Resolved: The US should abandon the War on Terror.

IntroductionWe thank our opponents for such a strong case. We will now analyze and refute their arguments. After reading their arguments we still affirm the resolution and therefore believe that the War on Terror should be abandoned by the US.Rebuttals:State SecurityI agree that the 9/11 attacks were horrific and the statistics are high however there is a lot of controversy over it and there are even conspiracy theories in regards to who exactly is responsible for it [1]. It is believed by 1 in 7 Americans that the US government are responsible for 9/11. The causation of 9/11 is not a justified position to base your arguments off since it is not a proven fact that 9/11 was caused by any specific group of people [1].It is not as simple as to say that “direct attacks on a nation should be met with force,” as my opponent claims. It’s about whether this is successful and will actually work. The US government are extremely desperate. and have even committed war crimes with absolutely no point in an attempt to show that they are actually doing something:“In 2009, an American cruise missile hit a village in Yemen where Al-Qaeda operatives were believed to be hiding. When the missile exploded, it rained cluster bombs over the entire hamlet, killing 35 women and children. Five of the women were pregnant; the youngest child was only one year old. Nor did the carnage stop there: nearly a year later a ‘bomblet’ that survived the attack exploded, killing two locals and injuring fifteen more. There is no proof anyone killed was an active terrorist.” [2]Is this really what we need to be doing? It is evident that without these desperate attacks innocent lives would not have been lost. Of course we don’t want people to do and we don’t want terrorism however even with the War on Terror, it isn’t like any large terrorist organisations are going to stop because of it. [3]Furthermore, the War on Terror doesn’t include “state security” by how our opponents term it. They essentially say that the War on Terror directly safeguards the US. This is not the case. Our approach solves for this, but as the War on Terror is a WAR, it is an active military pursuit against nearly 100 opponents. NPR explains “It's a war directed against multiple enemies, not just one adversary.” [8] Their approach, advocating for a WAR does not protect the US directly. It spreads out defense by getting our troops involved elsewhere. Indirectly, they claim it will preserve the US. That’s untrue, but we’ll address that later. Our approach, on the other hand, deals with local terrorism -- protecting the US from outside terrorism by political means. It is both more effective and plausible, and doesn’t result in the meaningless deaths of thousands of US troops. In fact, since the war was instigated in 2001, there has been roughly 1.3 million deaths of troops. [9] These statistics are as of March 2015, and have likely risen since then. This does NOT protect the states.Global Security / United NationsOur opponents assert that we are bound by international “law” to conduct the War on Terror. Yet, this can’t be true. The war was only started in 2001, following the terrorist attacks in NYC. Besides, there are other approaches to confronting these problems and adequately dealing with them, like we mentioned earlier. Fulfilling our obligation under the UN can be achieved by using a political approach. Instead of actively fighting the surfaced problems, deal with them prior to their prominence. Obviously, solvency is needed for the current problems, but it isn’t going to come from our military action. The track record for this has ruled out the option long ago.Instead, we need to support those who are fighting the groups as well as prevent the terror from reaching our country. Instead of wasting funds overseas, and letting the threat slip into the US (as it did in San Bernandino, CA), the USFG has to prioritize itself over global assistance. If the US falls, then they *can’t* help other nations. That is why it is imperative to deal with problems at home, rather than abroad.For example, the San Bernardino, CA shooting killed 14 people. [4] In fact, the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) is treating the shooting as an act of terrorism. [5] Moreover, the two shooters were supporters of the Islamic State. [6] Tashfeen Malik, the wife, had taken a public pledge to IS, and there were IS members who quoted “We pray to God to accept them as martyrs.” [7] This is indicative of how the US itself is at risk. It cannot feasibly place any more importance on the world when itself is prone to devastating attacks and unsafe as well.No Other Effective SolutionThis is essentially identical to the fourth contention, so we’ll combine our refutations.EffectivenessFirst of all, it is imperative to note our contention regarding effectiveness. It’s not an effective procedure. Besides this, it is imperative to recognize the ramifications the War on Terror has had up until this point, particularly in regards to effectiveness. Instead of curbing terrorism, it has actually facilitated the despicable acts and furthered them. Terrorism has dramatically increased by nine-fold since the War on Terror was started. [10] Instead of helping prevent terrorism the war has been so ineffective it has had reverse effects, actually increasing terrorism. The mere one example doesn’t account for the dramatic increase worldwide, including recent Paris attacks and those in California. Furthermore, some of the methods by which the US conducts the War are counter-productive. For example, the drones they use to bomb terrorist organizations actually kill more civilians than previously recognized. They kill innocent people in an ineffective attempt to end terrorism. The harmful consequences far outweigh the benefits. [11]Moreover, it is ineffective in that it is damaging to the economy. An effective policy would establish safety from the former (curb terrorism) and be more beneficial than costly. This isn’t true. Not only has it failed to curb terrorism, it’s also left a gargantuan dent in the US economy. If we don’t stop the War now, the Council on Foreign Relations explains “actual costs through 2017 will amount to roughly $1 trillion, but interest payments on debt will add over $700 billion to that price tag.” [12] That’s an unacceptable amount that could be added to more effective policies and practices. The War on Terror should not be considered effective.Conclusion:All of the concerns we noted previously are still glaringly obvious and harmful. Moreover, none of the claim of our opponents are substantiated or standing. We’ve thoroughly rebutted each one. The War on Terror is a hopeless, impossible, and ineffective pursuit. We should seek superior, effective alternatives to solve terrorism problems without destroying the economy and raising questionable ethical issues.Sources[1] http://www.serendipity.li... [2] http://listverse.com... [3] http://new.spectator.co.uk... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [6] http://www.cnn.com... [7] http://www.latimes.com... [8] http://www.npr.org... [9] http://www.psr.org... [10] http://www.commondreams.org... [11] http://www.theguardian.com... [12] http://www.cfr.org...