War in Afghanistan

Thanks for your quick response, Katelyn! *** 1. Pro begins by contending that drones and other aerial missiles will be used to secure Pakistan. However, what I pointed out in the last round has still gone unanswered. First of all, Pakistan is not Afghanistan. Wanting to have drones for Pakistan is NOT a contention in favor of war with AFGHANISTAN. Second, she says that the drones will only be used if "reports are sent in" instructing that this would be useful. May I ask who will be filing the reports without troops on the ground to help locate the enemy? More importantly, Pro hasn't answered why it's not important to keep troops on the ground if that's in fact the primary goal of having soldiers be sent there today (to train the Afghan soldiers). Once again I asked Pro if this shouldn't be the major aim at this point, then what SHOULD be the major aim. So far she's only come up with drones for Pakistan, which as I explained does nothing to uphold the resolution. 2. Keeping that in mind, we go to my opponent's next statement. She writes, "As I stated above in my last argument the war in Afghanistan has gotten nowhere but we do need to stay in the country for stability issues." May I ask what "stability issues" Pro is referring to if not training troops and keeping troops on the ground to secure the area? Moreover I'd like an answer to another question I asked in the last round pertaining to this topic: If there are only 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan, then why perpetuate war in Afghanistan? 2 CONTD. The rest of Pro's round is seemingly copy and pasted from one source, which is not necessarily bad conduct (because she didn't plagiarize) but at the same time feels like I am debating journalist Steven Clemons on this issue instead of Katelyn. Nevertheless, the bulk of this assessment was essentially the idea that the U.S. ought to decrease troops, downsize military operations, focus on security measures, promote economic growth, etc. Pro even concluded her round with a quote noting that the war was not helping but actually hurting Americans. Still, Pro maintains that drone warfare is necessary "for aforementioned reasons" which to the best of my knowledge was merely "securing Pakistan." One is left to wonder why my opponent hasn't responded to most of my arguments at all. In the last round I suggested diplomacy, for example, and Pro never responded. I also suggested addressing ongoing conflicts, strengthening civilian rule of law, and promoting economic development in addition to straight up bribery - also unrefuted. While Pro's article did mention some of those things, it becomes obvious that I'm wondering why military violence specifically should be continued instead of those non-violent measures, which Pro's source agrees will be helpful. Remember that Pro has to support WAR (defined as: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air - 1) in AFGHANISTAN, not Pakistan or anywhere else. Why would continued violence be best for Afghanistan? What could we gain from it, with only 100 al Qaeda members left in the region? Why wouldn't the other peaceful alternatives be more effective, or why do they mandate violent force to go along with it? Finally, I pointed out that even if this war is fought only with technology, it will still be received with concern and anger in the Islamic world. This will make it more difficult for Western and Middle Eastern countries to work together toward mutual objectives, such as peace between Israel and Palestine. This was also left unanswered. I concluded with the observation that it is now much easier for al-Qaida's decentralized networks to conduct operations in numerous other places, with Algeria, Somalia, and Yemen emerging as the newest strongholds. Yet once again, these countries aren't in question - Afghanistan is. Extend all my arguments, and good luck in the final round, Pro! [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...