US policies established after 9/11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the US

The format for this debate will be as follows: Round 1: Presentation of our respective cases. Rounds 2 and 3: Refuting our opponent's cases while reconstructing our own. Round 4: Final focus- state why you have won the debate based on the previous information. DO NOT present any new arguments. Responding to a question asked in the previous round is okay. Let us begin! I negate the resolution. RESOLVED: U. S. policies established after September 11, 2001 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts against the United States. I will first provide definitions from Oxford Dictionary to ensure a clean and fair debate. Policy: a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government Substantially: (1) to a great or significant extent, or (2) for the most part, essentially Reduce: make smaller or less in amount, degree, or size Risk: the possibility that something unpleasant or unwelcome will happen Terrorist (according to the U. S. Law Code): premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents In order to win this debate, PRO must prove three things: (1) There is a risk of terrorist actions against the United States. (2) This risk since September 11, 2001 has been SUBSTANTIALLY reduced. (3) This substantial reduction in risk has been a DIRECT result of U. S. policies established after September 11, 2001. With that said, I wish my opponent the best of luck. ===================================================== CONTENTION 1: THE UNITED STATES' MILITARY ACTION AGAINST TERROR HAS FAILED Sub-Point A: The War on Terror in General Is a Failure The entire U. S. policy on terrorism has been blatantly illogical. As Robert Higgs, a Senior Fellow of the Independent Institute writes, "Terrorism is a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere, anytime. [As a result] the War on terrorism…can only be a figure of speech. " We can therefore see that all the nuclear weapons in the world cannot prevent one man from launching an attack on innocent civilians. From Afghanistan and Iraq, where a Taliban presence is increasing despite our presence there, to Europe, where strikes against civilians continue to make headlines, it is clearly not in the best interest of the United States to continue to act as the defenders of all humanity. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sub-Point B: The War in Iraq Increases the U. S. 's Risk of Being Attacked Far from reducing the risk of terrorist acts, United States occupation of Iraq has actually increased the threat of terrorism. According to a 2006 study by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "The Iraq conflict is now the "celebrated cause" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. " The report goes on to say that "The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qaeda in Iraq. .. leads veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations. " So although key terrorist leaders may be apprehended by U. S. forces, our presence in Iraq gives Al-Qaeda a golden opportunity to spread anti-U. S. sentiments, which in turn will increase the number of, albeit unorganized, push to bring harm to the U. S. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sub-Point C: Taliban Presence is Increasing in Afghanistan Similarly to our occupation of Iraq, our presence in Afghanistan is doing nothing to stem the increase in terrorist activity. According to a report by the Council of Foreign Relations, "before its ouster by U. S. -led forces in 2001, the Taliban controlled 90 percent of Afghanistan's territory. " Since then, Taliban presence has climbed to a permanent presence of 54% in 2006, and then to 72% by 2008, despite the attrition efforts of U. S. policy. As a result we can see that terrorism has not been decreasing in Afghanistan since 9/11, but that in fact terror has been steadily on the rise. U. S. anti-terror policies have clearly failed to stem the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the net risk that future terrorist acts will occur has increased as a result. ===================================================== CONTENTION 2: ON BALANCE, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DOMESTIC POLICIES HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL Sub-Point A: More United States Citizens are Partaking in Terrorism As the War on Terror has dragged on, more and more American citizens are now participating in acts of terrorism. According to a Brookings Institution essay by Daniel Byman, "On Oct. 28, 2008, Shirwa Ahmed became the first American suicide bomber. Mr. Ahmed killed himself in Somalia's civil war on behalf of the Islamist group al Shabaab. al Qaeda's No. 2 Mr. al-Zawahiri called Shabaab advances in Somalia "a step on the path of victory of Islam, while Shabaab would pledge allegiance to Mr. bin Laden. " Byman goes on to write that "[the Nov. 5, 2009 The Fort Hood shootings, the deadliest terrorist attack on U. S. soil since 9/11, are also troubling, as they may show that an unstable American Muslim might express his anger through political violence. " In other words, America is beginning to learn that some of our own can and will go to great lengths to kill their fellow citizens. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sub-Point B: The Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, an Integral Part of the U. S. 's Terror Policy, Has Not Incarcerated "The Worst of the Worst" Many supporters of the Bush Administration's policies have claimed that the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility has substantially stopped high-profile combatants from committing terrorist acts. However, according to a September 2007 article by David Cole, "the Pentagon's Combatant Status Review Tribunal's own findings categorized only 8 percent of some 500 detainees held there in 2006 as fighters for Al Qaeda or the Taliban. " This shows that, by and large, Guantanamo was simply a waste of money and was used to play to the public's fears. In fact, the stated report also finds that "More than half of the 775 Guantï¿½namo detainees have now been released, suggesting that they may not have been "the worst of the worst" after all. ===================================================== CONTENTION 3: THERE IS NO PROOF THAT POLICIES ESTABLISHED AFTER 9/11 HAVE PREVENTED A SIMILAR ATTACK FROM OCCURING My opponent must prove that Bush's policies directly prevented another tragic attack like 9/11 from occurring. However, we can see that there is no evidence to show that is the case. Jeremy Shapiro writes, "There have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11, but it's not clear whether the government's efforts have made the difference. " Eight years elapsed between the World Trade Center bombing and 9/11, so were Clinton's policies then keeping us safe? Scholar Lauri S. Friedman sums up this concept by stating, "Americans can only speculate on whether efforts to reduce terrorism have met with success. While the efforts to prevent terrorism are visible all around us, their efficacy may not be definitively known until another attack. It is only then that changes to security will receive their true test, and what weaknesses were left unaddressed will be made horribly clear. " ===================================================== Because of the above justifications, it is clear that U. S. policies established after September 11, 2001 have NOT substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts against the United States. It is for this reason that a vote in negation is necessary.