The War On Terror is justifiable and effective.

The War on Terror that has followed the 9-11 attacks is not only justifiable and effective, it was and remains the only solution to the threat posed by militant Islamic fundamentalism. The War on Terror is justifiable. 1. To prove that the war is justifiable, I must prove that the cause of it merited action, and that the action taken was the correct one. The causes of the war on terror have been not only the September 11th, 2001 attacks that left thousands of American civilians dead, but the bombings in Madrid and in London as well. The 9/11 attacks were the original cause of the war; the subsequent bombings the cause to continue it. The 9/11 attacks are to the war on terror what Pearl Harbor was to the Pacific Theater of World War II. My opponent argues that war is never justified except in extreme circumstances, "arbitrary provocation or attack from a hostile power with no reasonable alternative. " If my opponent believes that Pearl Harbor was arbitrary attack from a hostile power, he must believe that World War II was justified; at least in the Pacific theater. If he accepts that 9/11 was equivalent to Pearl Harbor, it follows that he must also accept the War on Terror as justified. 9/11 is equivalent to Pearl Harbor because both were arbitrary, preemptive provocation and attack from a hostile power--and in neither case was a reasonable alternative to warfare found. If anything, 9/11 was far worse an attack than Pearl Harbor because (1) the targets were almost entirely civilians, and (2) the tactics used are equivalent to armies from centuries past marching with hostages in front of them to act as a shield. So, 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. 2. The war on terror was conceived under the extreme circumstance of the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. 3. The cause of the war was not, in fact, retribution--retribution would mean that we had stooped to the tactics of the Islamic terrorists and said to ourselves, "The terrorists killed 2752 of our civilians; we must kill 2752 of theirs. " However, it is obvious that US policy has never been to harm civilians in any way. The justification for the war was, in fact, to prevent something similar from happening again. Certainly there was anger, a desire for retribution after the twin towers were destroyed--just as there was at Pearl Harbor and after the sinking of the Lusitania. Did we act primarily out of vengeance? Certainly not. Vengeance has never been a just motive, but the goal of the war on terror was not vengeance. to paraphrase Jeane Kirkpatrick, it was "making war to keep the peace. " If warfare is ever justifiable, the motive must be to make the world better in some way--such as bringing peace. Warfare is never good--but it is necessary. 4. To prove that preventing a similar occurrence was the motive of the war on terror, we need only look at why people have said it to be effective. They do not say, "This war was effective because we killed 2752 Muslim civilians. " No, they say, "This war was effective because we have freed two countries and prevented another terrorist attack on U. S. soil. " For something to be effective, it must fulfill its goal. The latter sentence is frequently used by everyone, in support of the war or against it, as the motive (e. g. : the war on terror was ineffective because it did not prevent terrorist attacks in the rest of the world. ) So whether or not the war on terror is effective, it's 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. But he must accept that vengeance was not the motive of the war on terror. The War on Terror was effective. 1. The War on Terror has been effective because it has achieved its stated goal of no further terrorist attacks on U. S. soil. My opponent may argue that the military exploits of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan did not contribute to this; that it was instead increased border security post 9/11. This is, however, immaterial because 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. So if my opponent accepts that increased border security has been effective in preventing further attacks on U. S. soil, he must accept that the war on terror has been effective in some ways. 2. The War on Terror has freed two nations from cruel dictatorships. The role of the US in the world is controversial, but everyone agrees that our powers should be used for good. So even without the attacks, it may have been justified to invade Iraq and Afghanistan in the interest of increased liberty in the world. The Taliban and the Ba'athists were most certainly not majority, elected governments as we have in the west. My opponent could argue that it is none of our beeswax whether the littler countries in the world languish and die under cruel regimes, and I would say that would contradict the liberal and admirable ideas of a "united earth" and compassion to less fortunate people. Remember that Saddam Hussein carried out a chemical weapons attack on his own people, members of the Kurdish minority, that killed almost 10,000 people and is the largest chemical weapons attack on civilians in history. Talibani attacks in 1998 killed 8,000 Afghanis, and women could be beaten for showing any skin besides their hands. This is what we liberated the Iraqi and Afghani peoples from. We have given them the choice of freedom. My conclusion, then, is that the war on terror has been both justifiable and effective (within reason. ) My opponent apparently expects war to be without casualties, and that all casualties were unjustly made casualties. This is unrealistic. If war is fought for the right reason, then casualties are regrettable but necessary to achieve the just goal. People are perfectly entitled to have no stomach for warfare; it takes courage to make war. The US and its allies had the courage to make war, and with a few stumbles they have succeeded. Whatever happens in Iraq and Afghanistan after we pull out, we have freed them from some of the worst dictatorships the world has seen; Hitler and Stalin and Mao, but on a smaller scale. And yet my opponent believes that those actions were unjust. I believe he is wrong; and it will be up to the voters to decide. Thanks again for this debate.