Iraq Aff Wave 1

Its try or die – even if withdrawal increases violence – that’s inevitable now

Stephen M. Walt ( Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government) June 2009 “ Bush's gift to Obama” http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/29/bushs_gift_to_obama?showcomments=yes

It is of course possible -- even likely -- that violence will increase as U.S. forces draw down, and there is still some danger of open civil war. That will be a tragedy for which Americans do bear some responsibility, insofar as we opened Pandora's Box when we invaded in 2003. But that danger will exist no matter how long we remain, and our presence there may in fact be delaying the hard bargaining and political compromises that will ultimately have to occur before Iraq is finally stable.

Iraqi instability spillsover

Matthew Stannard 2006 “Military's dilemma -- stay or leave; Iraq too complex to lend itself to easy solutions, experts say”, The San Francisco Chronicle, l/n 12/3

"If we just depart, the result is not likely to be the quick standup of working, functioning government ministries," he said. "It's more likely to be people lashing out to kill those they are afraid will kill them first." The long-term consequence of increased violence could be dire, Biddle said, if the losing side turned for help to neighboring states that shared its ethnic identity. "You could end up with a regional, potentially nuclear war in a part of the world that contains a significant fraction of the global oil supply," he said. "If that happens, you can imagine that 8 or 10 years from now we might end up right back" there again.
War goes nuclear

Steinbach 2002 [John, Israeli Nuclear weapons: a threat to piece, 3/3 http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mat0036.htm] lp

Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

***Iraqi Escalation Scenario (3)***

Even after withdrawal the US will still be able to exercise leverage over the Iraqi Security Force

Peter Symonds (writer for the Centre for Research on Globalization) June 2010 “ US consolidates occupation of Iraq” http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2010/06/10/us-consolidates-occupation-of-iraq

Under the 2008 agreement, the US military handed over internal security functions to Iraqi forces last year, but, under the guise of “training” and “support”, retains tighter supervision of the army and police. Moreover the Iraqi government can always “request” US troop assistance in mounting operations. As Odierno explained in a letter to US personnel on June 1, even after all US combat troops leave, “we will continue to conduct partnered counter-terrorism operations and provide combat enablers to help the Iraqi Security Forces maintain pressure on the extremist networks.” The 2008 agreement sets December 31, 2011 as the deadline for all US troops to quit Iraq, but the construction of huge new US bases indicates a long-term US military presence under a Strategic Framework Agreement that is yet to be negotiated. As Stars and Stripes pointed out, “the nascent condition of the Iraqi Air Force… could lead the Iraqi government to request that a US training force remain in the country beyond 2011, most likely at Balad.”

Sticking within the bounds of the timeline and withdrawing troops is key – troops cant maintain stability

Stephen M. Walt ( Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government) June 2009 “ Bush's gift to Obama” http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/29/bushs_gift_to_obama?showcomments=yes

The dazzling incompetence of the Bush administration left Barack Obama with a long list of problems to fix. Yet Bush did provide his successor with one unambiguous gift: the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. By negotiating a timetable for the orderly removal of U.S. forces, Bush gave Obama a "get of Iraq free" pass, a clear path to ending Bush’s most expensive mistake. It is an opportunity that Obama should not squander. As part of that agreement, U.S. troops are to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities today and deployed at nearby military bases, as a first step toward their eventual withdrawal. But does this course of action still make sense, given the recent increase in violence, a development that many people fear heralds a return to pre-"surge" levels of violence? The answer is yes. Despite these worrisome developments, the United States should "stay on course" out of Iraq. The grim reality is that the United States is no longer in a position to guide Iraq's political future; that task is up to the citizens of Iraq. America's armed forces are extremely good at deterring large-scale conventional aggression and at winning conventional military engagements, but they are neither designed for nor adept at occupying and governing foreign countries whose character and culture we do not understand, especially when these societies are deeply divided. To say this takes nothing away from the sacrifices borne by our armed forces and their families; they were asked to do a job for which they were not trained or equipped, and which may have been impossible from the start. Although often touted as a great success, the fate of the 2007 "surge" reveals the limits of U.S. influence clearly. Although it did lower sectarian violence, the surge did not lead to significant political reconciliation between the contending Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups. The "surge" was thus a tactical success but a strategic failure, and that failure is instructive. If increased force levels, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and our best military leadership could not "turn the corner" politically in Iraq, then prolonging our occupation beyond the timetable outlined in the SOFA agreement makes no sense. No matter how long we stay, Iraq is likely to face similar centrifugal forces, and our presence is doing little to reduce them.