Detroit News ‘02
Ousting Saddam Hussein might have more far-reaching consequences than most people imagine. The possible splintering of Iraq as a result of U.S. military action might radically destabilize the Middle East. Such an outcome would do nothing to promote American national interests. Iraq is divided into three parts: the Shiite south, the Sunni center and the Kurdish north. These three constituent parts were soldered together after World War I. Historically, they possessed little in common. During most of the last 75 years, they have been held together only through the heavy hand of the Sunni center. Hussein is very much in that Sunni dictatorial tradition. Of course, what he has done to Kuwait, and to his own people, is abominable. Nevertheless, one may argue that without the "rigor" imposed from Baghdad, Iraq might dissolve, briefly, into three independent statelets. But such statelets would probably not be independent for long. Much larger and more powerful neighbors would likely gobble each of them up soon enough. A fragmented Iraq would introduce radical instability into the Middle East political system. Upheavals would probably metastasize, with unpredictable results. None would foster American national interests.
3) Middle East conflict escalates to a global nuclear war
(John, Center for Research on Globalization, 3-3, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html)
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." (44)
AT: Federalism Impossible in Iraq
Successful Federalism is possible in Iraq.
Besheer, VOA writer, 2007
(Margaret, July 19, Iraq Updates, “Experts discuss federalist system’s chance of success in Iraq”)
One of the unanswered questions about Iraq's future is: can a federal system of government, one in which power is divided between a central government and regional or provincial ones, work in Iraq? VOA's Margaret Besheer talks to Iraqi and international figures in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil, where a conference took place this week to discuss Iraqi federalism. In 2005 Iraq adopted a new constitution which enshrines the concept of federalism. But as sectarian differences threaten to divide the country, can federalism really keep it united? Absolutely, says Egyptian human-rights activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, one of the participants at a week-long conference on federalism in Iraq's Kurdistan Region. "Federalism is not utopia, it is not a panacea," said Ibrahim. "Federalism is not perfect, it has its problems, but it is better than fighting each other and then one group subjugating the others." Iraq is home to Shiites, Sunni Arabs, Kurds and many smaller groups, such as Assyrian Christians and ethnic Turkmen. Arabic is the official language, but Kurdish is also widely spoken, especially in the northern Kurdistan autonomous region. Iraqi Kurdistan is flourishing politically and economically and is often held up as Iraq's biggest success story. Conference organizer Bakhtiar Amin says the rest of the country can learn from the Kurdish experiment with federalism. "How they [the Kurds] faced different challenges and difficulties; how they overcame some of these, and to learn also from the experiences of other federal systems around the world," said Amin. Experts from four continents attended the conference and shared their views. Paul Dewar, a member of Canada's parliament from Ottawa, notes that his country shares similarities with Iraq in that it also has two languages, two main religions, and significant oil resources which must be shared among several provinces. "Canada actually has a relevant model; it is not a matter of one size fits all, and federalism is different in different political contexts, but it seems to me that Canada is one that makes infinite sense to look at," said Dewar.
Nigeria doesn’t model American federalism – it centralizes its federal government
Business Day, 2008
(June 11, “Who wants Lagos State Driver’s License” http://www.businessdayonline.com/analysis/comments/11192.html)
In Nigeria, the situation is markedly different. In the first place, the federalism practised in America is different from the warped federalism practised in Nigeria: while there is decentralization of power to the states in the US, the bulk of political power in Nigeria is vested in the federal government. And there is no law in existence in Nigeria today that compels any state to accept or recognise a driver’s licence issued by another state.