Resolved: The US should abandon the War on Terror.

We do not support the notion that the United States should continue to pursue military action in the “War on Terror. ” Our reasoning will be particularized through the following premises with strong, reliable evidence and pragmatics. Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. [10]Let's begin! Premise I: The War on Terror has been empirically ineffective. Based solely upon past experiences regarding the War on Terror, we have seen no specific advances or successes in deterring terror from occurring, nor heuristic success in changing society’s views or concerns. Citizens from various countries around the world are still worried about terror from a variety of organizations. [1] As the fear factor has not been dissuaded from public perception, the War on Terror cannot be accredited with success. If the War on Terror has been even remotely successful, we would not be seeing the following news headlines: “Paris attacks was carried out by 3 groups tied to Islamic State” [2]“Yemen crisis: Islamic State claims Sanaa mosque attacks” [3]“Islamic State claims responsibility for Bangladesh mosque attack” [4]“Islamic State militants attack hotel in Egypt’s Sinai, killing 7” [5]“‘I was flogged daily:’ Rescued Boko Haram survivors share tales of horror” [6]“Boko Haram claims suicide attack [. .. ] in Nigeria that killed 22 people” [7] “Cameroon: At least 6 killed in suspected Boko Haram suicide bombings” [8]“Boko Haram Ranked Ahead of ISIS for Deadliest Terror Group” [24] [26]“Timeline Of Violent Boko Haram Attacks In 2015” [25]It is imperative to note that each of these events were conducted by prominent terrorists groups active. Moreover, all of these events are quite current, reiterating how terrorism is quite common even now. The Islamic State, one of the more prevalent terrorist organizations of the current day, has wreaked horrific havoc on the world in a year. This infographic shows a timeline of those events. [23] If the War on Terror cannot stop these awful events from occurring, we must abandon the “war” and find new tactics to prevent these horrific atrocities. The premise is fulfilled: the War on Terror is ineffective. Premise II: The War on Terror has yielded unseemly events. Terrorist groups are often condemned for their torturous and inhumane acts, but the War on Terror has led these terrorists to the same fate, in various instances. Writer Joanne Mariner notes, “Pakistan's intelligence agencies worked closely with the CIA to "disappear" terrorist suspects, hold them in secret detention, and subject them to torture and other abuses. ” [9] The same immorality upon which the international community looks negatively is being served to the ones largely at blame. This could fall under the definition of terrorism, as defined earlier, and shows that the pursuit to end terrorism is counter-intuitive. The US, to avoid the blame themselves has both tried to alter the definition of torture and outsource the practice to justify their use of torture in the War on Terror. [27] The premise is fulfilled: unseemly events are subsequent to the War on Terror. Premise III: The enemies are not adequately defined. The simple statement “War on Terror” is a difficult suggestion to digest. A question that comes to mind is, “what is terror? ” We propose a rhetoric: We defined terrorism, but can we really classify a certain race, country, or organization that is responsible for these violent or fearful acts? In reality we can’t. It’s impractical and impossible to declare war on an ideology. [15]The Washington Post provides an article that supports this premise. “[Terrorism] defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants. ” [12] Were we to specify terrorism as simply the organizations known to condone them, we would still face problems. There are 95 internationally-recognized terror groups all around the globe. [11] To declare *war* on so many opponents is impractical and impossible. Instead of a subjective and nonviable “war on terror” we need to deal with threats individually as they arise. The premise is fulfilled: we cannot fight terrorism, per the definition. Premise IV: The War on Terror lacks US support to continue. The War on Terror campaign was institutionalized after the 9/11 attacks in the US. [13] No doubt, they’ve been around for quite awhile. But the prolonged state, without positive progression and notable achievements has deteriorated interest and motivation to continue. US support for the continuation of the seemingly perpetual war has deteriorated. As of early November, 53% of Americans were opposed to the War on Terror, with only 43% in favor. [17] Utilitarianism mandates by this alone that the US should abandon this failed pursuit. Yet, other support conflicts exist. In fact, some of the most important roles in fighting terror may not be sustainable for the persistence of the War on Terror. Business Insider documents, “Frustrations with the never-ending U. S. war on terror are mounting among the country’s elite fighting forces. These top-level troops—called special operations forces—are fraying at the edges after more than 13 years of near constant deployments, according to public comments by current and former leaders at the U. S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). ” [28] With new problems arising (ISIS and Boko Haram), these special forces are simply not capable of continuing. Without this back-up, the War on Terror will not have even minute success. The premise is fulfilled: the War on Terror lacks necessary support to continue unrelieved. Premise V: The War on Terror is destroying the economy. Economic impact is another area in which the War on Terror has shown fallibility. The shocking statistics in regards to costs will demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the War on Terror should be abandoned. In the US alone, $1.7 trillion has been spent on the War on Terror (2001 - 2014). [16]Thisis evidentially not a small amount of money to spent on anything - especially on something ineffective. This year, the USFG was given a budget of $3.8 trillion. [18] The amount spend on the War on Terror is roughly half their yearly budget. Think about the good that could be done with this money instead of wasting it on a cause that is effectively useless, as demonstrated. Moreover, the funding for this project has been acquired nearly entirely from borrowing, more than the cost of WWII. [20] This accomplishes nothing but furthering the national debt, currently at a staggering sum of $18.7 trillion [21]. As the USFG total budget for this year is $3.8 billion, simple calculations exemplify the national debt is approximately 4.5 times the USFG yearly budget. Only $175 billion per year is required to end extreme poverty innately [19]. There are no statistics in regards to the complete abolition of poverty however it is quite evident that if only 1/10 (approximately) of the amount spent on the War on Terror is required to end extreme poverty then with the remainder of the money left it is not unreasonable to assume that we could abolish poverty worldwide. The rhetoric is obvious: would you rather fund a pointless cause or innately end poverty? The reasonable answer is clearly the latter. There’s another important facet to the economic impact of the War on Terror. The people who fought in the War on Terror are promised benefits, for which the US has to pay. In 2011, the Los Angeles times published an article noting “At this point, the bill for future medical and disability benefits is estimated at $600 billion to $900 billion, but the number will almost surely grow as hundreds of thousands of troops still deployed abroad return home. ” [22] It is quite plain that the War on Terror will have exclusively detrimental consequences in regards to the economy. Premise VI: Alternatives would be more pragmatic solutions to the problems. It is undeniable that terrorism is a problem. But the War on Terror is inherently and empirically undesirable and far from pragmatic. We have consistently shown flaws with the existing policy, and now will provide a solution. Rather than using direct military force and action to attack terrorism, we need to take necessary steps to prevent terrorism, and deal with problems before they arise, a political approach. [29]Multiple variations and alterations of the War on Terror would be beneficial, and they are key to note. The Third World Traveler gives suggestions, a few of which include: cooperations with countries affected by terrorism, moving towards an international effort to assist against terrorism, and finally support the countries who need assistance and gain knowledge of global events. [14] It would also be beneficial to have a cooperative set of states to deal with terrorism wherever it arises in their country. [29]These steps, though not directly a *war* against terrorism, could be utilized as a policy to prevent terrorism, rather than actively fight it. Gaining intelligence of organizations and strategies is crucial to warding off terrorism and providing a better, safer, and ultimately peaceful world. The premise is fulfilled: more pragmatic and efficient solutions have been provided to use as a means to deter terrorism. Conclusion:In closing, we find that past experiences have proved fruitless when it comes to military action, the efforts can be turned immorally against the terrorists themselves, we can’t attack *terrorism* itself, we lack necessary US support, and better alternatives could be pragmatic and beneficial. Having each of these premises fulfilled, we must affirm the resolution, and abandon the War on Terror. Sources in comments