The War On Terror is justifiable and effective.

I have to extend my sincere thanks to my opponent for taking up the opposing side of this debate. To attempt to defend actions so unpopular and so often parodied and ridiculed within popular circles marks a person who holds great passion and belief that such actions are right. I must admit that I sincerely looked forward to this debate. Imagine my disappointment, then, when I came to the realization that my opponent's arguments are merely the exact arguments millions of us have heard (and discarded) before. My opponent has displayed no great ingenuity in his dialogue; he has merely thrown the same wild, disconnected statements about, hoping to equate the War as a moral crusade against terrorism, hoping to persuade people that upon meeting with a "necessary evil," the aim is to focus upon its necessity, and not its evil. His hope is to subjugate criticism of the War's operations in highlighting its perceived mission; preserving the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons. The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons. And always- ALWAYS- wrong. 1. My opponent hoped to equate the War On Terror with America's entry into the Second World War- making parallels between 9/11 and Pearl Harbour. This, I concede- not only was 9/11 the worst attack on America's soil since Pearl Harbour, it was, as my opponent so eloquently puts it; "a more atrocious and underhanded attack than Pearl Harbor." (My spelling is in the Australian module). To hijack aircraft and plummet them into buildings, killing over 2000 innocent civilians, is universally an inexcusable act, and no amount of rhetoric will be able to even slightly shift that affirmation. I also concede that the Pearl Harbour attacks were justification for the US's entry into the Second World War. However, my opponent's next statement, I must disagree with- "if my opponent believes that 9/11 was a more atrocious and underhanded attack than Pearl Harbor, and accepts that Pearl Harbor was a just cause for Franklin Roosevelt declaring war on Japan, he must again accept that 9/11 was a just cause for 9/11, making the war on terror justifiable." This equivocation misses one step of logic- for me to take the two agreeable statements and then come to the same conclusion, I must also agree that the US's entry into the Second World War can be made equivalent with the War On Terror. This is incorrect. The US's declaration of war on Japan was against a sovereign power, with its own controlled army, with a fixed structure, and broadly connected to a worldwide fascist movement that at the time posed an incredibly serious threat to the stability of the free world. Furthermore, it was the undoubtable perpetrator of the attacks. The US's foreign operations against Afghanistan and Iraq were misdirected; latest intelligence from 9/11 suggests that 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt, and 1 from Lebanon. (1) Even Al-Qaeda, the broader plotter of said attacks, is not a sovereign state, and was not even present in Iraq prior to US occupation. Afghanistan and Iraq themselves posed no threat to US themselves; only insurgents within- insugrents easily stopped with more practical border control, less blanket hostility towards the Middle East, and the President actually reading the reports that cross his desk. (2) Once one accepts that the War On Terror is misdirected against those who actually organized the attacks, and those who might organize such attacks in the future, it becomes readily realized that the War On Terror is not justifiable. 2. My opponent believes that the War On Terror does not operate primarily from the urge of vengeance. If so, he need only explain why such occupations, as I have already argued, were carried out (and continue to be carried out) with seemingly no direction towards those who perpetrated the original attack. He also must explain why the US has resorted to such overzealous methods of war to achieve its ends. Surely the increase of border and airport security (as already carried out), combined with a more pragmatic and peaceful foreign policy, would be enough to prevent such attacks from ever occurring again. War is never made to "keep the peace." It only maintains "peace," for an extremely short period. After such a period, one side must inevitably wage war again to claim the debts for the original war. And again and again, an eye is claimed for an eye, and the Shakespearian drama unfolds, where everybody lies dead on the floor. A far better solution is the Chekhovian drama; everybody is upset and disollusioned, but remains alive come the end. We need a Chekhovian solution to the threat of terrorism. Subtly put, my opponent is attempting to paint me as soft on terrorism- "it's (sic) motive was to prevent a similar attack occurring. If my opponent believes this to be an unjust motive, then we are back to square one." It is far from an unjust motive. But the actions do not stem from such a motive. The actions stem from retribution, and that is an unjust motive. If the real cause were prevention, then policies already suggested would be far more reasonable in achieving that goal. 3. My opponent seems to suggest in his argument an admittance that neither war in Afghanistan nor Iraq is effective in halting radical Islamic terrorism- "the increased border security, no less than the material drives and arms buildup of World War II, is part of the War on Terror effort, and thus part of the war." That, I disagree with also. If I took the increased security (and the President reading certain reports) to be part of the War On Terror, then I would have to concede that it has been effective in some manner. But by pointing to this to be a cause of less terrorism, my opponent has conceded that the US already possessed the means of stopping the 9/11 attacks prior to the declaration of War. After all, war or not, the President can up airport security and read reports he's meant to read any day of the week. Thus, I don't view this as part of the war. 4. It's irrelevant to point to the so-called "liberation," of Iraq and Afghanistan as evidence of the war being effective, as such "liberation," was never the aim of the War On Terror. If it were, my next question consists of four words; China, Sudan, Zimbabwe and Chad. If my opponent wishes to debate the US's role as the world's policeman with me, then that's fine, but the US should show us some consideration and be consistent in its policing. Unfortunately, until my opponent can move past the mainstream, strawman remarks that he seems to use with such ease, and until he can find proper justification and evidence of effectiveness for the War On Terror, then it falls the the audience to cast his morally indignant argument aside, and vote for the con side of the argument. It falls to you to look past his reasons. The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons. And always, as ever, wrong. (1) http://query.nytimes.com... (2) http://www.wanttoknow.info...