SCFI - Iraq Critical Aff - SCFI 2010 Albert Qaeda Iraq K...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
SCFI 2010 Iraq K aff Albert Qaeda ___ of ___ Critical Iraq Affirmative 1 Carol’s glock outweighs Turkey Prolif.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
**Argument Notes** This is not a complete affirmative- it is meant to be critical supplement to the big Iraq aff that has already been put out. Use that file for most of your A/T evidence/inherency/ etc. Best Regards, Albert Qaeda 2
Background image of page 2
SCFI 2010 Iraq K aff Albert Qaeda ___ of ___ Critical Iraq IAC The War in Iraq began as a racist and aggressive form of American Imperialism. The problems there have little to with the execution of the war, and more to do with America’s militaristic quest for global domination. Rule 2010 (James B, Of the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley) “The Military State of America and the Democratic Left” Dissent. Volume 57, Number 1, Winter 2010. MUSE. DJ Yet the deeper, mostly unstated assumptions underlying these authors' proposals ought to strike a chill throughout the democratic Left. Their problems with the Iraq invasion—and implicitly, future American military exploits of the same kind—have to do with execution, not the larger vision of American power that inspired the enterprise. Their words strike an eerie resonance with those of Thomas L. Friedman, before the invasion occurred: he favored George W. Bush's "audacious" war plan as "a job worth doing," but only "if we can do it right." America's violent remaking of Iraq would have been entirely acceptable, it seems, if only Friedman's sensibilities could have guided it. More important: the continuing mission of the United States as maker and breaker of regimes around the world remained unquestioned. When any country gets seriously in the way of American power, the global responsibilities of this country are apt to require action like that taken in Iraq. We hear this kind of thinking in its most out-of-the-closet form from neoconservatives— who gave us the Iraq invasion in the first place. But its roots in American history lie at least as far back as notions of Manifest Destiny. Its key inspiration is a particularly aggressive form of American exceptionalism. Some higher power—fate, Divine Providence, or special "moral clarity"—has created opportunities, indeed obligations, for America to set things straight on a global scale. Versions of this idea are pervasive among thinkers—American foreign policy elites, and those who would guide them—who would disclaim identification with the neocons. Often conveying the doctrine are code words referring to special "responsibilities" of the United States to guarantee world "stability." Or, as Madeleine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated, "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future. . ." To her credit, Albright's effusions in this direction stopped short of support for invading Iraq—something that cannot be said for the so-called liberal hawks. Accepting this view of America as the ultimate and rightful arbiter of global affairs—as master hegemon or world
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 39

SCFI - Iraq Critical Aff - SCFI 2010 Albert Qaeda Iraq K...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online