorism at the Defense Intelligence Agency who has served in Iraq.

Partitioning would result in either an all out civil war or an increase in hundreds of thousands of troops
Byman, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, 2007 [Daniel and Kenneth, Keeping the Lid On Iraq's Civil War, The National Interest, May, http://www.brookings.edu...]
This is why some argue that the solution to civil war is partition-as Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and John Owen IV, among others, have argued in these pages. The basic problem with pursuing any version of partition today in Iraq is that it is probably impossible to do so without either causing an all-out civil war or deploying the hundreds of thousands of American and other first-world troops whose absence has been the first-order problem preventing reconstruction from succeeding. Other than the Kurds, few Iraqis-whether political leaders, militia commanders or ordinary citizens-want their country divided. And many of those who are fleeing their homes are not merely peacefully resettling in a more ethnically homogeneous region, but are joining vicious sectarian militias like the Mahdi Army in hope of regaining their homes, or at least extracting revenge on whoever drove them out.

Partitioning would result in violence rather than a benevolent distribution of land
Byman, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, 2007 [Daniel and Kenneth, Keeping the Lid On Iraq's Civil War, The National Interest, May, http://www.brookings.edu...]
Nor is it clear that a move to partition would result in the neat division of Iraq into three smaller states, as many of its advocates seem to assume. As noted above, the Sunnis and the Shi'a are highly divided and are likely to fight amongst themselves, leading to regular war within the communities and a probable fracturing of power in areas where they predominate. Many militia leaders, particularly the Sadrists, have made clear that they intend to fight for all of the land they believe is "theirs", which seems to include considerable land that the Sunnis consider "theirs." Baghdad is one area of contention between Sunnis and Shi'a, but many other major cities are also home to multiple communities. Some of Iraq's oil also lies in areas that are not peopled exclusively by one group.

Partition would lead to massacres and ethnic cleansing
Byman, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, 2007 [Daniel and Kenneth, Keeping the Lid On Iraq's Civil War, The National Interest, May, http://www.brookings.edu...]
In the end, after years of bloodshed and ethnic cleansing, a massive civil war in Iraq may eventually create conditions for a stable partition. And the United States should be prepared for this possibility. However, a major U.S. effort to enact partition today would be likely to trigger the massacres and ethnic cleansing the United States seeks to aver

SO all in all a partition is bad and I will rebut my opponents points next post.
Debate Round No. 1
SweetBags

Pro

Firstly, thank you for accepting this debate, you seem to be a good debater, and I look forward to the upcoming rounds.

For your points: (note: I numbered these for my own convenience, and to make it easier to find my rebuttals of your points in later rounds)

1 while this may be true in soft partition cases in the past, Iraq is an unique situation, in no other historical case of soft partition is there a set of circumstances similar to Iraq's. No other soft partition took place in a country that had a large outside force occupying it that could help with the partition process (logistics of moving people and where they should be moved, among other tasks). Think of Iraq as a bar, the Sunnis and Shiites as two people fighting, and the US as the bartender. When the two people start beating each others brains out, the bartender will naturally try to separate them, so they can cool down and recover. This is exactly what a soft partition would do, it would allow the Sunnis and Shiites to go to their own region (which according to Dr. Henry Grab, is what they wanted from the beginning of Iraq's inception) so they will no longer fight.

2 according to Senator Joseph Biden's plan for soft partition, the new Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish "states" would have the majority of power, all the federal government would do is distribute oil revenues, so there would be a "regime change" that this article requires.

3 this discusses the difficulties of a soft partition, and I will admit they will be hurdles. However, right now the US is at a crossroads, stay the course, and possibly stay in Iraq for 100 years like McCain suggests, or start working on a solution, and soft partition is that solution. It will require effort and resources, but as former president John F. Kennedy said, "We choose to do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard".

4 Baghdad would have to be an independent city, as it is the nation's capital, so it cannot be affiliated with the new states. The article you cite is also from before the surge started, the surge which helped ally the Sunnis with the US, which is one of the reasons Anbar province, formerly the most violent, is now one of the safest. Therefore, it is unlikely a soft partition would create such a anti-US Sunni state.

5 as far as the risk of people joining a militia to "get back their homes", a soft partition would have to be voluntary. Forcing people to leave would create a situation this article describes. However, by keeping it voluntary, as the Biden plan says, will prevent that. the US would have to lead a housing swap program so that people know they have a home to go too wherever they choose to be relocated too, but such a system will ensure that people are compensated for their home, and that no one will be forced to leave unwillingly.

6 as I said before, the US would have to help with the logistics of a soft partition, the division of lands being one of them. As I also said before, the soft partition would be voluntary, if a family does not want to give up its lands to move to a new state, then it does not have too. One way to address the issue of cities would be to have more cities then Baghdad be unaffiliated, perhaps even having their own region.

7 So far you seem to have forgotten that for a soft partition the Iraqi government would have to agree, the resolution does say "encourage", meaning we aren't doing it without there support. Of course it would also depend on the way the soft partition is carried out, if done correctly, and with the manpower and resources necessary, such an outcome will not happen.

For these reasons and my so far unrefuted ones, i urge you to vote pro: that the US should encourage a soft partition in Iraq. Doing so will allow us to move forward in Iraq instead of the constant "staying the course", which has not improved the situation Iraq.
bigbass3000

Con

Too your 1st point you have failed to point out that there will be disputes even further than that because of the partition. The most straightforward option is to try and make the case that a soft partition of Iraq would be useless, and would accomplish nothing in the way of stopping sectarian violence or settling differences. The same issues that are unresolved now would remain unresolved, and as long as there is any semblance of an area known as Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites will fight for dominance in that land. All that all a soft partition would do would be to transform an insurgency into a war with more clearly defined boundaries.

YOur second point is about Joe Biden, but his stance is useless to what I already said. Also, it might be a good idea to point out that much of the insurgency currently occurring in Iraq is a result of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and others. Even if one believes, you should argue, that some contention between Sunnis and Shiites could be avoided by dividing their territory, that still leaves the large problem of unaffiliated terrorist organizations wreaking havoc as they see fit. This is not a problem of sectarian differences, although these organizations will surely try to use them to their advantage. It is more a problem, you should say, of the continued US presence in the country. Your advocacy needs to consistently be that the best way to take the wind out of the insurgency is for the United States to pack up and leave.

As for you 3rd point.I would link this into my 2nd point rebuttal.The only other framework argument of any real significance that needs to be made is that the resolution allows you to argue that the US is not the best actor to encourage this policy. The United Nations or some other international actor is much better suited to do any encouraging that needs to be done. An amazing stance to take with regard to this resolution is as follows. If at the end of the round, the judge is still not convinced that a soft partition is a horrible idea, and feels that it is necessary and good for Iraq, then that means that it is very important that this implementation occurs. If this is an important issue, it is essential that someone other than the United States encourages it to happen, for the simple reason that the word of the United States means next to nothing. Even if a soft partition is the best option to stop the violence and support a stable democracy, then there is no doubt that it is too important of a matter to be left to an entity such as the United States, which has very little respect in Iraq, the greater middle east, or the international community. If it is a plan encouraged and/or backed by the US, it is unlikely to receive popular support. Therefore, we should stay out of it if we want it successfully implemented.

That being said, there are myriad other attacks that can be made. First of all, separating Iraq would do away with the largest counterbalance in the region to Iran. As Iraq was created with this intent in mind, it is perhaps noteworthy that a partition of Iraq would make it less of a challenge to Iran's preeminence in the region. The problem with this point is that a democratic government of a whole and hale Iraq is likely to be in Iran's back pocket, or at least its ally. The Sunni minority was made the ruling class in Iraq for the simple reason that it was felt that they would be a more effective counterbalance to the mostly Shiite Iran than would Iraqi Shiites. Indeed, even in Iraq today it is seen that the current government has many sympathies that lie with Iran, to the point that their border control is lax, making no effort to stop Iranian arms from entering the country. That being said, it can probably be reasonably concluded that any major power that shares a border with Iran can be expected to disagree with it on enough issues that it will provide some sort of challenge to its power. Use this point if you wish, but use it cautiously.

Another point to use cautiously is one that has been mentioned several times thus far: the notion that a civil war is exactly what Iraq needs. You can approach this from any number of angles. A case could be made that civil war is inevitable, or that it is necessary in order to achieve a truly stable, consolidated state. Whatever the case may be, there is substantial literature out there from which to draw evidentiary support. It may be best for Iraq to have a civil war. But if this attack must be used, understand that it can probably only work if you have already proven that a soft partition will not work. This is because no judge in their right mind would vote for civil war over a soft partition if it seemed equally likely that either one would work. The two points, that a soft partition will not work and that a civil war will, must work in tandem, unless you can prove that a soft partition will only delay and formalize the existence of a civil war in Iraq. It might be a tactically wise decision to point out that a soft partition of Iraq would do a great deal to tarnish the image of the United States worldwide, if that is possible. The goal of the US-led coalition was to topple the reign of Saddam Hussein and install a democratic government in Iraq. To divide the country into three weakly united territories would be to acknowledge failure at the primary mission of uniting the country under a stable, democratic regime. While there is probably reason to do so, the United States might not want to be the entity to recommend a soft partition, because of the implications that such a move would have on our position in Iraq. The Bush Administration's attitude toward the country has been, if nothing else, consistent. It might not be good to sacrifice this consistency at this moment in time, when presumably so little else remains.
And while we are on the subject of democracy, it might, just maybe, be an excellent idea to consider the desires of Iraqis in this matter. For all that the US preaches about democracy, it seems to be self-evident that it should not try to strong-arm an issue, if it were already staunchly opposed by a free people. And surveys of the Iraqi public reveal that only a third of citizens support the idea of a soft partition. While there are very federalist provisions in the constitution, which was passed by a substantial majority, two-thirds of Iraqis are opposed to the idea of segregating their country along ethnic lines.
Iraq, as a March 2007 Christian Science Monitor article explains, is so complexly interconnected through marriage and custom, that it would be nearly impossible to separate the country along ethnic lines, even if it were desired by the citizens. But these close networks of kinship and sometimes even friendship link most Iraqis intrinsically to those of other sects, to the extent that only a campaign of "mass murder," as the article puts it, could change it. In order to embody the support that we have always professed for the democracy that is Iraq, and the autonomous nature of the country, the only moral action, and indeed the only non-hypocritical action, is to support the Iraqis in that which they overwhelmingly favor: keeping their country together.

I will continue on, your other points.
5.It should not be encouraged because the usrge is working
6.This would not make it possible for a soft partition
7.Encourage I already covered in my speech above.
Vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
SweetBags

Pro

I am sorry it took so long to post this; I had a chemistry test today that I had to study for.

The most "straightforward" option was to try to create a new federal government after Saddam; we have been trying that since we ousted him over 4 years ago. Its time for a new strategy that will work when US troops are not in the country. The only reason violence in Iraq has gone down during the surge is because of the huge level of troops in the country, once they leave (if a long-term solution has not been reached) the violence will likely increase again, possible higher then before.

"Same issues that are unresolved now would remain unresolved"
What issues are you talking about, oil, boundaries, what? The issue of oil distribution is a prerequisite to the soft partition. The new Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions (which I previously called states, but regions is a more accurate term) would most likely be made up of the old provinces, so the boundaries are already drawn.

"Much of the insurgency currently occurring in Iraq is a result of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda" this statement is only partially true, the insurgence is being lead by terror organizations. However, those organizations are not like Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a multi-national organization devoted to its own radical version of Islam that it believes all others must follow. Much of the insurgency on the other hand, is made up of Iraqis that feel they are being oppressed/not heard and/or marginalized. These groups are not devoted to changing the world like Al-Qaeda; they merely want some say in their government. Take the Kurdish region for example; it is one of the safest. Why? Because it is a semi autonomous region. It has its own laws (much like our states do), its police and army are Kurdish, and its people do not feel left out. By following this example and encouraging Iraq in making semi autonomous regions for Sunni's and Shiite's (a soft partition), then we will finally have a way out of Iraq.
As far as "unaffiliated" terrorist organizations (Al-Qaeda), the government does not support them, nor to people. Once a functioning army/police force is created (the current one is not yet functioning outside of Kurdistan), those organizations can be chased out of Iraq without US assistance (I know I sound a little optimistic/glossing over things here, I would go into it further, but there is a word limit).

This is an interesting (for you to bring up) point. However, it does have some rather large flaws, for instance, as part of the UN; the US would still be encouraging a soft partition. Also, as the main outside presence in Iraq, and one that would be crucial to the implementation of a soft partition if one were to occur, we should help the Iraqis find peace. We were the ones that through Iraq into ruins, and because of that we have the moral responsibility to pacify Iraq, that means we have to do everything we can to bring about peace, and that means encouraging a solution (soft partition).

"Even if a soft partition is the best option to stop the violence and support a stable democracy, then there is no doubt that it is too important of a matter to be left to an entity such as the United States," see above

"Separating Iraq would do away with the largest counterbalance in the region to Iran" I am glad you bring up Iran, you see, Iraq lead by Sunni (as has been the case since its inception until we ousted Saddam) is a counterbalance. However, because Iraq is 60% Shiite, Iraq now is more of a pawn in Iran's "back pocket". Iran has even said that it will fill the power vacuum when the US leaves. The simple fact of the matter is, a democratic Iraq is going to be in Iran's pocket (Iran's president was the first, and best received Iranian leader ever, leader from another country to visit Iraq), if we soft partition it then only the Shiite region will be, if we don't, then the entire country will.

I am not sure where you are going with your civil war point, are you saying that civil war is inevitable? If you are then I must disagree, civil war is not inevitable, nor will it "stabilize the country". As far as your point about consistency (with regard to bush's position on Iraq), its obvious that staying the course is not working, the only reason violence has fallen is due to the sheer number of forces we have there. If we continue to wait for the Iraqi government to settle its differences, then we will be in Iraq forever. During his presidency bush has "believed the same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday" (credit to Stephen Colbert), and that has gotten the US into a lot of hot water, especially with regard to foreign policy. Its time to admit that "staying the course" (as bush calls it) is not working, and that its time for a new strategy, such as soft partition.

You are correct in saying that we cannot force soft partition on the Iraqis, however (as much as I dislike using the resolution to discount an argument) the resolution is not mandating that we implement a soft partition, only that we encourage one, as in suggest that the Iraqi government look into it.

On top of that if a soft partition was implemented it would have to be voluntary, not mandatory. You cannot force someone to leave their home after all. However, for the people who no longer feel safe in their homes, or even in their neighborhoods, soft partition offers a safe way to move to an area that is more homogeneous. That is where displaced Iraqis often go. A few months ago, the Washington Post reported the story of an Iraqi family forced out of their home in Baghdad (in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood) by Shiite militants (they were Sunni), the family moved into a nearby neighborhood that was predominantly Sunni. When asked if they felt safer, they said that they were no longer scared of militants coming to their door, or feared being shot in the street. They did not move 2 miles from their old home. Iraqis seek safety among members of their own religious sect, so if they feel threatened (as many do) they can move to a safer area. If some do not feel like moving immediately, but change their minds, then they can still go to the region for their sect.

For the "too interconnected" argument, see above.

As I said before the surge is merely working because of the sheer number of forces we have in Iraq, once we begin to draw down troops the violence will likely increase again.

The US encouraging a soft partition alone would not make one possible, the Iraqi government would have to work some things out (the specific boundary, how to share the oil profits, but that will likely be based on population)

As I have said, the reason you should vote pro is encouraging the soft partition in Iraq would allow us to move forward. To admit that our previous strategy is not working and to try to do what is best for Iraq's stability. That is why you should vote pro. Thank you.
bigbass3000

Con

No, if they keep stabilizing the region within about 50 years or so it will be a better country, and hopefully Al Qauda free.
Boundaries are already done, but it will spark war for wealth of an area of land for oil.
No the violence in Iraq is caused by Al Qauda, they jump in to provoke the ethnicity to fight and so, they are the root cause.

They should not encourage it because of the surge right now.

U.N. needs to encourage not the U.S.

Why does it have to be that way, be bully Russia around, even thouigh they are bigger than us, why can't we get Iraq strong enough to control Iran. No separation.

Yes as long as it takes to get a democratic Iraq. If it takes more than 50 years, then I will reconsider.

Vote neg in my opinion to have the Iraqi's make the surge work. Which has worked.
Debate Round No. 3
SweetBags

Pro

Staying in Iraq for 50 years is hardly a desirable outcome.

Al-quada was not in Iraq until after we invaded. In addition, they are hardly the only terror group in Iraq right now; there are several Sunni and Shia ones, like the Mahdi army, which answers to the Shia cleric Mohammad Al-Soder (not spelled right). You cannot blame all of the insurgency on al-quada. I have a hard time believing they are the root cause the insurgency, if you have evidence otherwise can you please quote it. I was under the impression it was caused by sectarian conflict, Shia wanting more control of lands, Sunni feeling left out, even discriminated against. Again, if you have evidence saying otherwise please quote it.

Actually, the surge is a very good reason to encourage it now. Democratic candidates, Nader, and most of congress support drawing down the troop levels in Iraq. Without the present levels of troops, we would no longer have the capacity to help the Iraqis implement a soft partition if they so choose.

The situation between the US and Russia is not only quite a bit different then Iraq's with Iran, but we do not bully Russia around (anymore). While it is true, we did so after the soviet collapse; Russia's strengthening economy and its now stable government have allowed it to be much more insistent about its agenda then previously. Take the US missile shield, the US wants to build interceptor bases in eastern (some former soviet) nations. Russia has opposed this quite vehemently. Not only did you mistake the nature of us-Russia relations, but you also mistook Iraq Iranian relations. Iraq is recovering from an invasion and has very little in the way of influence. Iran meanwhile, is an oil producing nation (much more then Iraq) that has not had its infrastructure destroyed by an invasion or insurgency, and has a powerful military (Iraq's is barley functioning). Iraq is in no place to "bully" Iran.
What do you mean by "No separation"? Please explain.

Iraqis current government is run essentially by the Shia, which marginalizes both the Sunni and Kurds (the Shia has about 60% of the parliament). In this iteration, it will be impossible for it to become truly democratic. If federal government continues to control, everything it will continue to be, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "a tyranny by majority". The solution to this would be to take the power away from the Shia controlled national government, and to divide it along ethno-sectarian lines. That way the Shia will govern the Shia, the Sunni govern Sunni. The Kurds are a prime example of why this will make Iraq better. They have (as I have said) a Kurdish police and army (that actually functions), Kurdish government, and are more responsible for their own security then most of Iraq.

Again, the surge has only worked because of numbers, once troops are drawn down; the progress we have made will erode. We must encourage the Iraqis to soft partition their country while we are still able to assist them in implementing it; while we are still able to help them achieve a peaceful Iraq. That is why you should vote to affirm this resolution, that The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition in Iraq. Thank you.
bigbass3000

Con

Yes the Al quada somewhat true, not really, Al Quada was in Iraq before we go there. It is kind of a statement liberals make bashing Bush or Republicans. Not to say you are bad, but what is popular is not always right. Which is where I come in again, the surge will work to mitigate the war on terror and of course give Iraq a stable country. Vote neg on the fact we need to continue a policy that is working right now in the surge and it would not be wise to give it all up because of a theory. Stick with what works..
Debate Round No. 4
SweetBags

Pro

the surge is just about over, troop levels will begin to fall in july. after that then what? we will no longer be able to secure the country, violence will rise and the progress we made will erode. we have to think about what will happen with less troops in Iraq, and eventually none at all. soft partitioning the country will not only help to pacify Iraq, it will also help the Iraqis take the rains for their own protection.

"stick with what works"
as I've said, the surge is practically over, staying the course will result in even more violence and bloodshed after troop levels fall. we cannot be afraid to try a new strategy in Iraq. we have to have the courage to do what is best for Iraq in the long term, we have to encourage the soft partition of Iraq.

i urge you to vote Aff.

Thank you
bigbass3000

Con

WHat is best is for us to stay the way things are going right now, we must not encourage a soft partition because of the mere fact it is going to conflict with the surge in progress. So even if he says no, partition will harm the troops currently there even further look to my evidence. Vote NEG
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
the brookings institute advocates soft partition, cant beleive i forgot that.
http://www.brookings.edu...
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
loved this topic. my cases would need major updates, though.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aodanu16 8 years ago
aodanu16
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Creator 8 years ago
Creator
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BrokenDoors 9 years ago
BrokenDoors
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by psynthesizer 9 years ago
psynthesizer
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rnsweetswimn1 9 years ago
rnsweetswimn1
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rnsweetheart 9 years ago
rnsweetheart
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
SweetBagsbigbass3000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03