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

This topic is timely because my super awesome team is using it for practice this month. Therefore, it is clearly the bomb diggity. As my opponent stands in negation of this debate, I will ask you to assume that a risk of terrorist action against the United States exists, or else we would not be debating this topic. Thank you. I will now move on to present my own case. Though you will find that my first two contentions should be in direct clash with those of my opponent's, I will refrain from addressing his specific points in detail until Round 2 so that we both have an equal opportunity to refute each others points. With that being said, I am in firm affirmation of this resolution for a few key reasons. First, on balance, the United States military policy against terror has substantially reduced the risk of terrorist attacks. Military policy in Afghanistan has reduced the threat of terrorism. The war in Afghanistan was the first phase of U. S. military action against terror, and began in October of 2001. By November of that same year, the Taliban regime was dismantled, and it was officially collapsed by December 9, 2001. The United States follows this success by beginning reconstruction of the Afghan government, and an interim government was put in place in June 2002. By May 2003, an end to major combat is announced (1). In 2005, President Bush and President Karzai signed a joint declaration of strategic partnership to prosecute, "the war against international terror and the struggle against violent extremism" (2). Though fighting still occurs in Afghanistan at times, the country now has a democratic base that is no longer beneficial for terrorism to flourish. American military action in Afghanistan was a success simply because it destroyed the Taliban. Information from GlobalSecurity. org shows that since, "the fall of the Taliban, al Qaeda funding has drastically decreased" (3). It is simple logic that by reducing the funds of terrorists by eliminating their benefactors, we reduce their potential to cause harm. Military policy in Iraq has also reduced the threat of terrorism. Similarly, the Iraq War began with the U. S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. By just April 2003, the regime of Saddam Hussein collapsed and control of Iraq is handed over to a new, democratic government about a year later in June 2004 (4). Just as in the Afghanistan case, the Iraq War must be viewed as having successfully reduced the threat of terrorism because it successfully reduced the means of terrorists to survive by eliminating Hussein's sponsorship of terrorism in the nation (5). Secondly, domestic policies concerning terrorism have reduced the threat of terrorism in the United States. The President's Surveillance Program and Patriot Act have been effective. The President's Surveillance Program and Patriot Act, both of which were authorized as a result of the 2001 terrorist attacks, and includes wiretapping and classified surveillance activities, has been highly effective in finding and stopping terrorist plots. Though much information is classified, government reports show that communications from al-Queda have been collected as a result of this program to, "detect and prevent attacks inside the United States" (6). Furthermore, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez stated in 2005 that, "the PATRIOT Act has been very effective in helping law enforcement disrupt terrorist cells, prevent terrorist attacks, and prosecute terrorists" (7). Clearly domestic policies that allow wiretapping and similar activities have been extremely helpful in reducing terrorist threats because they are actually allowing U. S. personnel to find and stop attacks. Aside from the specific legislation discussed above, new generalized policies have also proved effective in reducing terrorism. James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation wrote that as of 2007, "the government has uncovered and thwarted at least 16 terrorist conspiracies in the United States and helped disrupt major plots aimed atAmerica or U. S. persons in Canada, Britain, and, most recently, Germany" (10). He contends that the strengthened policies of post-9/11 America make the United States a harder target for terrorists. Similarly, in an interview Peter D. Feaver of Duke University stated that, "we're much more alert, much more on guard. We have closed up stupid vulnerabilities, and we have taken prudent correctives to law enforcement procedures that had hampered us before, all of which has made it harder for them to do what was easier before 9/11. Put it altogether and that explains why there has not been another terrorist attack" (11). There are quotes from many more experts that I will be happy to provide in following rounds, but the general consensus is that our post-9/11 policy has substantially decreased the risk of terrorist attacks on the nation. Finally, after the U. S. response to 9/11, few organized terrorist groups will consider attacking the United States. John Mueller, a professor of Political Science at Ohio University, writes in Cato Unbound that after the American response to 9/11, haters now see less value in attacking the United States. He says that, "the key result [of 9/11] among jihadis and religious nationalists was a vehement rejection of Al Qaeda's strategy and methods, particularly after reactions to the 9/11 attacks and subsequent terrorism in Muslim countries brought suppression of the movement" (8). Though there have been a few isolated attempts since 9/11, no comparable large-scale attempt has surfaced since then. This is because other terrorist groups have seen America's quick action against the 9/11 perpetrators, and they have no desire to suffer the same consequences. All actions and policies taken by the United States since 9/11 have effectively cowed other organized terrorist groups from plotting against us, thus substantially reducing the risk. Furthermore, a new American attitude in general has discouraged further plots and decreased risk of attack. New policies are responsible for such attitudes. Fred Burton and Scott Stewart of Strategic Forecasting, Inc. write that, "the 9/11 attacks sparked a sea change in attitudes within law enforcement and intelligence circles. Counterterrorism — aggressively collecting intelligence pertaining to terrorism and pursuing terrorist leads — is now a priority" (9). They go on to explain that this new attitude is very discouraging for would-be attackers, as it makes attacks all the more difficult and risky. Due to new policies and attitude shifts, Americans themselves are responsible for decreasing their own risk of harm. In conclusion, I encourage a very strong vote in affirmation. Because our military and domestic policies, as well as our overall reaction to 9/11, have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the United States, I see no other way to vote. We are all well aware that the war on terror is by no means popular with many people, nor are the domestic policies of President Bush. As you vote, please put all personal opinions aside and consider only the merits of this debate. Thank you for a fair vote. Sources: (1) . http://www.cfr.org... (2) . http://merln.ndu.edu... (3) . http://www.globalsecurity.org... (4) . http://usforeignpolicy.about.com... (5) . http://www.cfr.org... (6) . http://www.fas.org... (7) . http://www.washingtonpost.com... (8) . http://www.cato... (9) . http://www.stratfor.com... (10) . http://www.heritage.org... (11) . http://www.unc.edu...