Resolved, the US should shift the focus in Afghanistan toward peace-keeping rather than combat.

1) Merriam-Webster defines better as "more advantageous or effective; improved in accuracy and performance." (1) My source for that, which you wanted me to label, is approximately halfway down the page of this news article, when retired Army General Jack Keane states "But morale problems are actually rare among the "Afghan mujahideen," as the Taliban call themselves, and they are fighting better than ever - and apparently a lot smarter - despite taking years of heavy losses and facing 100,000 G.I.s on the ground in President Obama's surge. (2a) 2) We are not very further advanced technologically or tactics-wise than we were approximately 8 years ago, while the Taliban are better equipped and much more intelligent- if we follow the same pattern we did 8 years ago, odds are the consequences will be even more drastic than they were. 3) Other wars can be flawed, but that does not mean they should be ignored. In fact, public sentiment was strongly against the French War in Algiers for much of the same reason public opinion has turned against the Afghanistan War: civilian casualties and a general war-weariness. The French War mirrors the situation in Afghanistan too well for us to ignore the mistakes the French made and the lessons they learned from those mistakes. 4) Not trying to offend, but I fail to see how the Silly String idea relates to peace-keeping versus combat in Afghanistan. Most of our casualties do come from bombs, it is true, but the fact of the matter is that the increasing numbers of bombs and casualties in 2010 show that the insurgency is actually strengthening in Afghanistan. Your article actually supports this, as it shows that two British soldiers have actually died quite recently, that the insurgency is still strong enough to interfere with the elections, and even states that "British forces have spent billions trying to shore up the legitimacy of President Hamid Karzai in the face of a strengthening insurgency." (3) 5) You state both that war is never truly successful, and that we should keep the peace in Afghanistan while we strike at Pakistan. But the fact is, there is no peace in Afghanistan to keep yet. There seemed to be a peace in 2002, after the Taliban had melted away into the mountains, but they returned; you yourself stated that the Taliban now control 25% of Afghanistan, while the rest of the country is not "deemed a high risk." Clearly, the Taliban are regaining territory, despite the 2008 troop surge. If we sit complacent in Afghanistan and concentrate our efforts in Pakistan (which by the way would rather handle its own problems instead of bringing in foreign soldiers), the Taliban will retake Afghanistan. According to this article, the previously thought secure northern provinces of Afghanistan are experiencing increased insurgent attacks; worries are that if NATO forces begin withdrawing, the insurgents will simply flood into the southern provinces. (4) Just recently, according to that same article, Coalition forces have had to sweep Kandahar province yet again, where the Taliban insurgents have returned and begun their attacks. 6) Parliamentary elections, as you say, are failing because it is easier to vote for the corrupt guys with the guns than to vote fairly. This is just another reason why we need to focus on combat; we need to drive these corrupt men out of power, eradicate their support, wipe out their strongholds. You say we should fight in Pakistan, keep the peace in Afghanistan. I say we continue to fight until the Taliban have been driven entirely out of Afghanistan, and then wipe them out in Pakistan, where you state that their headquarters are. 7) The Taliban are weakening, but they are not finished yet. This article makes two points. First, the Afghan National Army, according to Department of Defense chiefs, should be ready to take over by 2014. (5) What is the significance of this to the combat role of the United States in Afghanistan? Imagine for a moment that we did not continue fighting in Afghanistan, that we secured cities and allowed the insurgency to fester in the mountains, continue growing their illegal drugs and regain its previous strength. And now imagine that in 2014, the newly trained and equipped, fresh Afghan National Army must contend with a fresh, newly equipped Taliban that has replenished its ranks with warriors knowledgeable in the tactics of guerilla war. It would be a force that the Afghan Army would be unable to contend with. These next few years are too crucial to the success of Afghanistan for the United States, to pull back and assume a peacekeeping, security role. If we do not continue to actively hunt down and expunge the Taliban, wipe them out, keep them on the run, they will strengthen again. The second point that the article made is that the Taliban must be further weakened for success. "Although eager to underscore that claim of progress by handing over some security control, military officials are worried about backsliding." (5) Again, the article states, "Gates also said that although he welcomes preliminary talks between the Taliban and the U.S.-backed Afghan government, the insurgency isn't likely to cut a deal unless it is weakened further. The Taliban need to clearly see that the prospects for success have diminished dramatically, and in fact that they may well lose." The Taliban are starting to weaken, finally. We are sweeping their primary areas of hashish and opium production, driving them away from their primary source of revenue. (6) If we relent now, retreat to the cities, secure them and attempt to proceed with elections and state-building without driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan entirely, we will ultimately unravel all that we have accomplished in that state, and damn it to another oppressive regime of Taliban rule in the near future. It is for this reason that I urge you all to vote Con. Works Cited 1) "Definition of Better." Merriam-webster.com. Accessed 09 Nov 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2a) ""Taliban in Afghanistan may be rallying despite General Petraeus' insistence they are worn out." nydailynews.com. Accessed 09 Nov 2010. http://www.nydailynews.com... 3) "Two more British soldiers killed in Afghanistan as election turnout drops." Dailymail.co.uk. Accessed 09 Nov 2010. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 4) "U.S.-Led Forces Chase Taliban From Kandahar." Foxnews.com. Accessed 09 Nov 2010. http://www.foxnews.com... 5) "DoD Says Afghan Handover in 2014 Realistic." Military.com. Accessed 09 Nov 2010. http://www.military.com... 6) "Terror Finance Blog: Severing the Taliban Lifeline." Terrorfinance.org. Accessed 09 Nov 2010. http://www.terrorfinance.org...