Ending the Evil Empire

HIS CASECost to NATO1. The job of soldiers is to fight in highly dangerous areas of the world. Just like policemen die in raids against criminals, NATO soldiers die in raids against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Moreover, the civilian perspective of war is much different than the military perspective of war. Also, support for the war is highest among the military, so it seems to be worthwhile to them. [1]2. Saying we could eliminate poverty isn’t an argument. Unless affirming the resolution will result in Congress sending the exact amount of money to all 3rd world countries, you arent gaining any advantage. 3. At most a rapid-scale back would result in 15% savings, hardly enough to fix any impact from a large debt. [2]Death Toll1. The numbers are heavily skewed due to the nature of asymmetric warfare. For example, the use of “human shields” is a common tactic amongst terrorist and insurgency groups. These numbers dont accurately represent the true harm that has occurred because it cant adequately include the variables of Taliban asymmetric warfare. And this indicts is his study - it is important to note that the study did not control for civilians vs. insurgent-civilians, did not control for possible use of human shields and relied on self-reports in areas heavily influenced by the Taliban. [3]2. The Taliban have been responsible for the majority of civilian deaths, not NATO. It has been proven that NATO deaths have actually decreased and Taliban civilian deaths have increased approximately 26%. Moreover, the nature of insurgency attacks, e.g. suicide bombings and the use of IEDs, result in mass casualties of civilians. 67% or higher are the direct causes of Taliban action, not NATO action. [4]3. TURN: NATO leaving would only exacerbate Afghan casualties. It is worth noting that Afghanistan before 2001 was heavily involved in its own civil war. The Taliban, which were the Pushtuuns of Southern Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance. The Taliban was responsible for mass civilian executions and killings before 2001. If we affirm two impacts occur: 1) Civil war would continue and 2) the Taliban would still be killing Afghans in retaliation and quest to revive power. [5]Drug Addiction/HIV1. Refer to pages 8 and 9 of the study. In the Northern Regions drug use has either remained the same, or perceptually decreased. In the Southern Regions drug use has increased. Now it is important to recognize that my opponent needs to link in the harms to NATO. However, the Southern Regions are the areas dominated by the remnants of the Taliban. So this isnt a reason to affirm. [6]2. Extra-topical. How does this lead us to the conclusion that we should withdraw? Will opium use magically decrease? Remember the question is over withdrawal. Unless he can prove drug use would decrease, it is extra-topical. 3. This applies to AIDS since its due to drug useHDI1. As long as I prove Afghanistan is improving then the point is worthless in the long run. 1) After Taliban rule, the number of children being educated has gone from 1 to 6 million. 2) ⅓ civilians now own a cellphone. 3) Annual economic growth is over 20%. 4) 6/10 civilians believe the country is going in the right direction. 5) With the help of US companies, $900 billion of untapped mineral revenue has been discovered. 6) The Chinese have already invested $3 billion for a coppermine. 7) JPMorgan has invested $50 million for a goldmine. These are just some improvements, with many more. [7]Karzai Government1. Analyze the alternative. Its either the US or a resurgence of the Taliban. 1) 6/10 Afghans are optimistic about US involvement. 2) The Taliban has an only 10% favoribility rating among the Afghan people. 3) The Taliban had instituted extreme Sharia law, had violated most, if not all basic human rights. 4) Thousands of Shiites had been killed by the Taliban. 5) Thousands of civilians were killed or incarcerated. [7]Terrorism1. Withdrawing from Afghanistan doesnt solve US occupation in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Israel. So affirming doesnt solve for terrorism.2. This analysis is flawed. First, on Pape - the distinction between terrorism and insurgence isnt made. Terrorism would be actually trying to attack US soil and to hurt civilians. Insurgency is when people of a homeland try to defend against intervention. Of course this is going to increase just by the nature of the Taliban calling for assistance by Taliban members of Taliban sympathizers. Second, on root causes. It must be noted that the US had little to no involvement in the Middle East before 9/11. Terrorists don’t want to better the livelihood of people in the Middle East. For example, people had many more rights in Egypt under Mubarak than Afghan civilians had under Taliban rule. Moreover, the US will be the enemy regardless of more or less intervention. This is true because terrorist groups need an enemy to blame regardless of truth claims or not. Analyzing past terrorist actions show that whenever the US draws back from the Middle East, terrorist actions increase against the US. E.g. the bombing of the embassies and 9/11 [8]MY CASEC1: Afghanistan is vital in the WOT [1]The strongest weapon against terrorism is to ensure that terrorist organizations cannot easily collaborate or have a place of safe-haven. This was the reason Al Qaeda was able to perpetrate a massive scale terrorist attack against the U.S on 9/11. Al Qaeda had safe-haven in Afghanistan. Affirming the resolution only brings back the clock pre-9/11. Without ensuring that Afghanistan is stable, withdrawing will once again give safe-haven to Al Qaeda. Now two other impacts:1) The US would need to reenter Afghanistan which would make the job much more difficult than it is now. We would have to reintervene because the area would be way to unstable and a hotzone for terrorism. So by affirming the resolution you are exacerbating all my opponents harms which he outlines. This turns my opponents advocacy. 2) In-case TURN. Weakening resolve for the Afghanistan war leads to higher rates of Taliban support. This is true because the Afghans would need to hedge their bets: stay with the US and be killed in retaliation once the Taliban return, or help the Taliban and be spared. C2: Destroys US Hegemony [2]Perceptually the US is seen as an unbeatable power on the world stage - this is one link to US Hegemony. The US has the largest GDP in the world, and has the strongest military force in the world as well. Withdrawing from Afghanistan destroys this perception, which will make the facade of apolarity and thus instability would ensue. Ill highlight a few scenarios:1) Iran. US presence in Afghanistan has been one main reason that Iran has been contained. Withdrawing from the Middle East removes the umbrella that protects Arab nations from Iranian adventurism and hegemony. The result would be arms races in the Middle East. This impact is not far-fetched because Iran is already on their way to developing the bomb, which places Saudi Arabia at a disadvantage. Basic international relations theory tells us that Saudi Arabia would HAVE to counter-balance Iran because by not Saudi dominance (due to US help) will be non-existent. I now link in to a higher probable chance of nuclear terrorism. 2) Pakistan-India. Pakistan is already being destabilized internally by jihadist groups looking to institute their own rule in that area. This includes Al Qaeda in the FATA region, and the workings of the Pakistani-Taliban near Islamabad. Not to mention that the ISI has multiple links to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. Now, the only reason India and Pakistan hasnt destroyed each other yet is the fact that the US has maintained an umbrella over them which has quelled tensions. US withdrawal from that area will spark Pakistani and Indian tensions, both of which have nuclear arsenals. And Afghanistan is critical because losing it will allow another safe-haven for jihadist groups to destabilize Pakistan.Sources on other page