Iraq Aff Wave 1

***1AC Human Rights Advantage (4)***

Causes US retaliation and global nuclear war

Schwartz-Morgan 2001 (Nicole- Asst. Prof., Politics and Economics, Royal Military College of Canada,” Wild Globalization and Terrorism: Three Scenarios,” World Future Society, http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm)

The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions. Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack,coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy. And on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists. 

US human rights credibility in Iraq is key to democracy promotion

Marina Ottaway, et al., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: Restoring Credibility.” June 12, 2008. http://carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventdetail&id=1144 
On June 12, 2008, the Carnegie Endowment hosted a discussion on a policy brief by Marina Ottaway entitled Democracy Promotion in the Middle East: Restoring Credibility, with commentary from Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post and Hisham Melhem of Al Arabiya. Ottaway argued that after six years of the freedom agenda in the Middle East, there is little political progress to show for. Moreover, the large-scale attempts at democracy promotion have been disastrous in Palestine and Iraq. After promising too much and not consistently pursuing its goals, U.S. credibility on the issue is very low among both governments and opposition forces in the region. In order to fix democracy promotion, the United States must first restore its own credibility by setting and sticking to modest goals and toning down its rhetoric. The United States must also tailor its policies to local conditions. For example, U.S. strategy in Egypt should emphasize opening up political party registration in Egypt versus in the United Arab Emirates, where it should focus on helping devise a modern political system. Diehl concurred with Ottaway’s prescriptions, but pushed for more ambitious policies. Democracy promotion should be conducted more consistently, but not quietly. Efforts must also combine top-down pressure on governments with bottom-up pressure from civil society. Recognition that democracy promotion will conflict with the regime interests of U.S. allies in the region is necessary considering that modernizing political systems in the Middle East without democratization will provoke eventual crisis. Melhem said that the new U.S. administration should be more forceful in promoting democracy. U.S. credibility has suffered from the deterioration in Iraq, which has emboldened autocratic regimes in the neighborhood, and inconsistent U.S. policy toward human rights abuses. In each Arab nation, the next administration should pursue a gradual approach that encourages reformers, including moderate Islamists, and clearly rejects human right violations.

Solves global nuclear war – Middle east is key

Joshua Muravchik (Resident Scholar at the AEI) 2001 “Democracy and Nuclear Peace” July 14, http://www.npec-web.org/Syllabus/Muravchik.pdf, Date Accessed 7/29/2006)

That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as one of the most revolutionary years in all history, was inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in the democratic tide that there was certain to be some backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has included some fits and starts rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless, the overall trend remains powerful and clear. Despite the backsliding, the number and proportion of democracies stands higher today than ever before. This progress offers a source of hope for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reduced almost overnight when Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East where nuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote