War on terror

I look forward for an illuminating debate. Pro and I have agreed that the formal resolution for this debate will be "Resolved: The War On Terror is in the United States' best interest. " As Con, I will be arguing that the War On Terror is NOT in the United States' best interest. Although my burden really is to simply negate the arguments of Pro, I will introduce a couple contentions that will hopefully initiate some clash. ==========CONTENTION 1: THE WAR ON TERROR IS A FLAWED POLICY========== The War On Terror is a policy that was originally instituted by the Bush Administration in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. In general terms, the objective of the program has been to root out terrorists that have an intent on attacking the United States. According to the U. S. Law Code, terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (1). The problem with the policy is that, per the definition I provided, the United States is effectively expressing war against a doctrine, against a belief. Robert Higgs, a Senior Fellow of the Independent Institute writes, "Terrorism is a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere, anytime. [As a result] the War on terrorism…can only be a figure of speech" (2). In other words, we are waging war against an unseen ideology. How does one win that kind of war? The answer is, it cannot be done. The War On Terror cannot be won. We can do the best we can to stop jihadists from attacking the United States, but total victory will always be impossible. ==========CONTENTION 2: THE WAR ON TERROR IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE========== The War On Terror is not only an unachievable goal, but many of the measures the U. S. has taken in conformity with the "war" have actually done the opposite of what was intended. For example, despite out occupation of Afghanistan, the amount of Taliban-controlled territory is actually INCREASING, from less than 20% in 2004 to 54% in 2006 to now 72% by 2008 (3). Moreover, the War in Iraq was supposed to end Saddam Hussein's sponsorship of terrorism, but our military occupation of the country actually increases the United States' risk of being attacked. The reason for this is that our presence in Iraq give terrorist groups a "celebrated cause" for recruiting new members (4). The excuse (which may or may not be warranted) of "foreign invaders" is often used by Al Qaeda to unite recruits under a common goal: to destroy the "American enemy. " To wrap this concept up, my point pretty much is that the United States' continued occupation of the Iraqi homeland actually increases anti-U. S. sentiments in the country, thereby breeding hatred and wants of revenge. ==========MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS========== I assume that my opponent is waiting for the next round to post the bulk of his case, but I will still rebut the few statements he posted in Round 1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Would you rather have some terrorist running planes into our countries cities or, would you rather go out and find them and get information on the location of Osama Bin Ladin and other high priority personals. " As I said in my first contention, scouring the world for terrorists simply cannot work without an infinite supply of resources. Only in a perfect world would this be possible. Even invading individual countries ends up doing more harm in good, as I showed in my second contention. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "They killed many innocent civilians. For what reason? They hate freedom and they hate America. " My opponent provided no explanation for terrorists "hating freedom. " Until he elaborates, the statement cannot be taken at its word. Unfortunately, however, there will always be those who hate America. There will always be those who are willing to attack the United States. Those people are not limited to terrorists living in the Middle East. As of right now, the best the U. S. can do is constantly improve its domestic defense while doing its best to foster diplomatic relations with other governments to end any sponsorships of terrorist groups. ==================================================== I would again like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate. And I look forward to his response. Sources: (1) . http://www.state.gov... (2) . http://www.lewrockwell.com... (3) . http://www.cfr.org... (4) . http://www.cnas.org...