Resolved: NATO presence improved the lives of Afghan citizens.

C1: Introduction I would like to start off by stating my BOP. In order for me to be successful in this debate, I need to show that the presence of NATO within Afghanistan has made its citizens comparatively worse off than if NATO had not invaded Iraq in the first place. Now, since there is no clear way to define what makes a life 'better', we must rely on comparing the various effects of NATO presence, both the positive and the negative, as if they were placed on a scale, and thus weighing them against each other. To do this, I will focus on the actions of the NATO member: The United States of America. Before I begin however, I would like to concede one point. The GPD of Afghanistan has indeed risen over the years, however, that is inconsequential when looked at compared to the harms NATO presence has achieved since 1979. C2: Political Stability My opponent noted that "NATO has assisted Afghan security forces in building a system which will prevent future terrorist groups from taking over the country." Before I counter this, let me give a brief definition: Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Now, while the USA has successfully dispatched the Taliban from power, might I note that NATO member USA was a major part of bringing the Taliban to power? Between the years of 1979 and 1989 (Cold War Era), Soviet backed Afghan forces fought against insurgent forces backed by, amongst other nations, NATO members USA and UK. With financial support from NATO, the insurgents were able to drive back the Soviets. These same insurgents would later become the Taliban, whom NATO would begin fighting formally in 2001. Fixing a situation does not matter if NATO was the one who helped them rise to power in the first place. If I were to push a man in front of a train, I should not be praised for then rescuing him from the danger. This is not the first time the United States has placed a terrorist dictator in power either. General Batista, a US backed dictator who rigged elections and damaged the Cuban economy to such an extreme degree that his reign led to the bloody Cuban Revolution by Fidel Castro. President (of Nicaragua) Somoza Garcia and his son who tortured and killed political opponents who FDR stated was "a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." President (of Argentina) Videla, under whom thousands of Argentines were murdered. The list of terrorist leaders goes on and on. With this history of failures to bring peace to countries it has invaded, why should the attempt here be any different? Whether the USA directly takes action (such as in the dozens of cases which occurred in the Cold War or attempts to leave without directly asserting influence as to how the new government should be built (as was the case in Afghanistan) the result is the same. A terrorist leader comes to power whether he is backed by the USA or not, and uses violence and fear to keep said power. This is again, due to NATO intervention. C3: Consequences of War I will use this section to relay the effects of living in a war zone, such as Afghanistan has been since 1979 in the Soviet/USA Cold War conflict. That is 35 years and counting of constant war since the USA intervened against the Soviets. Studies show that within warzones, moderate to severe PTSD rates amongst children stands at about 77.4% while 20.5 show signs of chronic PTSD. Of course, among the general population as a whole this shrinks to a 'mere' 42% who show signs of PTSD, 67.7% who show symptoms of depression and this is of course due to many symptoms, including but not limited to: losing family members, being hurt or maimed in an IED blast, being assaulted, raped, or tortured by other means. With such high rates of PTSD, even if the war were to end right now, the effects will be felt for decades to come, no matter how nice the new roads may be. To continue, a study done on a previous war in a Muslim country, "Conservative estimates of the number of women raped during the Bosnian war are between 20,000 and 50,000. Estimates of sexual assault rates range from 3% to 6% in Bosnian refugee women, and posttraumatic stress symptoms were found in up to 75% of Bosnian refugees. In Darfur, rates of rape are difficult to establish; however, some estimate that 10,000 girls and women have been raped each year since 2003." This is to say nothing of the tens of thousands of civilians killed since 2001 and the hundreds of thousands who were displaced from their homes due to mass destruction of homes. Adding onto this, the addition of child soldiers in insurgent groups has made killers out of children, and groups like the Taliban (who I will remind you rose to power due to NATO action against the Soviets) have used child soldiers before for not only suicide bombings and human shields but sexual exploitation (male children and females alike). Indeed, most of these child soldiers were not volunteers for service, rather, they were kidnapped and forcibly recruited from primarily poor families in the region. Even those children who willingly joined have stories like this to tell: "At the age of 13, I joined the student movement. I had a dream to contribute to make things change, so that children would not be hungry.... Later I joined the armed struggle. I had all the inexperience and the fears of a little girl. I found out that girls were obliged to have sexual relations to alleviate the sadness of the combatants. And who alleviated our sadness after going with someone we hardly knew?... There is a great pain in my being when I recall all these things.... In spite of my commitment, they abused me, they trampled my human dignity. And above all, they did not understand that I was a child and that I had rights. " Such a horrifying violation of human rights simply cannot be ignored. If NATO presence was truly benefitting the Afghan people, then these things would not happen under their care. Not only are the people being hurt in the war zones, but one might make the case that NATO presence has prolonged the war, thus severely worsening their lives. C4: Conclusion I will again cede the fact that Afghanistan's economy has risen. My question to my opponent is this: was it worth having Afghanistan remain a war zone for so long? Furthermore, is financial security enough to make up for the countless lives ruined by the effects of war? On one side you have psychological illnesses, rape, murder, and torture, while on the other you have more capital. Does this seem like an even tradeoff? My answer is adamantly no, especially seeing as NATO's financial presence was a driving factor in starting the 35 year conflict in the first place, and many would argue that NATO presence is the reason Afghanistan is STILL at war, with no clear end in sight. The fact that my opponent stated conditions will worsen if NATO were to withdraw its troops does not justify the fact that NATO started the conflict in the first place! Are we to understand my opponent is justifying the rape, murder, and enslavement of thousands with a better economy? Sources: C2: http://terrorism.about.com... http://terrorism.about.com... http://www.mtholyoke.edu... http://www.havana-guide.com... http://friendlydictators.blogspot.com... http://www.moreorless.net.au... C3: http://www.warchildholland.org... http://quod.lib.umich.edu... http://www.ptsd.va.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.irinnews.org... https://childsoldiercrisis.wordpress.com... http://www.un.org... https://www.dosomething.org...