Resolved: The United States should fight the war on terror until Al-Qaeda is eliminated.

I appreciate the thoroughness of your response. I will respond to each of your contentions, but I want to begin by pointing out one simple, important point: you have not refuted the impact of ideology and political context on the strength of a terrorist organization. Terrorism including Al-Qaeda specifically, is inherently ideologically motivated by victimhood and violence, and self-perpetuates when military attacks and occupation increase civilian casualties and destruction. Yes, it's true that leadership, providing strategic direction and planning, is important to an organization. However, to say that Al-Qaeda cannot exist without Osama bin-Laden and his "cronies" is a severe oversimplification. Do you believe that Reagan – the living, breathing man-- and his top 50 guys are responsible for the rise of conservatism in the 80s? Did the Civil Rights movement end when Dr. King and Malcom X were killed? Let's examine what makes an organization work in addition to leadership: Resources: money, weapons, food, shelter, transportation. Followers to do the work. Training programs. Messengers (churches, mosques, newspapers, TV, intellectuals and civil society) that spread and normalize ideas. None of these exist in a vacuum, and the extent to which they can be replenished depends on support for Al-Qaeda outside of the specific leaders currently in power. An organization needs a vision: a compelling idea or analysis of how the world works, what's wrong with it, and what to do that inspires people to follow, support, and recruit others to the organization. Can you name any organization with comparable name recognition and influence as Al-Qaeda that has fallen apart because just its designated leadership was removed? There are Al-Qaeda factions in Iraq, Pakistan, the Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Kashmir, and as you pointed out followers in the United States and other Western countries. If the United States continues killing, maiming, and alienating people inside and out of Afghanistan, the support for Osama bin Laden's ideology will still grow. Marx still has followers because of his ideology and because the problems that existed when he wrote the Communist Manifesto still exist. Similarly, the violent, reactionary Islamist ideas that drive Al-Qaeda will continue to self-perpetuate even when Osama bin Laden is gone as long as the political context remains. General McChrystal stated in 2009, "Civilian casualties and collateral damage to homes and property resulting from an over-reliance on firepower and force protection have severely damaged ISAF's legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people." With respect, you have not explained how it is possible to defeat Al-Qaeda without killing large amounts of civilians. There have been 20,000 estimated civilian casualties in Afghanistan alone (according to UNAMA), not including military attacks on Al-Qaeda targets elsewhere (if we include Iraq, the casualty count enters the hundred thousands), for how many Al-Qaeda leaders taken out? US military camps actually draw terrorist attacks and result in more civilian casualties. The reason Al-Qaeda is elusive is because there are so many leaders around the world who use the "brand" and collect their own resources. If Al-Qaeda leadership were well-known to intelligence agencies, the "body" as you called it will still thrive with new recruits as long as the ideology continues. The attack on Mumbai was not perpetrated by Al-Qaeda. There have been four major terrorist attacks since 2001, but there have been many small attacks against the military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. That shows that those Al-Qaeda factions are choosing to fight in a different way. The fact that after eight years they are still keeping the largest military in the world on its toes is strong evidence that they are still finding ways to replenish and grow. I am not arguing that because the war doesn't have international support we shouldn't be concerned with preventing terrorist attacks on civilians. I am arguing that the lack of international support will make dismantling Al-Qaeda through warfare impossible. All you have to do is read my original thesis. I have established that it's impossible to simply keep blowing things up without recruiting more resources, members, and legitimacy for Al-Qaeda's cause. What is true for all nations is true for Afghanistan, Iraq, and all other nations where Al-Qaeda operates: nations have symbiotic relationships with their neighbors. People, goods, money, ideas, jobs, terrorists, armies all cross borders. The ISAF has decreased in size over the last eight years because so many countries no longer believe the United States' strategy and tactics are valid. Iran and Pakistan have made more threats because they know how many people who live in the Middle East find our hypocrisy and disregard for human life appalling. Our allies are helping less and our adversaries are bolder—and you think the light other Middle Eastern nations view us in is irrelevant? What makes Al-Qaeda unique is not that it wants an Islamic State. Saudia Arabia, one of our closest allies in the Middle East, is a theocracy. Al-Qaeda is driven by a specific anti-imperialist, nationalist, reactionary ideology fueled by our history of invading Middle Eastern countries, supporting dictatorships, and killing civilians. Will all of those activities on our part end or be wiped away in one fell swoop? No. But withdrawing military forces and using alternative methods of diplomacy, economic development, etc will help. I have shown that you can't destroy Al-Qaeda because you can't destroy the brand with bombs and guns. Capturing Osama bin Laden or even his top commanders will not kill the idea, even if we kill the man. The Affirmative has not shown it is possible to meet his own resolution, and additionally has not refuted that continuing to pursue this strategy will result in further losses of life. I urge a Negative vote. Thank