War in Afghanistan

Thanks, Pro. My opponent must prove that continuing war with Afghanistan is in the best interest of the U.S. She suggests removing troops, and simply using drones and other unmanned aerial vehicles to secure the area. However unfortunately the goal of having troops overseas is not so much to go to war (after all, al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan -- there are only about 100 of them remaining in the country, and bin Ladin is most likely gone as well - 1) but to help train the Afghan military to sustain peace when the U.S. leaves. Indeed it has been reviewed and agreed that troops are needed there, which is why both the American, Canadian and other governments have chosen to send more troops instead of taking many back [2]. At this point, we can expect two explanations from Pro. First, Pro must explain why drones and the like are necessary with such a tiny Taliban population. Surely she doesn't expect the U.S. to bomb random innocent Afghan people for no reason? At this point, it seems unnecessary in this region. Second, because the military goals at this point mandate troops, then Pro must either explain why (a) this should not be the goal, and what SHOULD be the goal of the war; or (b) why I'd have to argue this debate against war not considering U.S. casualties (troops) when in fact the war necessitates them to be a part of the discussion. I eagerly await my opponent's responses, but for now I will continue by presenting some contentions of my own. However, take note that Pro is the instigator of this debate affirming a positive position; therefore, she has the burden of proof yet chose to make no substantial opening argument. One anti-war contention is that of peace. Why not give diplomacy a chance? Ambassador Holbrooke should be engaging with the locals with the goal of achieving cooperation on addressing ongoing conflicts, strengthening civilian rule of law, and promoting economic development. These are all things that would empower Afghans and improve the conditions of their lives. Meanwhile, perpetuating a war only accomplishes targeting innocent Afghan civilians and tarnishing America's reputation. It also encourages the locals to support the Taliban rather than the U.S. While we may have good intentions, in the end they'd rather be ruled by fundamentalists than be dead. Another consideration is that of bribery, however shameful that might seem. Sure, it's immoral, but then again so is killing... but we engage in it if it's for the overall greater good. Attempting to "buy out" our enemies may be one way to win this on-going conflict. "The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the country and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan... if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it [3]." Moreover, even if this war is fought only with technology, it will still be received with concern and anger in the Islamic world. This will make it more difficult for Western and Middle Eastern countries to work together toward mutual objectives, such as peace between Israel and Palestine [4]. Additionally, Peter Navarro correctly points out that Afghanistan is now just one of many possible staging areas for al-Qaida. In fact, it is now much easier for al-Qaida's decentralized networks to conduct operations in numerous other places, with Algeria, Somalia, and Yemen emerging as the newest strongholds. Why aren't we invading them? [5]. == Conclusion == While Afghanistan poses somewhat of a threat to the US, there are other countries that are far more dangerous the lives and well-being of Americans, i.e. Mexico. The war in Afghanistan has already gone on 50% longer than America's involvement in two other world wars. Throughout history, many countries (like Britain) have tried to 'save' Afghanistan and have failed with military force. The best way to go about "winning" this war is via bribery and/or diplomacy as history suggests. By increasing military force, it's also subseqently increasing Islamic hostility toward the U.S. and hurting our side (negating our objectives) and costing us far more resources than we can afford. While we certainly should feel pressure to wrap up some of our goals and help the Afghan people, using excessive military violence is not the best way to go about it. The resolution has been negated; we should not perpetuate war in Afghanistan. [1] http://www.nypost.com... [2] http://winnipeg.ctv.ca... [3] http://www.newsweek.com... [4] http://www.fcnl.org... [5] http://www.ocregister.com...