The United States Needed to invade Afghanistan.

I. Refutations You claim that city officials, warlords, and the Taliban are all entrenched in Afghanistan, which is my point. This has not changed even after invading Afghanistan, there has been no benefit. You then say I'm pointing the finger in the wrong direction, but actually, in reality, I'm criticizing the very fact that the United States co-operated with the warlords, and continues to do so. The very problems we face, all of this terrorism, cannot be prevented if we do not solve for the root of the problem. Violence will lead to more violence, it will create a never-ending cycle, and we'll be seeing more 9-11s. What we need is to bring change, not war, to bring education, not guns. Unless you're just saying that Afghanis are inherently stupid or something, in which case you're just a racist. 1. You're quite wrong, the Taliban was the enemy of the Mujahedeen, created in total opposition to their criminal activities(rape, murder, etc.). It's not some falling apart, it's pretty damn hostile. The entire time, I've been saying that this could have been exploited, we could have taken advantage of their hostility, turned them directly against each other, and given power to the people. You say in your argument that men had no problem with the Taliban, I seriously doubt this is true. For one, you are saying that all males in Afghanistan are backwards and oppressive, and then saying that all females in Afghanistan are submissive and weak, in other words, one giant fallacy. Basically, you're insulting Afghanis, while making a logical fallacy. Secondly, if you were to take a more moderate stance (men more supportive than against Taliban, women don't mind it too much, etc.), then you would still only be proving my arguments correct. I am criticizing the whole system of operation, all of our objectives could have been accomplished (and they haven't today) without the use of force. Force is what has messed up Afghanistan (if you do manage to even prove that the people are like this), force from Soviet Russia, force from the US, from Pakistan, from everywhere. Your invasion only entrenches this system that embraces violence and oppression. You also say that they wouldn't be able to fight the Taliban, but what you don't understand is that the Taliban needs the support of the people to function, and if we remove that support, then it no longer can. It does not have the power of a police state, the enforcers are the people themselves. No one has to leave their farms, no one has to starve, they just have to stop accepting the system. Weapons are irrelevant, this is a revolution, not a war. A. So you think the Taliban was good? Afghanis were pleased with the Taliban? I'm not giving you that one without proof. And in any case, I argue for the enlightenment of Afghanistan, and an enlightened Afghanistan would certainly realize the Taliban is unnecessary. I have already addressed your provisions argument. B. Again, pamphelets is metaphorical. I am talking about education, whether it be books, media, or yes, even pamphelets. You argue action based on two things, 9-11, and intelligence. Action based on emotion is foolish, it will lead to failure (as it essentially has). Intelligence, let me just say Iraq. You claim the situation was too serious for a non-invasion solution, but in reality, it was too serious for an invasion. We are talking about our lives, the lives of people around the world, the lives of people to be born. By using force, you entrench a flawed system, you cause more terrorism. Your "key argument" is perhaps the "key flaw" in your plan. I will address your claim that it required quick action later down. C. This argument is rather pointless, you only argument links to yours. If we use force, if we actually ally with the warlords as you say, then you are doing exactly the thing I criticize. You are entrenching a system of violence, of terrorism. You are entrenching the warlords. D. My plan solves for all of our objectives in Afghanistan (which force hasn't accomplished), and it has added benefits. This liberation makes the world a safer place. E. The people would be rebelling if we had done the right things, as I will prove later. But we have entrenched a system, entrenched the corrupt nobles, a corrupt federal government, it's far harder now than it was six years ago. G. I talk about the government we established, perhaps you should read more carefully. H. You say the Afghanis wouldn't mind? Proof, because logic demands it. It is nature to blame the supposed source of a problem. (In this case the US gov.) I. If Afghanistan's army is so great, why are there so many terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. Why do the warlords have more collective power than the central government? Perhaps they're not that good. Why are the people of Afghanistan still poor, still oppressed? Why is terrorism still on the rise after our invasion? Perhaps it is because your system of violence and force does not work anymore. It does not work in a world where asymetrical warfare waged by guerillas can take down standing armies. II. The Revolution From "The Anatomy of Revolution" by Crane Brinton. Important parts: - Economic upgrades do not reach the people. - Government wields autocratic/oppressive power. - Revolutionary ideas. Later steps: - Autocrat uses force to prevent protests. - Intellectuals transfer loyalty to the people. - Financial breakdown. Then: - Government loses support/control. 1. These are some essential components of a revolution. The money warlords were making from the opium trade was not reaching the population. The Taliban was the oppresive government. Some revolutionary ideas exist in Afghanistan, we would help light the fire. 2. The Taliban, as you say would try and stop it. The intellectuals would stop any sort of support for the Taliban. The people would be in rebellion, the opium trade would be disrupted, even greater problems for the Taliban and the warlords. 3. And the government loses control. 4. These are the essential parts of a revolution, Brinton has studied revolutions and noticed patterns common to all of them, and the necessary seeds were present in Afghanistan. 5. All we had to do is be the catalyst. III. My Plan vs. Yours 1. The cost of your plan is greater than mine. 2. Your plan takes soldiers away from home. It reduces recruitment (people don't want to fight in a war). It puts more stress on our soldiers (are out fighting, or worried about future). In essence, you make our own defenses worse. 3. My plan solves for the inherent problems in Afghanistan, it solves for the the cycle of violence and oppression. In other words, I'm pulling the weed out by the roots. Your cutting it and spreading it's seeds. 4. My plan decreases terrorism globally, it liberates the people of Afghanistan, and does everything that your plan was supposed to do. This will be continued later. 5. You didn't refute anything about the invasion of Afghanistan increasing terrorism worldwide. You don't prove that this invasion is going to solve for the enmity between countries in the east and the US. 6. You didn't refute the impacts of this increased terrorism (more terrorism, etc.) 7. You didn't refute my arguments that force is not the answer. 8. You didn't refute that Afghanistan would be a better ally if we didn't invade, but encouraged an invasion. 9. You didn't give any good reasons why my programs of educating Afghanistan wouldn't solve the issue. 10. Continuing from 4. We have not yet accomplished our goals in Afghanistan, things are only worse. If we hadn't invaded, the worst thing is that there is less terrorism worldwide, a better prepared military at home, and less hate for us internationally. That's the worst case scenario, and it's far far better than the staus quo of the invasion.