The Instigator
asian_invasion
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
muffinman
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points

The troop Surge is a viable solution to the situation in Iraq.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/14/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,040 times Debate No: 430
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (10)

 

asian_invasion

Con

Though the recent troop surge has shown that violence has been decreased within Iraq, this clearly cannot be a permanent solution for these reasons:
1) that the violence in Iraq stem from Political Issues.
2) that the Iraqi Gov't has grown to rely on the United States, and not enough effort has been made to solve problems- so why should we take their burdens for them
3) the decrease in violence will only be temporary
4) maintaining peace through a troop surge is against the values we are trying to instill within the region.
muffinman

Pro

1. It will continue working
the troop surge has increased the success in Iraq, and we have no reason to believe that it will stop doing so. Proven empiraclly, more troops means more effeciant.

2. We didn't have enough troops in the first place.
When we went into Iraq, we didn't have enough troops to begin with, and we kind of screwed ourselves over, we are now paying for that, and we now have troops to effectively patrol Iraq. I doubt we will ever achieve "complete success", but the surge has helped reduce casualties overall, and that is achieving what we need right now, something to hold off the insurgents until the Iraqi Military(IM) can do their job.

3. The IM is currently ineffective
The IM is, now, inefficiant and needs the support that the surge gives, and the ability to train the IM(Iraqi Military) to a point where it is able to work independently, the surge provides the troops to do so.

Off of my opponents:
1. even though the violence stems from Political reasons, there is no reason to try to help reduce this violence, which the surge does. The police force in the US helps prevent crime in the US and they don't really care where the violence stems from

2.Iraq has become dependant on us, but we can't look at that as a bad thing, for now once we get this straightend out, we will have an ally in the midst of turmoil and hostility. We set the country unstable, and now we have to fix it, or we will loose some of our ally's. We have an obligation to be there now, and the surge has helped us effectively fulfill this obligation.

3. As stated in my offense, we have no reason to believe that it will just stop working.

4. The troop surge is not going against our values, we are doing what is needed for the good of Iraq, Us, and the Region, which is what we are trying to do. the value we are trying to install in the region is peace, and in order for things to get better is for things to first get worse.

You now see that the surge is necessary, and effective. The surge has provided a solution for the IM not being effective, you see that we buy time for Iraq to build up a military capable of holding their own against the insurgents. You see that now matter how you look at it, the surge can only be deemed "Bad" by the amount of troops taken from the US, but that is part of war, and that is what these Men and Women signed up for.
Debate Round No. 1
asian_invasion

Con

Yes the troop surge is working right now, and may continue working IF WE HAVE TROOPS THERE. However, no citizens of American will have the patience to maintain the current troop levels for decades to come. In fact, according to a Washington Post poll, http://www.washingtonpost.com...
53% of Americans want a deadline for pull out. 67% continue to oppose troop surge. While debate for whether to keep the US in Iraq for 1 or 2 more years is heated, there is absolutely no question about extending the US's stay for a decade. This does not make the troop surge a "viable" one, for it is more of a cheap band aid on the violence instead of a solution that truly targets the problems of Iraq. The troop surge is not "viable" in the long term situation of Iraq.
Now, we can look toward the actual causes of the violence in Iraq. Yes, problems in Iraq stem from Political reasons, and because of this, a political solution should be explored. Simply, by going into the region the United States ignited centuries of hate between Shiites and Sunnis. It is this conflict that caused Britain to pull it's influence from the region decades before. This conflict has been suppressed in recent decades by Saddam's militaristic and totalitarian regime. He was one to use military to quell dissent. It would not send a good image of a supposedly democratic nation is we also were to use this tactic to quell fighting. It would go against the basis of democracy if a long term occupation by US troop surge forces were to be maintained.
Also, with the execution of Saddam Hussein, which took place on a Sunni religious holiday, but not a Shiite religious one (the Shiite holy day started the day after) this clearly shows that the predominantly Shiite government has not pursued compromising solutions between the two fighting parties. These diplomatic approaches would not only be more democratic, but pose a better solution than packing troops in because it actually TARGETS THE PROBLEM. If someone has heart problems, a doctor would first look toward possibly unblocking arteries, rather than installing a machine do the pumping for it.

Now, we can look toward this "democratic nation" in particular. You brought up the point that the IM is ineffective. Yes, this is the case, however this has been due to a lack of attention on the Iraqi government's part. Training of these forces have been very slow, and what's more is that much of the IM is actually infiltrated by militants. Targeting a solution with the Iraqi Military is much more practical than just packing US troops into every inch of Iraqi territory. You stated that it has bought Iraq time to build up a functioning military, however, the future of Iraqi police forces do not look bright due to this reliance on US troops, which you acknowledged as existing. Also, the fact that Iraqi security forces are infiltrated compromises their effectiveness further.
It is true that Iraq is our duty, however I am in no way saying that we should just cut and run from Iraq. My point is that there are much more better solutions that can be pursued other than the troop surge- and further troop surges.

To summarize the arguments I have made in second round:
1)Long term US involvement at this troop level is not possible
2)Political solutions would make for better solutions than a troop surge.
3)These political solutions have not been fully explored by the Iraqi government.
4)IM is ineffective, is infiltrated, the army build up is slow.- Due to US reliance.
5)These solutions should be targeted, and the troop surge is not viable in the light of the solutions that target the problems, instead of just trying to stop violence by brute force.
muffinman

Pro

The troop surge is justifiable on the basis of fewer casualties.
The troop surges in Iraq are not there as an "Offensive" force, but instead as a police force that will HELP stabilize the country, we as the United States are not looking for a "solution" to Iraq, what we are striving for is to set up a system that will let the Iraqi people themselves solve themselves. Advocating a pullout is advocating leaving a hostile, unstable country without support. The surge was necessary, maybe not just, or morally correct, but necessary, and we both know the only viable solution is to let the Iraqis slove themselves, the US involvment is only temparary, i am no advocating a long term commitment at this level, but instead a commitment of just those 2-4 years in which i believe we could stabalize the democracy, continue training the the IM (Insurgents are not going to take any part of US involvment, they're are to headstrong in this battle)and set them on their own track to peace.
The Voters on this are going to be:
1. They only need time, not decades, but years
2. The IM is on its way to a state at which it can acieve its own goals
3. That even with political solutions, they are no use without a military to back them, and that with a society that is so based on violence, military action is the only solution
4. Democratic Soluitions only work with governments that are in control. no matter how badly you try, a government without any power can't make decisions, we need the troops to enforce the rulings.
5.advocating a Stop to the violence through a weak government is unpractical, you must have power in order to use it..

In this Debate, you see that the surge is the only way to reach the peace, and that we dont need to sustain this for decades, only for a few more years. The IM is going to work.

In our Revolutionary War we would have lost if not through the generous help of other countries, we are those generous countries and this is Iraq's revolion, This is the only way to help the problem YOU MUST VOTE IN FAVOR
Debate Round No. 2
asian_invasion

Con

Yes, I agree with you that Iraq does need our aid. However, needing our aid is different from relying on it. You state that military action takes precedence over political action, however you failed to address that a lack of political action is what makes military action necessary. The mainly Shiite Iraqi government has not reached out sufficiently to the Sunni's, hence the Sunni's feel that they are unrepresented in the "democratic government." There have not been peace talks even occurring in Iraq, simply police forces to stop the violence. Like I mentioned, the violence stems from centuries of tension, and therefore temporarily stopping it is not going to be good for Iraq in the long run. You stated that Military solutions are the only solution and that a democratic government cannot function under violence. However, one of the key aspects of democracy is that arguments are resolved in a peaceful way, with words such as we're doing now, instead of fighting. The Iraqi government has not approached this situation with the political solution at all, and a political solution would achieve peace with much less bloodshed and also be morally correct.
You say that the IM is on its way to achieving its own goals. However, there are numerous reports that militia infiltration has caused fighting AMONG the IM. Also, about a third of the Iraqi army, 50000 troops are on leave at any given time. Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has focused attacks on SUNNI MILITIAS, and ignoring the Shiite Militias within the region. This is all according to: http://www.americanprogress.org....
Now, we see that the current Iraqi government and IM will not be ready to achieve their own goals. They are simply too divided and biased in order to run a democratic government by themselves. Therefore the troop surge, which was designed to give the Iraqis more time to get things straight, has actually not achieved that purpose for the logistical problems continue in the IM and Iraqi Governments. This is clearly not the road to a viable solution, and again, I stated before that it actually isn't morally the right path to take.
You stated that the Iraqi government is weak and not in control, however not only is this a contradiction to your statement that the Iraqi government is in control of the IM, but in a democratic nation, all "power" comes from the people. Therefore problems amongst the people should be resolved first and once these are, stability will be brought to the region. The Iraqi government has come to rely on the US military and isn't doing their part to ensure political stability, which can be easily obtained if bias is overcome and negotiations are pursued.

In summary:
1)The Iraqi government has not approached the violence with from a political standpoint.
2)In fact, they have demonstrated extreme bias in the Sunni-Shiite conflict which is detrimental to achieving peace.
3)A political solution would be more morally correct than a military solution.
4)A political solution would resolve in fewer casualties.
5)A political problem results in violence; therefore, to solve the problem, a political solution would be better.
6)These political problems have not been targeted by the Iraqi government, and they have come to rely on US troop prescense.
7)The Iraqi Military is still having the problems it has before the troop surge, and these problems are likely to continue.

therefore it can be seen that a political solution would be far more viable and sustainable than the US troop surge. A political solution would also get US Troops out of the region faster than waiting for the IM to get its act together. I reiterate that these political solutions HAVE NOT been properly pursued. Therefore, please Vote in Negation.
muffinman

Pro

muffinman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Publius_Infinitum 9 years ago
Publius_Infinitum
I find it amazing that the vote is this slanted and tend to believe that such is a prejudiced by irrational anti-war sentiments.

The troops surge is not intended as a permanent solution. It's a change in tactics to adjust from a critical failure that came as a result of the left wing denunciation of the US treatment of Iraqi prisoners and al Qaeda's use of that denunciation in its propaganda, which resulted in the US going on the defensive; where ground was cleared and left unguarded... But the major improvement the 'surge' enjoys is the current capability of the Iraqi Military, which is the being setup to maintain control once an area is cleared and are doing a great job of it. So with both US and Iraqi forces being billeted in the relevant neighborhoods, the result has been al Qaeda has been routed, due to having no where to hide and the Iraqi people beginning to feel that they are not in the middle of two sides uninterested in their well being. They've learned the Islamic Terrorists do not have their interests at heart and the US and coalition forces DO.

The accomplishments of this war effort in Iraq is near miraculous... unprecedented in human history.

The invasion of Iraq was morally justified and has resulted in precisely what was intended by it; the stabilization of the region, by preventing Iraq from being used as safe haven and to establish a US allie on the eastern flank of Iran; and the surge has and will continue to provide the Iraqis to gather the means to govern themselves as a free and democratic people.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 Publius_Infinitum 9 years ago
Publius_Infinitum
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 kgwhit 9 years ago
kgwhit
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 asian_invasion 9 years ago
asian_invasion
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 kylevd 9 years ago
kylevd
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 sarsin 9 years ago
sarsin
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 Wharrel 9 years ago
Wharrel
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 adamh 9 years ago
adamh
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 Doclotus 9 years ago
Doclotus
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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 Chickenman 9 years ago
Chickenman
asian_invasionmuffinmanTied
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