War in Afghanistan

That said, it should be noted that my opponent plagiarized his entire argument; all of his contentions can be found here - [ . http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk... ]. However, since I have already accepted the debate before becoming aware of this bad sportsmanship, I'll continue pressing forward with this debate. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I'll begin by addressing my opponent's arguments: 1. Con begins by pointing out that so far 20,119 people have been killed in Afghanistan. While that is indeed a sad number, the reality is that casualties occur in war all the time. For instance, between 40 and 70 MILLION people died during WWII. The civil war in Afghanistan in 1979 had nearly 2 million deaths as well. So, this is in comparison a pretty low death-rate war considering wars in the past. Nevertheless, the argument here is that simply because people are dying is no reason to end a war. Death is expected when people engage in combat. The military should continue to only kill strategically and of course avoid killing any civilians. 2. Con asks, "Why should we keep fighting this war started on the false notion that there were weapons of mass destruction there? That was the only reason, BUT THERE WERENT so why are we still there? " I'd like to remind Con that we did not invade Afghanistan under the notion that there were WMDs; we knew all along that Afghanistan didn't have any. The government did, however, believe that there were WMDs in *Iraq* which was a mistake. So, this point by Con is really irrelevant since WMDs have nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan and never did. 3. Con says that the British-Afghan wars and the Soviet occupation of the 1980s should be a warning against military involvement in a country whose tribal tensions make it almost ungovernable. I disagree. It was the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that was sheltering Osama bin Laden; the man responsible for organizing the terrorist attacks on the U. S. The government in Afghanistan is entirely corrupt and manipulated by whomever gives their leaders the most money, power and protection. Indeed Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai has said, "Corruption is the biggest obstacle to defeating the Taliban insurgency" [1]. While he promises to clean up the Afghan government, U. S. officials worry that Karzai himself is also corrupt. So, you can see that it's not the tribal tensions that make the region ungovernable but rather Afghanistan's malicious leaders. 4. Con states that there is no opportunity to build a stable democracy in Afghanistan like we had back in 2002 and 2003. I'd like for Con to back up that statement. He cites overtures being extended to offer a Taliban power-sharing agreement. However, history shows us that any potential negotiations with the leadership of the Talibanreveal their habitual pattern of negotiating in bad faith. So, there's no reason to believe that current negotiations would be any different. We should fail to even accept that option and continue just trying to dismantle them entirely, or at least remove them from politics all-together or as much as possible. 5. Con says, "The West should focus its energies on devising a diplomatic solution, rather than an unachievable military victory. " However, if the U. S. abandons an unwinnable and unjust war in Iraq, it could invest more resources into winning the war in Afghanistan. Congressman Barney Frank notes, "The war in Iraq has weakened the United States internationally and divided it domestically, while draining needed resources. It is precisely because the Iraq war is not defensible on any other terms that the Bush/Cheney approach uses the big lie to defend the war in Iraq on grounds that in fact describe the war in Afghanistan" [2]. 6. Next, Con says that President Hamid Karzai has proved a weak ruler far too tolerant of corruption in his narco-state. However, as my previous source pointed out [1], the president has promised to crack down harshly on inside government corruption. Further, the president won a re-election thanks to a democratic vote in Afghanistan. To overrule that vote would be contrary to our democratic ideals. 7. Con writes, "Lacking the will to put sufficient boots on the ground, Nato should get out of Afghanistan before the alliance is irreparably damaged. " I'd like to see evidence of which alliances exactly are being damaged, and why it is a bigger risk than leaving the Taliban to control Afghanistan. Go! 8. Regarding Pakistan and Iran being threats to the U. S. , these countries could be a launching pad for terrorism regardless of whether the Afghanistan war was going on or not. We should keep the faith that a country like China can and will keep Iran in check for the time being. 9. Con says, "The continued military mission is costing billions at a time when Western economies are suffering. We simply can't afford to remain fighting in Afghanistan. " Again, one way to remedy this is to abandon the war in Iraq. Another is to cut spending at home o frivolous expenses such as Abstinence Only sex education or pork project in particular. The U. S. has not backed down from a fight or been bullied in the past due to numbers. Of course the economy is important to consider, and as such, we should consider the reality that a lot of people are employed simply because of this war. In addition to military personnel, there are scientists, politicians, lobbyists, and people in the factories making guns and weapons (consider the Military Industrial Complex); basically being at war in Afghanistan creates jobs. So that's a plus. Most importantly, people would argue that American safety should be of utmost importance - more important than the cost of the war. 10. Finally, the idea that the Taliban is having an easier job of recruiting because of American occupation is false. The reality is that the Taliban has had power ever since Russia invaded Afghanistan nearly 3 decades ago. After the country was destroyed by the communists, the Taliban accepted American help (money, weapons and technology) and used that to their advantage to gain power. The people out of desperation have looked to the Taliban for help. This has and would have continued occurring regardless of American involvement in the region. If anything, some people in Afghanistan have had hope that the Americans would help, the same way Americans helped the Jews during WWII. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Because I don't have a whole lot of space, I'll briefly explain why I support the war in Afghanistan. Of course my opponent should consider the arguments that I made in my rebuttal to his presentation. Additionally, I'd like for Con to keep in mind the reality that Afghanistan has been the breeding ground for the terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, who has successfully launched an attack against the U. S. and continues to threaten our national security today. If the Taliban gained any more power in Afghanistan, it would pose a huge threat to Western safety in addition to the Afghan way of life. The Taliban is an extreme group which oppresses the people in the region, stifling not only their economy but their entire culture, progression and way of life. Their rise of power in the region would have detrimental effects across the board. Sources: [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...