The War in Afghanistan is futile and a waste.

Sorry about the mishap. I know it’s frustrating. Ok, so my opponent concedes that the war is not stopping - Attempts of Islamic terror on our homeland- jihadis from crossing our borders- “home grown” terrorism- the ever present threat of Islamic terror inside the USHe concedes that the increased security measures have stopped attacks. He also concedes that the war is extremely costly and cost thousands of lives but tries arguing semantics instead of facts."So the correct answer is no we have not lost more soldiers then civilians so far."What I originally said was, “The cost in lives of the war exceeds the number of people killed on 9/11”So yes, we have lost more lives of soldiers but no not “American” soldiers. However, the life of an allied soldier is the same as an American’s because they are over there fighting as well. We brought them into it. I know you said you mean no disrespect but they are on our team shedding blood alongside Americans. “Even if the death toll was 10,000 soldiers it is still better then even a single civilian casualty. Even 1 is unacceptable.” Even in war, we have a concept of “acceptable losses”. That is, what is the acceptable casualty rate before changing course. I would argue that a 10,000 to 1 ratio is not acceptable and does more damage to the country in the long run. As an example, in WWII the USAF had an acceptable bomber loss rate. I think it was around 10%. Well, when we started receiving losses in the 13% range we ceased deep penetration raids to stop incurring the high casualty rate. Sources aren’t necessary because I know with my opponent being in the military that he is familiar with this concept and exact numbers aren't necessary to prove the concept exists. So I’ll ask my opponent. Would you have continued those air raid operations on the hopes that it would save 1 civilian life? Sacrifice all those lives and money for the idea of saving some unknown life at some possible future date? That’s not acceptable. What about Daniel Pearl, the US journalist that was beheaded? If what you say about the military is true then why didn’t we send in a battalion in the hopes of saving him? What if I said, “we can for sure save Daniel Pearl but you and another 9,999 marines must die.” Would that be acceptable? No. If anyone answers otherwise they are kidding themselves. Even American civilians would concede that isn’t acceptable. This is evident by the fact that the majority of Americans are against the war (1) So, yes the costs of this war are unacceptable even to the civilians you are trying to protect."However this does not include the subsequent lives lost to terror attacks since 9/11..."True, but this simply reinforces my position that the war in reality is not keeping us safer. I know you being a service member makes you want so badly for your fallen comrades to not have died in vein, so do I. But let’s not ignore reality. The war isn’t keeping us safer and the losses are unacceptable at this point. “Pro even brought up this very problem within our nation and it is certainly one that needs addressing though I would not go as far as to infringe on Muslims rights to practice their freedom of religion or banning them from coming to this country.”Read my other debate on this topic, you might change your mind once you understand that the threat is Islam itself. Once you understand this you’ll understand that the war over there is futile. It makes no difference if we are killing Muslims over there because we have plenty here that want to kill Americans. And as you pointed out, the numbers are growing. So, it only makes sense to stop the war and focus our efforts on the home front. "But my opponents assumption that by focusing on border security and tighter immigration laws instead of the war in the Mid East we would have less terrorist attacks here is wrong since the majority of these attacks are being conducted by our own citizens."You already admitted that increased border security has helped stop terrorists from coming here, this is a given. Anyways, we would have less attacks obviously but those weren’t my only two solutions was it? Increased internal security measures are what have stopped attacks. Expanding those programs or creating new ones would help. And how would something like using agents and local law enforcement personnel to periodically attend mosques to see if they are teaching anti-American ideology, advocating violence or the implementation of Sharia Law in America be a violation of rights? I ask, wouldn’t that be a good idea since the sources I supplied previously demonstrate that this is the case? You even said “home grown” terror is on the rise. The war is not going to stop this reality. You’re whole argument boils down to basically “us being in their holy land keeps them over there and not fighting us here.” Ok, well if we weren’t fighting over there how would jihadis get here? Many did and still do come through our porous borders. Many also sneaked in through extremely slacked immigration standards. So obviously there are only two ways for jihadis to get here. Both options could be completely taken away if we put our troops on our border, built a fence, and used drone surveillance and by using rigorous background checks for potential immigrants and completely halting immigration from Islamic nations. These terrorists aren’t a sophisticated organized military with hundreds of war ships, fighter planes, etc that could mount a full on assault on American soil. If that were the case I’d agree that fighting over there is the better option however that’s not reality. It’s obvious that Jihadis couldn’t mount any sizeable force just outside our borders to pose a serious threat because they also have to sneak into Mexico."Do terrorist sneak across the border from time to time? Of course and it is a problem we need to work on but obviously not the most serious one since foreign attackers only make up a small percentage of known terrorist plots."So you concede that they still sneak across but claim this isn’t the most serious problem? It only takes one terrorist with a dirty bomb to sneak across the border and unleash it on Los Angeles. The US/Mexico border is only 1,954 miles (2) If we took half the cost of the Afghan war we could easily build a wall, put troops on look out posts every 1/8mile, and step up drone surveillance. Our borders would be impenetrable no matter how many jihadis we on the other side due to our not being in Afghanistan. I just saved America $1T and the lives of over 2,000 American service members along with the lives of our allies.Just for clarity, posts every 1/8 mile would require 15,632 troops on post at the border at any given time. To put that in perspective at the height of the war in Afghanistan we had around 100,000 troops there. (3) In conjunction with military personnel, we would keep using Border Patrol agents and the National guard. Because we already have bases, cities, Border agents, and infrastructure along our borders we won’t need to do much new building for logistical support. This keeps cost down. So it’s clear that my plan is a more sustainable and cost effective approach to protecting American lives than the Afghan War. Vote Pro1 http://www.hstoday.us...2 http://en.wikipedia.org...3 http://www.nationaljournal.com...