By Michael Garson
To provide a description of why understanding Iraq is important in extemp would be highly unnecessary. Yet, the issue is so massively popular that it has oversaturated the intellectual market. Since Iraq is the international topic that is the most significant to average American’s lives, there has been a call to simplify the issue such that it is easily digestible. While Katie Couric and the Associated Press admirably cater to the needs of John Smith and Jane Doe, they fall short in providing “extemp-worthy” analysis. Hopefully, this brief will supply a crash course in the necessary facts and logical links of Iraq. I will not pretend to have the answers on how to fix Iraq, or if it even needs fixing. This brief is filled with sufficient information to allow the critical thinker to draw his/her own conclusions to understand the ramifications of America and the world’s actions, past, present, and future.
Iraq’s Significance
This brief began by underscoring how obvious Iraq’s importance is. Yet, too many speeches on Iraq lack a statement of significance or a tie-in to the United States. Most IX/FX questions on Iraq do not focus on the United States. Therefore, it is crucial to clearly point out how Iraq and the United States are inexorably linked. Without further ado, here are just a few of the ways that Iraq’s structure, successes, and failures affect America.
Oil
o Iraq’s oil could serve to bolster the American economy
o More oil entering the global market keeps the United States and its allies from relying on unsavory characters for its oil supply
o The more oil that is on the market, the less power that Iran has and the weaker its “oil shield” becomes
Democracy
o A democratic Iraq could serve as a beacon of hope for Arabs living under oppressive rule and be a catalyst for change and revolution
o A democratic Iraq would legitimize neoconservative thought that maintains that humans are inherently drawn to liberty
o Allowing multiple cultures to co-exist under the same banner would be a model for inter-cultural relations that would transcend past political and social history
Government
o A Sunni leader could continue the past precedent of a minority group controlling the majority
§ Leaving Iran as the only Shi’ia-controlled country would weaken Iran, but also put more pressure on Ahmadinejad, resulting in instability
o A strong Shi’ia President who aligned with Iran would recreate an Axis of Evil far stronger than the one Bush railed against a few years ago
§ Iran and Iraq could cause a rise of Shi’ias that would pressure the rest of Middle East and greatly alter the current power balance
The United States
o A “successful” Iraq would go a long way towards restoring America’s credibility in the international community
o A steady withdrawal of troops by other countries would physically and socially isolate America
o Iraq has been a key voting issue in 2004, 2006, and will likely influence the 2008 Elections
o If Iraq demonstrates a continued need for American military support, then a withdrawal could endanger Iraqi-American relations
o The conflict has cost billions of dollars
§ These billions could have been used to fight the budget deficit, provide healthcare, help fix social security, protect the housing market, or preserve the Bush tax cuts
o Iraq has tied up hundreds of thousands of troops
§ Those troops could have been stabilizing Afghanistan, maintaining the Korean Demilitarized Zone
§ Some of those troops did not make it home
- Ultimately, life is the most important thing on this planet and this conflict has taken thousands of lives. This significance is clearly the most powerful, though not always the most effective in extemp
1930s-2001
1930s: Modern-day Iraq engages in an ad-hoc alliance with Hitler
1970s: Saddam Hussein rises through the ranks of the Sunni Ba’ath party and takes
power
– He is a classic strongman who controls his country with oil money and force
o Stories about what he did in office are well-publicized and unnecessary for the purposes of this topic brief
1980: Iraq-Iran War
– United States chooses Iraq in a classic of decision of Bad (Iraq) vs. Worse (Iran)
– The significance of this war is that the United States (notably Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney) helped to arm Saddam Hussein, presumably with weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)
o At the very least, the Bush administration was adamant that Saddam had WMDs because some of its members provided the weapons two decades prior
1991: Persian Gulf War
– Hussein claims that Kuwait is illegally drilling oil on Iraqi territory and invades his tiny southern neighbor
o The United States comes to the aid of Kuwait and drives Saddam’s forces
§ Many troops for this invasion were stationed in Saudi Arabia and were less than the model houseguests, an important fact which bothers many Muslims and is used as a rallying cry by terrorists
§ George H.W. Bush intentionally did not go for regime change
- The war was simply to restore balance and preserve relative stability
2001-2003
September 11th 2001: Terrorist attack is seen by Bush administration as an opportunity to
advance neoconservative thought
September 15th 2001: Bush has a cabinet meeting to figure out a post 9/11 policy.
Wolfowitz calls for invasions
September 20th 2001: Bush speaks before congress and emphasizes the dangers of state-
sponsored terrorism
January 2002: Bush’s famed Axis of Evil speech
May 2002: Bush calls for American hegemony and justifies preemption
August 2002: An invasion of Iraq becomes seriously considered
September 2002: Government releases the National Security Strategy, which further
discusses prevention
– It claims that the US will not be constrained by desires of the international community. The US will pursue military dominance
February 2003: Colin Powell goes to UN and shows pictures and transcripts to claim Iraq
has WMDs
The Invasion
The invasion went exactly as was planned by the military. Unfortunately, this plan was inherently flawed. Pamphlets were dropped in Iraq encouraging entire military battalions to drop their weapons and go home. While this strategy made the road to Baghdad easier, it complicated matters. Had the military used the Iraqi battalions, which are largely comprised of young males who are simply looking for work, for its own purposes, order could have been preserved. Instead, those who secretly disliked Saddam were ordered to stand on the sidelines and watch guerrilla tactics become the insurgency’s weapon of choice.
The famous image of a statue of Saddam in Baghdad being brought down was the unofficial end of the invasion. Largely uncovered by the American media by instantly recognized the “Arab street” was that the statue originally was wrapped in an American flag. This starkly represents how the United States focused on itself and the invasion, not rebuilding a new Iraq and improving its reputation.
The Justification
Iraq has been used as a case-study to test out neoconservative thought. There were two main justifications for war: counter-proliferation and democratization. Some contended that the war was necessary to prevent the proliferation of WMDs. Hussein has been known to have and use them on the Kurds. Therefore, the logical leap that Hussein could use WMDs to hold America and its allies (most notably Israel) hostage. Another rationale for war was the idea that the Middle East could be democratized. Geographically, Iraq is ideally situated to start democratization. Iran, Iraq’s eastern neighbor, theoretically could perceive the benefits of democracy and start to loosen the theocratic stranglehold that currently exists. Also, liberating Iraqi oil fields from Saddam’s control would serve as an exemplar the successes of capitalism. Many in the Bush administration had these lofty dreams of how a successful war in Iraq would bring down “Islamofacism” from the inside out. In case the past four years haven’t made it obvious, the problem with this thinking is that it never focused on how Iraq COULD be democratized.
Petraeus Report
Much was made over General David Petraeus’ report to the United States congress. Petraeus, a strong Bush supporter in 2004, has been portrayed as a politician in a general’s outfit. His relations with the White House caused skeptics to immediately assume that his speech was heavily edited and revised by the Bush administration. Whether or not the speech was ever edited is largely unimportant. The speech, as predicted by Democrats, maintained that success was possible and the current plan has not been an abysmal failure. While it may be an extemp question, its significance is primarily rhetorical. Civilians and politicians alike have not been swayed by an overhyped reiteration of the status quo and the Bush platform.
Exit Strategies
It is a foregone conclusion that America will eventually leave Iraq. The military, economic, and political strains make American departure questions of when and how, not if. Many proposals have been thrown into the ring, but they mainly boil down to three areas: fast, medium, and slow. Those on the political left that see the war as a mistake that needs to end immediately advocate a quick, rapid pullout of American forces. Saving as many lives and dollars take immediate precedence over the long-term health of Iraq. For those with relatives in Iraq or those who are pacifists, this route is the most effective way to cut off ties. Unfortunately, a rapid pullout makes bad policy sense and worse analysis for a speech. I would be hard pressed to justify why leaving a developing country high and dry is a good decision. Worse yet, an immediate removal also make the United States look bad in the eyes of Iraqis. The entire war would have been in vain if there is zero chance for the survival of a mildly democratic government.
While an immediate pullout would not work, staying in Iraq interminably is also not the answer. As evidenced by the past four years, the status quo is not working. Without a troop surge exponentially larger than President Bush’s most recent one, there simply are not enough boots on the ground to completely stabilize the country. The fact that troops are needed as babysitters in Iraq is further evidence that this war is not going anywhere. The goal has been to build up an independent Iraq, not to turn it into a colony.
In case it is not obvious yet, prevailing wisdom suggests that a prolonged, segmented pullout is likely to be the most effective for both the United States and for Iraq. Steadily bringing down the military force will slowly reveal how capable Iraq is of self governance. While firm deadlines will give the terrorists a timeline for attack plans, it also will give the American people peace of mind. Since terrorists will attack regardless, knowing that the war has an end in sight will help stir popular support for the war. Anti-war protesters will be silenced, and the United States can finally unify behind its foreign policy. If the government decides to travel down this road, do not be surprised if the pullout begins before November 2008. The democratic congress is desperate to prove to the American people that it has been successful in its first two years. Likewise, President Bush may finally pursue a positive legacy and give up on his dream of a perfectly peaceful Iraq. If this scenario occurs, then the advantage goes to the democratic candidate. A pullout would be a democratic victory and validate those independents who leaned left in 2006. President Bush will be a non-factor if the Republicans have anything to say about it. Therefore, all the praise will go to the Democratic Party, and strengthen it heading into the ’08 campaign.
One Iraq?
Assuming that America does leave Iraq, international extempers would be wise to continue to track the new Iraq. With such an important location, how Iraq progresses economically and politically will be of great interest. Some plans call for the creation of three separate states: Kurdistan, a Sunni Iraq, and a Shi’ia Iraq. Unfortunately, this plan has virtually zero chance of succeeding. While the Kurds residing north certainly would love to have a state, Turkey would veto the plan. Iraq’s secular neighbor has a sizable Kurdish population in its southeast. A true Kurdistan would likely encompass parts of Turkish territory, which would be immediately blocked by Turkey. Therefore, a Kurdish state, morality aside, cannot arise out of Iraq. Additionally, Sunnis and Shi’ias would be unable to split oil revenues and Baghdad. The city of Baghdad is culturally and religiously diverse. To give one of the groups sole control of the city would cause chaos. Money, power, and supremacy would be unfairly distributed regardless of the maps and territorial boundaries of a two or three-state solution.
The most viable solution is to continue the status quo. Maintaining a governmental structure that guarantees representation for all three groups would make an outright genocide the most difficult. Iraq is making its long-term stability safer through the ethnic cleansing that the United States is impotent to stop. To be sure, all acts of violence against civilians should be condemned and stopped if it all possible. While repugnant, sectarian war over the past few years has given each ethnic group more defined boundaries of control. This lack of diversity will help local areas govern themselves. A weak federal government that coordinates strong regions and states would give each group a sense of power and control. Leaving Baghdad as a federal city is the only option to keep the peace. Therefore, a strong sense of federalism would best serve Iraq.
Suggestions
- Do not suggest that President Bush launched this war to avenge his father. Frankly, it is offensive. The idea that the Leader of the Free World would intentionally endanger thousands of lives and billions of dollars out of revenge is far more dangerous than the average extemper realizes. The Persian Gulf War certainly put Iraq on the map as a strong, potentially hostile country. There is a difference between keeping an eye on Saddam and inventing evidence. I believe that the Bush administration wanted to get Saddam so badly (for reasons far more legitimate than “he tried to kill my daddy”), that they subconsciously ignored evidence that suggested an invasion was not necessary and had a low chance of success.
- The blood for oil argument is painted far too bluntly. This is not 24. Governments don’t condemn soldiers to death to preserve oil. While securing a stable source of oil would benefit America and that fact likely entered into the decision calculus, I highly doubt it was the deciding factor
- Unless they serve a greater purpose, avoid personal anecdotes about a mother who lost her four sons in the war. Those stories are heartbreaking, but insufficiently prove the success of policies. Millions died in World War II and those sacrifices are seen as necessary. I’m not comparing Nazi Germany to Iraq, but simply pointing out that the pacifistic argument that casualties are unacceptable rarely is compelling in a 7 minute speech.
- Try to be creative in AGDs and in analysis. Judges are tired of hearing the same speech about why we should or should not pull out. Put a new spin on the issue. Make a link that most people do not think of. Cite an article that advocates a new solution. It is difficult to sound new in an issue that has been belabored for five years, but it will set you apart from the rest of the room.
Cards
“Paper says recent US report on Iraq “blaming Iran” for Bush’s failure.” BBC. 18 September 2007.
However, America has been retreating from its position in Iraq step by step; it has accepted the participation of Europe, China and Russia and today it has found a new excuse, namely the negotiations with Iran, to reduce the complexity of events in Iraq. America did not reach its goals in Iraq.
“America’s self-inflicted war wounds.” Financial Times. 11 September 2007.
Six years after 9/11, the US needs to re-think. It is now clear that Iraq was the biggest blunder of the Bush years. It is also becoming evident that counter-terrorism should no longer be the centrepiece of American foreign policy
“Where America and Iraq converge.” The Jerusalem Post. 12 September 2007.
The disparity between al-Qaida’s defeats and Iran’s Shi’ite countersurge tells us something important about the difference between state-controlled operations and operations by non-state belligerents.
“Troops cuts linked to success, Bush says; President credits surge with enabling initial Iraq withdrawal.” The International Herald Tribune. 15 September 2007.
Bush, in his remarks, seemed to hope that beginning a withdrawal would mollify those who were increasingly alarmed by the size and cost of the commitment and unite Americans behind the war in a way they have rarely been.
“Petraeus says surge is working.” The Irish Times. 11 September 2007.
Gen Petraeus told the congressmen that, on a military level, the surge is working, reducing sectarian violence and making parts of Baghdad and Anbar province safer. He acknowledged, however, that the new counter-insurgency strategy had so far failed to produce much political progress