Resolved: NATO presence improved the lives of Afghan citizens.

Thank you, Con. R1: Political Stability CON asserts that US involvement led to the Taliban taking over. It must be noted that the USSR likely would have taken over Afghanistan had the US not supported Afghani citizens--who would eventually become the Taliban. US involvement seems logical, due to the fact that the war was termed "interminable". The war only ended with Gorbachev coming to power, and leading what was seen as a fairly radical change to the USSR. He began to withdraw troops with his "new thinking" policies [1]. Due to the fact the war ended with a change in the balance of power, it was impossible to predict an end to the war. The US, therefore, felt as though it was in its interest to prevent a communist takeover. The arms provided to Afghanistan arguably made it impossible for the USSR to successfully defeat the smaller rebel forces. And the question which must be posed: What would have happened to Afghanistan had the USSR taken control? As noted, the Taliban relies upon extractive political and economic institutions. These institutions lead to reduced freedom and economic growth [2]. The USSR also relied upon similar institutions, preventing the existence of private property and instead relying on collective ownership. This, in Russia for example, led to an increase in growth which was unsustainable, and led to a slow decline after the boom ended. This caused millions of people to suffer as living standards declined [3]. It is arguable that, had the US not intervened, the USSR would have taken control. It is also arguable that the USSR could have destabilized the region, due to the massive political and economic changes which would occur under the extractive institutions that the USSR would put in place. It must also be noted that the US did not fund the Taliban. Although the US was sympathetic towards their cause, "[t]he U.S. didn't provide arms or anything to them" [4]. Further, even though the US funding program was linked to some violence, the program did, in fact, help many people. The war-torn region created many refugees. However, Jimmy Carter's policies assisted Afghani refugees who fled to Pakistan in order to avoid the violence [5]. But all of this ignores the immense help NATO has given to Afghanistan. NATO's goal was not to create a Utopia, but allow Afghanistan to control its own security. A goal which, for the most part, has been met. Under NATO supervision, average GDP growth is an astonishing 7% per year. 70% of Afghans now use mobile phones and internet use is becoming widespread. Schooling has gone from only 1 million boys receiving education to 8 million now enrolled in school, of both genders [6]. CON claims that invasions have a past history of failure. The indirect involvement of the US in the Soviet-Afghan war prevented USSR control over the region. It also must be noted that indirect involvement is hugely different than direct involvement. Further, to say that "invasions" always make a country worse is blatantly false. Colonization actually made many parts of the world more wealthy, and 47% of current economic growth can be attributed to the Europeans bringing inclusive political and economical institutions to impoverished parts of the world [7]. This is interesting because colonization was meant to steal from local populations. However, the NATO involvement in Afghanistan is, in large part, meant to *improve* the lives of the locals. If "evil" motives in occupation lead to growth, it follows that well meaning motives with NATO occupation would increase growth even more than that of colonization. R2: Consequences of the war We must weigh the costs and benefits of the war in Afghanistan. Although CON provides many arguments in opposition to the war, we must note the plethora of benefits which has to be added into the equation [8]: 1) In 2000, fewer than 5% of Afghans had cell phones. Now over 60%, including 48% of women, have a cell phone. 2) In 2003, there were only 450 health related facilities. Now, there are more than 1800. 3) 65% of the population has access to the internet whereas a decade ago only the privileged few could browse the web 4) When the Taliban controlled the country, only 2 flights a day landed in Kabul. Now the number is 12. 5) The amount of children being educated increased by a factor of 8, and almost half of them are women. There are now 13,000 general education schools across Afghanistan. 6) In 2002, there were only 32 miles of paved road. Now there are 7500 miles of paved roads. 7) It is predicted that extraction of oil and precious metals will account for 45% of Afghanistan's GDP within the decade. As can be seen, the quality of life has dramatically increased with NATO's influence. Furthermore, threat of terrorism is decreasing in parts of Afghanistan. Afghan security forces have improved dramatically, and "In northern Afghanistan, security has improved dramatically, with insurgent attacks down 60%", and "In southern Afghanistan, security has improved in Kandahar City and in the Arghandab River Valley to the west" [9]. Indeed, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, Afghanistan's security is threatened not due to NATO involvement, but due to the withdrawal of NATO forces. "Afghanistan's security situation is likely to deteriorate if U.S. and other foreign forces withdraw" [10]. CON cites some anecdotal evidence regarding children being drawn into Taliban ranks. This assertion falls apart when you see how Taliban numbers *fell* under NATO occupation. It only increased recently as NATO influence is decreasing dramatically as the 2014 withdrawal date nears [11]. Between 2001 and 2008, Taliban numbers fell from 45,000 to 11,000. Only in 2014 has the number dramatically increased to 60,000, as NATO forces have all but left the area. Therefore, if anything, NATO involvement *protects* children from being drafted into radical groups. It must also be noted how most terrorist attacks which CON talks about occur in rural areas, where few children will be negatively affected, as larger concentrations of the population live in more stable regions. According to the state department, NATO attacks on insurgent groups have made it very difficult in order for the terrorists to attack large cities, like Kabul. 80% of the attacks occur in districts with only 20% of the total population, and half of all country-wide attacks occur in just 10 districts, and those 10 districts only hold 3% of the population [12]. Therefore, we see that *most* attacks occurring now are in rural areas, as opposed to large population centers, BECAUSE of NATO involvement. Furthermore, CON's rape study pertains to another war (therefore not being applicable to Afghanistan and is consequently invalid), and NATO has contrarily significantly increased women's rights [13]. Although violence against women is still *very* common, " the number of cases appears to be going down" [14]. Back to you, Con. Sources: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. Why Nations Fail (2012). [3]Ibid. [4]http://www.rferl.org... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://www.nato.int... [7]http://tinyurl.com... [8]http://tinyurl.com... [9]http://www.longwarjournal.org... [10]http://www.cfr.org... [11]http://en.wikipedia.org... [12]http://www.defense.gov... [13]http://www.nato.int... [14]http://www.bbc.com...