Resolved: NATO presence improves the lives of Afghan citizens.

For this debate, I will answer my opponent's crossfire 2 in the comments section. The date for withdrawal is fast approaching. Despite public opposition, Canada's prime minister wants to postpone that date. Now is the time to ask ourselves, does NATO's presence really improve the lives of Afghan civilians? I believe that the answer is no. NATO's presence does nothing to improve the lives of Afghan civilians. It actually does harm to Afghans. Contention 1: NATO's forces threaten and shorten the lives of Afghans NATO hunts down insurgents with unmanned aircraft. This is fine as long as no civilians are hurt, but the reality is that civilians are hurt by these aircraft. According to the NY Times, "The American military on Saturday released a scathing report on the deaths of 23 Afghan civilians." There's no doubt that there has been other cases of unmanned aircraft killing Afghans. The Centre for Research on Globalization says that there were 15,219 Afghans killed in combat. At least 3994 of them were civilians. In addition, according to rawa.org, Afghans staged a demonstration to protest civilian deaths caused by NATO. This wouldn't happen if NATO killed civilians only a couple times. It is therefore plausible to assume that NATO has killed Afghan civilians many times, and thus that NATO presence threatens and shortens the lives of Afghan civilians. NATO presence also threatens nearby civilians by being a target for the Taliban. The Taliban's main weapons of choice are the IED and the suicide bomber. Both these weapons indiscriminately kill NATO troops and civilians alike. Since these weapons are aimed at NATO and the corrupt Afghan government, NATO acts as a magnet for disaster for the local population. This unquestionably threatens and shortens the lives of Afghan civilians. Contention 2: NATO supports a corrupt government that isn't concerned about human rights According to the Centre for Research of Globalization, Hamid Karzai, the US backed Afghan President, is "a representative of the wealthy and corrupt elite in Afghanistan". "Landowners, businessmen, and noted war criminals and their cronies" make up the majority of the Afghan Parliament. "Since 2004, the Afghan parliament has reenacted most of the anti-women policies that existed under the pre-2001 Taliban-led government. Some go beyond anything in place in that earlier time. Instances of sexual abuse and assault against Afghan women are as high as ever, with the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished." This is not the Taliban. This is a recognized government, backed by NATO. If NATO presence was to improve the lives of Afghan civilians, why is the government they lead and support so corrupt? Why are rates of suicide by "self-immolation at an all-time high"? The Centre for Research on Globalization also reports, "A July 31 New York Times article by Alissa Rubin reports that 'girls' schools are closing; working women are threatened; advocates are attacked; and terrified families are increasingly confining their daughters to home.'" If NATO wasn't there, Karzai's government would have been removed by now. NATO's presence allows Karzai's government to exist. Is this what is called improving citizen lives? Because NATO's forces threaten and shorten the lives of Afghans, and because NATO supports a corrupt government that isn't concerned about human rights, I urge you to give a Con ballet. Thank you.