Ending the Evil Empire

Cost to NATO:1. Soldiers did volunteer for a dangerous job, and may think the risks are worth it. But the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries still count as losses, and therefore must be included when considering the total costs of the Afghanistan war.2. It isn’t a guarantee that the U.S. would use the savings from ending the Afghanistan war to end global poverty. But if it is the case that the purpose of the war is to help the Afghani people, then surely the U.S. government would want to help other poverty-stricken peoples as well. It could even help reduce the amount of terrorism, as poorer people are much more easily recruited by terrorist organizations. Of course, if humanitarianism isn’t the point of the Afghanistan war, and the U.S. government doesn’t really care about helping people, then they probably wouldn’t use the savings to end poverty. But, then again, if that’s true, then a lot of the rest of Con’s case seems to fall apart. 3. 15% savings? How is this calculated? What is the plan of rapid withdrawal, and what is it being compared to for this calculation? This claim needs to be explained—there’s no obvious reason that the cost of the war couldn’t be cut down to 0% of what it currently is.Death Toll:1+2. It doesn’t matter if deaths are caused by human shields or the Taliban, rather than NATO directly. The deaths are still the result of the war—the civilians wouldn’t have been used as human shields against NATO if NATO wasn’t there, and many of the deaths caused by the Taliban are because of the intensified conflict caused by NATO, as evidenced by the increase in Taliban deaths over the past several years as fighting has increased.3. If Con would like us to believe that NATO leaving would make the civil war in Afghanistan bloodier, he should prove it. He claims that a large military aiding one side in a conflict somehow makes the conflict less bloody. This is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence—evidence that Con does not have. It is also contradicted by the fact that the conflict has gotten bloodier every year for the past several years of NATO occupation, as noted earlier.Drugs/HIV:Con points out that the increase in drug use came from the Taliban controlled Southern regions of Afghanistan, not the North. This actually helps prove my case—‘Taliban controlled’ doesn’t mean NATO just leaves those regions alone, it means that’s where the fighting is, as this map illustrates. [5] And while it’s obvious that drug use would decrease if it was caused by NATO forces, and then NATO left—even stopping the recent rapid increases in drug use would be a bonus.HDI: “As long as I can prove that Afghanistan is improving then this point is worthless in the long run.” I agree—but Con does not do this. First, some of the things Con mentions have nothing to do with American intervention—the Chinese are investing all over Latin America, Africa, and Asia in countries without American military occupation. [2] There are reports of Afghanistan’s vast mineral reserves from the Soviet occupation decades ago. [3] [4] The Pentagon released the information recently, but it isn’t actually recent information, and has nothing to do with the American occupation.Second, while a few indicators have improved, like education and cell phone use, many others have not. GDP is a misleading figure for overall well-being—it includes things like the government paying employees who are corrupt and don’t actually help the Afghan people. That’s why metrics like the HDI are used—they estimate overall well-being, rather than show only a part of the picture. And the HDI shows that Afghanistan has not been improving (at least, over the past 6 years or so, when the statistics have been available. But, presumably, the HDI would have decreased in the part of the war before that, when the fighting was most intense and the death toll was highest.)Karzai:Con’s proof that withdrawal automatically means the Taliban will regain control? Nothing. This claim is also contradicted by Con’s note that only 10% of the Afghani people support the Taliban.Terrorism: 1. Obviously Afghanistan isn’t the only place the U.S. is intervening in the Middle East. But if interventionism causes hatred and terrorism, then surely less interventionism would result in less terrorism—particularly in the area concerned, Afghanistan.2. The claim that America “the US had little to no involvement in the Middle East before 9/11” is clearly a lie. In addition to the interventions mentioned before by Wolfowitz and the 9/11 Commission Report—military bases in the holy land and American puppet governments like Mubarak, the Saudi monarchy, etc—the US also murdered hundreds of thousands of children with the Iraqi trade sanctions during the 90s. [1] Imagine that China was the world’s sole superpower. First, they install pro-Chinese dictatorships over us and our neighbors. Of course, this is for our own good, not for our oil or for the profits of Chinese military contractors—the Chinese just want to keep our region stable and safe. Then, to keep us in our place, they kill, say, every single person in Chicago and Los Angeles (The equivalent to the death toll of the Iraqi trade sanctions adjusted for America’s larger population). Would anyone consider this “little to no involvement” if it was foreigners doing these things to us, rather than the other way around?Con points out that Mubarak’s government wasn’t as bad as the Taliban—but this is irrelevant to Arab hatred of the U.S. People don’t not resent X doing bad things to them just because Y is doing worse things to other people. And sure, some terrorists will hate the U.S. regardless of what we do—but my point isn’t that without U.S. intervention bin Laden would have loved us and been an upstanding citizen, it’s that interventionism makes recruiting for terrorists much easier for groups like Al Qaeda. The vast majority of people whose lives aren’t affected by America don’t really care much about it—certainly not enough to die attacking it. And people who are imprisoned and tortured by American-backed dictators, or have family who are, or have family who are killed by American puppets or the Americans themselves, grow up to be much more sympathetic to terrorist groups.WOT: Is there some reason that Afghanistan is special, that terrorists not having a haven there means that they’ll just give up, rather than go to one of the many other countries not occupied by the United States? No.In addition, Con provides no evidence that withdrawing leads to higher rates of Taliban support. I could just as easily say that staying leads to higher rates of Taliban support, as people displaced or harmed by NATO forces turn against us and to our enemies. US Hegemony:First of all, I’d like to note that this debate is solely about U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Any other U.S. intervention in the Middle East is a side issue, for a different debate. Unless Con can show that U.S. withdrawal from ONLY Afghanistan will cause any of these problems, with all other U.S. foreign policy remaining the same, these points are irrelevant.Iran- Iran has never attacked another country in its entire history as a country. There is no evidence that they would suddenly start doing so if the U.S. left Afghanistan. What, if we leave they’ll think we’re only strong enough to bomb their country to dust, occupy them for 10 years, then leave, rather than strong enough to bomb their country to dust and occupy them forever? Pakistan/India- See my earlier points about terrorism. If NATO presence helps terrorists recruit to fight against the U.S., then this destabilizes Pakistan and makes it more likely to fall into the control of extremists. Also my earlier point about how this debate is solely about policy in Afghanistan.[1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://yhoo.it...[4] http://bit.ly...[5] http://n.pr...