Resolved: The US should abandon the War on Terror.

The War on Terror has a long history that can be dated back in the 20th century, but first officially began with the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in the United States, and since then, multiple campaigns have been launched in retaliation, the war in Afghanistan being the most prominent, and there will be a more than sufficient explanation why these were advocated actions that should not be abandoned by the US government. Contention one - State SecurityThe 9/11 attacks claimed the lives of nearly 3000 people in total, many families were left shattered and the security of the United States was breached on an unparalleled scale by 19 perpetrators that were directly supported from Al-qaeda, an internationally recognized terrorist organization. [A] [B] These attacks caused the US to exercise it's provocative, but rightfully so. These are war crimes at some of their worst, firstly, these attacks were targeted on sites with high amounts of civilians, the perpetrators took hostages that played the role of a 'human shield', and they had no regard for collateral damage.And this is where state security comes into play, under these circumstances it is only just that the government should take measures as a result, they have an obligation to protect their citizens and their state from hostile powers that so threaten it. Direct attacks on a nation should be met with force, because not only because of this, but because administering direct action for the war against terror would help safeguard their citizens in the future from further attacks, the US led invasion of Afghanistan not only seeked justice to the lives lost, but also prevented any more attacks on this scale from occurring on US soil since 2001, which also led to increased border security that would help combat this situation in the future. [C] [D]Contention two - Global Security/United NationsIt has long been the interests of many countries to counter terrorism all across the world, and many have come together to form to bring forward a unified attempt against terrorism for the interests of world-wide security, under the United Nations Charter which was founded after the end of the Second World War in 1945, it clearly dictates that, "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace" [E]This charter clearly details that it is the objective of the United Nations and the USFG, one of the leading members of the Security Council, to combat any and all threats to the security of any nation, and that they will support any nation in dire need during times of facing the attacks of radical extremists or even the attack of a foreign state as it is so commanded to follow. The United Nations has brought together the nations of the world closer than ever, and it is in the interest of every government present during the conferences to advocate their stance on their actions taken against a hostile power, which under the United Nations Charter, they should by all means have the right to do so. This, more than anything else, proves our point and supports our position that is clear that these are justified reasons to combat the War on Terror.Taking one example to support this was the very recent November 2015 Paris Attacks, that were conducted by Islamic extremists from the Islamic State. The impact of over 120 deaths from coordinated attacks on the french capital of Paris. This was followed by international outrage, but rightfully so. Because the impact of the attacks from the Islamic State were very deep, it affected many policies regarding the current ongoing refugee crisis in Europe, the national security policies of France and many other countries, and became the deadliest attack on France since the Second World War. And all this is due to the mere fact that these extremists are not met with enough brute force, the impact of allowing the spread of the Islamic State had only caused more crisis, and the efforts under the United Nations to resolve this, along with a bilateral attempt from the Russian and French governments launched a devastating attack on ISIS controlled territories in Syria, damaging massive oil lines along with ammunition caches which further strained the terrorist state. [F]Contention three - There is no solution that can be seen as a necessary or effective alternative to the War on TerrorSince the day the UN was formed in 1945, it had long been their goal to prevent the outbreak of war through some means of keeping political stability in states across the world that could potentially be under the risk of foreign threat. However, these political missions were not proven to be as effective as they would have hoped, in 1995 during the Bosnian War, Resolution 819 was passed detailing that all personal in the area of Sebrenica would be under the "safe zone" with the protection from the United Nations Protection Force that would have kept them from any harm by the Bosnian Serb Army, yet, when the Bosnian Serb Army did invade the protection promised to these citizens were abandoned by the United Nations as the Protection Force failed to keep the situation under control which subsequently led to the Srebrenica genocide of 8000 muslim bosniaks. [G] [H]Keeping in mind that this was not an attack carried about by terrorists, this case is brought up because it is an example of how such means of adopting policies without direct involvement from either the US or its allies from using military action is simply not going to be sustainable enough on its own. Any act that is taken up to provide a solution without the need for starting for a war to promote non-violent methods can be intertwined with the War on Terror as it is clear unless the affirmative can provide a sustainable long term solution to this issue that there is no measure that can realistically achieve it's goals that the War on Terror was initially designed to do itself.Contention four - The effectiveness of the War on TerrorNaturally, it is our stance to also prove that the War on Terror is met with effective outcomes, moving aside from the still ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan and France that were already covered before, there is another prominent example of where the War on Terror has brought a complete victory in the eyes of the citizens of the country of Sri Lanka.Sri Lanka is a country that was locked in a 30 year long civil war against the LTTE, which was an internationally recognized Tamil terrorist organization that launched multiple attacks on the State in order to secede from the nation, which was finally brought to an end in 2009 through a joined effort from the Sri lankan military and foreign financial aid along with assistance from the United States government and it's allies which brought forward an era of peace. [I] This organization was listed as one of the most dangerous in the world at the time, which is one of the reasons that it is considered a reasonable case to bring forward, who through a long struggle, ultimately suceeded which easily shows the effectiveness of overwhelming odds against terrorism for those that advocate it.Such attempts can be replicated elsewhere in the world, notably in the Middle East, where millions of people face oppression under the rule of extremists, where they are victim to people who freely commit crimes against humanity and we as a globally connected union should rise up and face this threat, not only for the reasons that were stated earlier regarding the economic and international polices against terrorism, but also for the humanitarian side of things, which we hope to touch on in later arguments to further reinforcing the already obvious facts that terrorism must be dealt with, for the safety of our people, now, and in the future.Having put forward the case against the resolution and backing up and providing points for each of these contentions, it should affirm our case and nullify the case for this until such time as Pro puts forward their arguments to counter this, in which we then hope to further provide an in depth study of these contentions.I leave it now to the affirmative to present their response, and I wish them good luck in the next round. Sources - [A] - http://web.archive.org... [B] - http://www.state.gov... [C] - http://www.infoplease.com... [D] - https://www.cigionline.org... [E] - http://www.un.org... [F] - http://aranews.net...; [G] - http://www.ohr.int... [H] - http://www.ohr.int... [I] - http://www.theguardian.com...