The United States Needed to invade Afghanistan.

It was not necessary for the United States to invade Afghanistan. I. The Taliban regime could have been overthrown without an invasion, and as well, the power of the warlords could have easily been broken. 1. If we are to accept the affirmative in saying that the population was repressed by the Taliban, it is fair to conclude that the majority of people did not like the Taliban. A. If the majority did not like the Taliban, we could have caused a revolution in Afghanistan at a far cheaper cost then a military invasion. B. We had airspace from Pakistan, therefore, we should have bombarded Afghanistan with pamphelets (metaphorically, although there's nothing wrong with pamphelets). We should have given them material as to why the Taliban should be overthrown, and why democracy is good. C. We could have also played the warlords in Afghanistan against each other, by supporting some and not others we could manage their power. No warlord would have the power to become dominant. They would ultimately clash with the Taliban, or support it. In the end, all sides would be weakened. D. With a weaker Taliban and less powerful nobles, a people ready to liberate themselves, Afghanistan could have a revolution. The people would establish a democracy, which would be supported by the US. E. There are many other things we could have done to cause this revolution, but I assume the point has been delivered. In essence, Afghanistan was, and currently is like feudal Europe. Warlords are the lords, with power throughout the country side, and the Taliban is the repressive religious force, similar to what the Roman Catholic Church was in the Middle Ages. By breaking up this feudal system, we could make Afghanistan an ally, and a powerful one at that. F. The reason to prefer this is that it would have lead to increased power in a democratic centralized government. The current situation has much of the power situated in the hands of warlords, and some with the federal government. The Taliban also still has some power, especially in villages in the country, but overall is weaker. The federal government only has power in the cities, and much of this power is only because we support it. G. If we had not invaded, and instead destabilized the warlords and Taliban, the central government would not need us to support it. It would become an even greater ally. H. Invasion does not endure every Afghani to the US. The people who lost family members will never support us, and the warlords are only a temporary ally against the Taliban. Had we not invaded, the people would hold absolutely no hostility to the US. We would have a permanent ally in the region, the people of Afghanistan. As well, our now and most certainly future foes, the Taliban and warlords, could have been crushed just as well in this revolution. I. Since the power of the current Afghani government is mainly from us, it is only a temporary government. As well, the warlords will only support as long as we are willing to ignore their opium trade, as well as pay them for the sake of not causing trouble. All of these factors are great trouble now, and in the long run. Establishing a government without warfare would not have this problem. J. Had we caused a revolution, we would have a stable and permanent ally. It would not be a shifting alliance such as that with Pakistan. As well, it would have promoted peace and stability in the region. K. It would ultimately have cost less, we would not be using as much money, as it does take great amounts of money to mobilize for a war. L. Not only could the Taliban have been removed without invasion, but we would be safer had we not invaded. We would have more troops to defend our nation, and these troops would be more happy, and under less stress (since they are deployed less). I have offered an alternative to invasion, there are others, but I think you see my point. Now, I will discuss the implications of invading Afghanistan. II. Invading Afghanistan has increased terrorism worldwide. 1. There have been more incidents of terrorism in the world since our invasion. 2. Invading Afghanistan has unleashed the once dormant force of extremism. This is not something inherently related to Islam, but to numerous factors I will explain. A. The peoples in Africa, Asia, have been constantly exploited in the past centuries, and even today. Rising education and nationalism has revealed the truth to these people. Not only do they live in poverty, they are forced into it. The ruling class of their countries as well as powerful groups from other countries exploit these people. They are poor, angry, and ready to strike. B. Many people in Asia and Africa are Muslims. When we invaded Afghanistan, some of them saw it as an attack on Islam. They are then ready to fight for what they believe is under attack (and of course it was not an attack on Islam, but the perception of people is what counts). C. A minority of people shared radical beliefs with the Taliban, but were not yet violent. The attack on the Taliban enraged them, and made them active. D. Muslims throughout the world feel as if their religion is under attack, and become more perceptible to radical beliefs (although the vast majority of Muslims still do not embrace these beliefts). Especially in poor countries, where there are other factors to anger these people. F. Afghanis lose family members, houses, etc. Some feel the invasion threatens them, and they respond violently. G. Attacking Afghanistan gave the Taliban new propaganda. In some countries, such as Afghanistan, much education comes from religious schools. With radicalism on the rise and Muslims feeling under attack, even young children begin to accept these beliefs. H. There are many other factors that come in to play, but I only have so many words. So, as you can see, the invasion of Afghanistan caused many Muslims to dislike the US, and some to even hate it. 3. I have shown how the invasion affected perceptions, and that adaquately shows why terrorism has been on the rise. Terrorism now is essentially a extreme reaction to perceived aggression from the US. 4. Impacts of this terrorism: A. Lives are lost, property is damaged, many of these wrongs are attributed to the US, even though that is often not the case at all. (Remember, we don't control their media and schools) B. This terrorism leads to more terrorism, this can be seen in Iraq. C. Terrorism further destabilizes regions, and creates more problems. This can eventually backfire on us. D. It creates a rift between Muslims and the US, as some attribute this terrorism specifically to Islam. This aggravates the problem further. So as you can see, terrorism begets more of itself. III. The way to stop terrorism is not continued military force. 1. Force begets more terrorism. People will continue to see it as an attack on their nation, culture, religion. It will destabilize the region, and hurt economies. People will lose family members, and hate us more. It just keeps growing. 2. The way to beat terrorism is by investing in schools, media, and humanitarian efforts. A. If we put more money into schools, they will have to teach what we want them to. If we allow our enemies to educate the children of tomorrow, terrorism and hate for the US will increase. B. If we invest in the media, we can show our side of the story, and foster a favorable view of the US. C. Humanitarian efforts will genuinely increase people's respect for the US, and will decrease terrorism and hate. Basically, if we stop using force, terrorism will decrease. And if we help people out, we will be looked at better. Conclusion By not invading Afghanistan, we could have saved ourselves money, troops, and set up a strong ally. We could have decreased terrorism, and be seen positively. I run out of room...