DWYP 2 Round 1 Aesir vs ComradeSAL: Iraqi Stability as Affected by the War in Iraq

[Aesir]

I'll be arguing that the Iraq War has helped stabilize Iraq. (this will be a quick intro, as I want to get this debate rolling before it's judged.)

The Iraq war has helped stabilized their country and because of that a safer more secure Iraq will be in the near future.

Disregard to basic Human rights:

Before the US invaded Iraq the Iraqi people lived under a dictator who in his years had acquired a rather large list of human right abuses. the RCC approved of amputations, branding and other sleights against human rights, also in the Mid 2000's the RCC approved of tongue amputation for slander against Saddam and his Family, furthermore woman were denied even the basic human rights.


Saddams Link to Terrorist organizations:

**** Cheney back in 06 had stated. "...[T]he fact is we know that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were heavily involved with terror. They were carried as a terror-sponsoring state by our State Department for many, many years. Abu Nidal operated out of there; Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Saddam Hussein was making payments to families of suicide bombers. All of this is very well established." -(link below.)

Furthermore Iraq has been known to sponsor terrorism, many of those terrorist waging attacks on America in the early 90's most of which failed.


The campaign against Iraq was a move to drive out these Terrorist organizations and bring Stability to Iraq. Rather then let a Dictator who had decades of human rights atrocities and government sponsored terrorism. years later because of our actions Iraq has become more stable and a more active force in the war on terror.
-----
Sources
Human Rights: http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=888

Terrorist links: http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=863

 

[ComradeSAL]

The problem with your argument is that our topic is on how the Iraqi war has affected stability in Iraq, not on whether the Iraqi war has made the world a better place (also a contested topic, but a very different one). I will not disagree that two major incentives to jumping into the war were human rights issues and links to terrorism, but neither of these has much to do with the topic at hand: stability in Iraq.

From a common sense standpoint, stopping Iraq from funding terrorist organizations outside of its country may improve global stability, but not stability in Iraq. Moreover, the human rights issues, while lamentable, have nothing to do with whether Iraq is stable. Again, this is common sense. What happens to prisoners once they are imprisoned, for instance, has little to no effect on a government's ability to endure.

What, then, are good measures of country stability? For me, one immediately comes to mind: the amount of violence within the country. Violence within a country is a good measure because it reflects both the amount of unrest within the country and the potential of a violent overthrow of the current system.

So how much violence is in the country? According IraqBodyCount.org, a site that attempts to track the number of violent deaths in Iraq since the war, there have been somewhere between 86,172 to 94,032 civilian deaths from violence. For yesterday on Thursday, the site lists:

Thursday 24 July: 18 dead

DIYALA
Baquba: 8 by female suicide bomber, Awakening Council leader among those killed

BAGHDAD: 3 Awakening members in drive-by shootings, 1 body found

BABYLON
Yusufiya: 2 bodies, a civilian and a policeman

NINEWA
Mosul: policeman shot dead in front of his home, 3 bodies

These headlines do not appear to reflect a stable country.

Another measure of the amount of stability in a country are the amount of troops needed to keep the country's government from collapsing. According to this page on About.com, as of August 2007 there are a total of 154,372 foreign troops in Iraq, as well as an additional 180,000 private contractors working to support the foreign peacekeepers. This is an astonishing amount of manpower given Iraq's population and size.

The final measure of stability that I'd like to discuss in this post is the amount of deaths of these peacekeepers. Certainly, if a lot of them are dying, this represents a large amount of resistance to the current administration, and shows a lack of stability. Again, according to About.com, 4,345 U.S and allied troops have been killed in Iraq since the war, and 8,461 Iraqi troops and soldiers have been killed.

I believe these numbers speak for themselves that Iraq is no longer a stable country.

 

[Aesir]

The problem with your argument is that our topic is on how the Iraqi war has affected stability in Iraq, not on whether the Iraqi war has made the world a better place (also a contested topic, but a very different one). I will not disagree that two major incentives to jumping into the war were human rights issues and links to terrorism, but neither of these has much to do with the topic at hand: stability in Iraq.

yeah I probably misunderstood when I wrote that, I'm sure I was trying to get at Iraqi stability but switched to global stability.

What, then, are good measures of country stability? For me, one immediately comes to mind: the amount of violence within the country. Violence within a country is a good measure because it reflects both the amount of unrest within the country and the potential of a violent overthrow of the current system.

So how much violence is in the country? According IraqBodyCount.org, a site that attempts to track the number of violent deaths in Iraq since the war, there have been somewhere between 86,172 to 94,032 civilian deaths from violence. For yesterday on Thursday, the site lists:

Iraqs Political stability has been very unstable since it's first election, however this has slowly been improving. In a recent report (jun 08)

from http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Master_16_June_08_ FINAL_SIGNED .pdf

With recent improvements in security, the
current political environment in Iraq is
becoming more hospitable to compromises
across sectarian and ethnic divides. In general,
Prime Minister Maliki’s tough stand against the
Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia and the criminal
elements in Basrah, and his subsequent
operations in Baghdad and Ninewa, seem to
have generated an improved atmosphere of
political unity. However, this environment is
fragile and reversible.

Stability in Iraq is Fragile now, however if we continue to maintain our efforts to keep the peace Iraq will be on the road to being stable.

Over all stability has been proving the Washington Times had an article about this.

The updated National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus view of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other services, says "measurable" security improvements were made in war-torn Iraq since January and will expand modestly in the next 12 months with continued military pressure on insurgents.

- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/24/report-iraqi-stability-growing/

These headlines do not appear to reflect a stable country.

Because they're still trying to maintain stability.

Another measure of the amount of stability in a country are the amount of troops needed to keep the country's government from collapsing. According to this page on About.com, as of August 2007 there are a total of 154,372 foreign troops in Iraq, as well as an additional 180,000 private contractors working to support the foreign peacekeepers. This is an astonishing amount of manpower given Iraq's population and size.

They're still a developing country as of now, and their stability is very fragile. The high numbers of foreign soldiers is needed in the country, as their own military and Police become more capable the need for foreign soldiers will be less.

The final measure of stability that I'd like to discuss in this post is the amount of deaths of these peacekeepers. Certainly, if a lot of them are dying, this represents a large amount of resistance to the current administration, and shows a lack of stability. Again, according to About.com, 4,345 U.S and allied troops have been killed in Iraq since the war, and 8,461 Iraqi troops and soldiers have been killed.

Well like I've been saying they're still a developing country and many of the insurgents don't want this new government, however they're in the minority as the Iraqi people wish for the troops to leave but also want this new government to work.

 

[ComradeSAL]

The general consensus is that, yes, stability has been showing improvement recently. However, the fact remains that five years after the war "ended," Iraq is still far less stable than it was before the war. The Failed States Index of 2007, released by Foreign Policy Magazine, attempts to measure country stability by factoring in nine indicators, including economy, foreign intervention, and group grievance. Iraq is ranked as the 2nd most unstable country in the world, behind Sudan.

The report that you yourself cited says that the improvement is "modest." How many years of "modest" improvement will it take to restore Iraq to even its previous level of stability? 100? At this point we can only speculate, but Iraq is so unstable that it's hard to imagine it improving to even borderline stability any time soon.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the war is currently extremely unpopular in the United States. In a poll conducted by CNN in June 2008, only 30% of those polled currently favor the war, and 64% said that they would like to have the next president remove most of the troops within a few months of taking office. As such, it is very unlikely that America will remain committed to keeping the amount of troops necessary to ensure that Iraq's stability continues to grow.

 

[AltF4]

Aesir

A very short debate, which was unfortunate. It certainly felt like this just didn't get enough time to pan out. Anyway, you were initially a bit off topic, and only got one real post with relevant information. Even then, it felt like you were merely asserting that Iraq was stable, rather than trying to show how its stability has improved since the war in Iraq. And nearing the end of your post, you began to rationalize why Iraq is so unstable, as opposed to defending the state of its stability.

C


ComradeSAL

You were quick to recognize flaws in your opponents argument, and capitalized on that. Your use of sources was also very good. You even took the initiative to try and define 'stability' in terms of this debate, which is helpful. Overall good job.

B+

 

[Deleted member]

Overview:

Short debates are such teases.

Aesir: Your style and organization, and not just in DWYP, but in other threads, needs a fair bit of work. It's tough to read your posts visually, and your flow is a little wonky. Your points were weak for the most part. I'd try to improve on basic formatting and structure, and simply more substantial points.

My verdict: C+

ComradeSAL:

You capitalized nicely on Aesir's shortcomings and your format was much easier to read. You saved this debate from being a judging nightmare, simply because your posts were clear, light on the eyes, and with perfect syntax. Congratulations - I expect you to be a tough opponent in later rounds. My only count against you is basically the shortness of the debate, which can't really be helped if your opponent isn't responding.

My verdict: A-

 

[DoH]

Aesir: What can I say? The topicality issue plus the fact that you don't really expand upon your defenses (like when you quote your opponent and then respond with a URL that has 0 analysis) is pretty ****ing.

C-

ComradeSal: You didn't have much to work with, but the Failed States Index evidence puts the nail in the coffin. This debate topic in general is fairly one sided.

B