Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Iraq Forces Adv. – Impact – Iraqi Instability

Iraqi instability causes global catastrophe – spills over to the rest of the middle east
Ben-atar 6 (Doron– July 11, “Immediate withdrawal: power vacuums in gaza and Iraq” http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5488 TBC 6/26/10)

The governments of both Iraq and the Palestinian authority are weak, ineffective and corrupt. Iraq, like the Gaza strip, is caught in a turf war between armed militias. Islamist militants in both places have created a culture that glorifies ethnic-based murder. And while the focus of the insurgency in Iraq at the moment is on the outside enemy, just as the focus of the militants in Gaza was on fighting the Israeli army, the conflict between ethnicities, regions and interests in Iraq is flaring into a brutal civil war. Americans should not fantasize, as Israelis did a year ago, that once the hated enemy is gone, the crazy quilt of militias could find a peaceful way to negotiate their differences. A state of chaos If the departure of the U.S. troops is followed by Gaza-like chaos, Iraq would become a failed state in the most strategic location on earth. Unlike the Vietnam scenario, the turmoil would not remain confined to the international boundaries of Iraq. Just as Hamas terror spread to Egypt, Iraqi terrorism would destabilize societies all over the region. The misery in Gaza is purely a local humanitarian issue. A global threat But the prosperity of the entire world is threatened by anarchy in Mesopotamia. And once American troops depart, no politician would dare to send American soldiers back into the quagmire. Republicans and Democrats should eschew the popular impulse to bring our boys home. The strategic blunder of invading Iraq could turn into a global catastrophe if a fully functioning state with an effective army and absolute monopoly over the exercise of power is not secured before the departure of U.S. troops.

Iraq instability causes World War 3
Corsi 7 (Jerome R. senior staff reporter for WND Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669 TBC 6/26/10)

If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons. With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq, China may have their moment to go after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war, much as World Wars I and II began.

Iraq Forces Adv. – Impact – Iraqi Instability

Iraq instability is the scariest scenario imaginable – sparks massive nuclearization, instability, wars, and collapses heg

Mauro 7 (Ryan Jan 25 Director of Intelligence at IWIC http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=496 TBC 6/26/10)

Good news from Iraq is scarce. Over 3,000 Americans have been killed. Iraqi casualties, depending on which number you believe, are either in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. Progress has been stalled, mistakes have been made, and the purpose of the mission seems unclear. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq has never seemed more tempting. But to yield to this temptation would be a grave mistake. Leaving Iraq now will not restore order to the country. On the contrary, a premature withdrawal is likely to result in consequences disastrous not only for Iraq and the wider region, but also for the cause of combating Islamic radicalism and the health of the U.S. military. The success of democracy in Iraq threatens nearby tyrannies and empowers those fighting within them. On the other hand, withdrawal would lead to a collapse of the elected Iraqi government, and all the work done to bring democracy to Iraq would be in vain. In southern Iraq, the “Islamization” process would accelerate and sharia law would most likely be implemented, stripping away individual rights, particularly for women. As Iran would grow more powerful, the chances of a radical Shiite state being created in Iraq would also increase. Such a state would oppress its own citizens and pose a regional threat. Sectarian violence would spiral out of control, killing millions of Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiites. Many Iraqis would be forced to flee their homes as radical militias would seek to create homogenous regions. Shiite terrorist groups like Hezbollah would likely find safe haven and support. Abandoning Iraq, therefore, means watching from the sidelines while Iraqis are slaughtered and neighboring states -- including Iran -- divide the spoils. If such a scenario were to take place, Iran -- the main sponsor of terrorism and a home to numerous al-Qaeda leaders -- would grow in power and become the leader of the region. It would become easier for Iran’s government, which denies the Holocaust and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and the United States, to obtain nuclear weapons. The West would also find its options to affect Iran’s behavior increasingly limited. In response to the growth of Iran’s power, countries in the region like Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Gulf states would seek nuclear weapons (in fact, many of these states already indicate that they plan to develop nukes). Already, Iran’s leadership has expressed willingness to share its nuclear technology with other rogue states like Syria and Venezuela. This nuclear arms race could reach another key battleground in the war against radical Islam: Africa. A nuclear arms race triggered by American withdrawal may force Libya, fearing its nuclear neighbors more than American repercussions, to re-start its nuclear program. Insurgency in North Africa would likely expand, as Iran may increase support to organizations like the GIA in Algeria, furthering the civil war there. The United States would not have the will to stop the genocide in Sudan. The Sudanese government, an ally of Iran (and previously of Saddam Hussein), may find hope in America’s withdrawal and increase their brutal activities in Darfur. In Latin America, Venezuela’s nuclear cooperation with Iran would continue. The weakness of the United States would further encourage the formation of an anti-American bloc in South America, led by Cuba and Venezuela, that would ally itself with Iran, China and Russia. Asia may appear far removed from the military theater, but even there the consequences of premature withdrawal may make themselves felt. The perception of American weakness could lead to a struggle for supremacy among rival Asian powers. With China ascendant, Japan would have no option but to develop nuclear weapons. Two scenarios could then arise: China would dominate the Pacific and America’s status as a superpower would quickly recede; or there would be a region-wide nuclear stalemate involving Burma, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and possibly Taiwan and Australia. But most of all, withdrawal from Iraq may prove very damaging to the U.S. military, as it would likely lead to the collapse of morale among the troops. Senator John McCain, a former P.O.W. in Vietnam, said it best recently when he noted that “the only thing worse than a stressed military, is a broken and defeated military.” On the policy front, it would probably translate into a reluctance by the public to support a responsible military budget. The disastrous security situation in Iraq will lead to a terrorist sanctuary that the United States will in due course have to confront. Our uniformed men and women who came home the first time will have to enter again under much harsher and costlier conditions.