The War in Afghanistan is futile and a waste.

All right good round Pro. Going to keep me on my toes here I see.Pro states that I concede these points that the war has not stopped - “home grown” terrorism"- "the ever present threat of Islamic terror inside the US" Not really. What Pro doesn't place here is that there is a distinct difference between home grown and foreign jihadist. I ask Pro this, what exactly could the US military do against home grown jihadist? Unless my opponent is in favor of martial law, and we all know how horrible an idea that is. then there isn't really anything the military can do to quell home grown terrorist. Ever seen the movie The Siege? It is up to our law enforcement to take care of these threats and as we saw in the list of terrorist attacks against the US in the last 10 years we see they haven't done that bad a job. Now this brings me to the other two things he claims I concede. "Attempts of Islamic terror on our homeland"-" jihadist from crossing our borders" Now cant help but feel that Pro missed the entire concept of my last round on this point. It is completely unrealistic and even childish to think that our military could prevent each and every single foreign jihadist from getting inside the US. It is not possible. The point I made in the 2nd round was that we have prevented the bulk of jihadist attacks. By not allowing them to even take place to begin with. If you review this part here " As we can see a whopping 84% of all known terrorist plots were conducted by home grown terrorist." As well as this part "not the most serious one since foreign attackers only make up a small percentage of known terrorist plots." As well as further readings from my second round we see that I already explained this. I will try again. While we can not possibly stop each and every attempt of foreign jihadist attacks what we can do is cause the majority of those that otherwise would come here and attack us to focus their efforts else where. Primarily by us having a presence on their front. If we did not have this presence which causes the jihadist to defend rather then attack then the number of foreign jihadist attacks would certainly increase and thus the amount of American civilian lives lost would increase. Even if we tripled border security and spied on every single Muslim in the US it would not prevent them all. The only other option would be to expel them all from here and iv already stated my distaste for such thoughts. So pretty much what this boils down to is not any single group of ours preventing jihadist attacks but the combination of our forces. Law enforcement to include border patrol and Home land Security on focused on the home front and dealing with home grown threats while our military focuses on the enemies front dealing with foreign enemies. "However, the life of an allied soldier is the same as an American’s because they are over there fighting as well. We brought them into it. I know you said you mean no disrespect but they are on our team shedding blood alongside Americans."Again this is a misunderstanding of what I was saying and I apologize if what I said wasn't clear enough. Let me try and fix that. The ONLY reason I didn't include our allies casualties when I said that was because you only used the September 11th attack as your point of reference for whether or not we have lost more civilian lives vs military lives. Because you did not include the 10s of thousands of lives that have been lost due to terror attacks through out the world as I pointed out in round 2 and so I only used the American soldiers death toll since it was the American civilian death toll that you were using as your argument. But I am thinking here that you are wanting coalition force loses included in this figure so then I also will include the global civilian loses due to terrorism in mine. So if we look at it like that then we see that no, unlike your claim that our military losses have exceeded civilian loses, we see that we have lost far less coalition soldiers then we have civilian populace. Our military loses is 3,358 while civilian casualties are in the 10s of thousands. So your point on "acceptable losses" is invalid since we have not yet crossed that threshold. About your counter to what I said here "However this does not include the subsequent lives lost to terror attacks since 9/11..." Its extremely unfortunate that so many attacks happen throughout the globe and I wish we could stop them. But as I already stated it is realistically impossible to stop all terror attacks and the US can only be so many places at any time. While there is still a lot of terror attacks elsewhere across the globe what we do see is a very very small amount of attacks on the US. And as stated even fewer of those attacks were caused by foreign aggressors. "Read my other debate on this topic, you might change your mind once you understand that the threat is Islam itself. Once you understand this you’ll understand that the war over there is futile. It makes no difference if we are killing Muslims over there because we have plenty here that want to kill Americans. And as you pointed out, the numbers are growing. So, it only makes sense to stop the war and focus our efforts on the home front."Like I said only a small percentage of American Muslims are radicals and I greatly object to punishing them all for what their bottom 10% do. As a Marine I know that group punishment sucks!!! lol. But like I said what can the US military do about home threats? Martial law??? And while we may, and I stress the may, be able to do a little more about home grown jihadist if we pulled out the troops since we'd save a buck or two what would happen is as I stated the enemy over seas would know no longer have any one to deal with and so an increase of foreign attacks will occur. So know instead of us being on the offensive keeping the bulk of radical Muslims away from our homes and fighting and destroying in their lands with only a small number of internal jihadist that our police force should be able to handle, now we are on the defensive being attacked not only from within but also from the outside. Attacked on all corner's if you will. Now id like to stop real quick and point out for the record what I mean by increased foreign attacks cause I can already here someone like DeFool making some crack about paranoia and what not. When I say this I am not talking about the foolish idea that many undereducated Americans have of thousands of evil Muslims marching down their streets and taking over the US and blah blah blah. This is a ridicules notion and deserves all the criticism. All I am saying is that we will see an increase in simple regular terrorist attacks such as what many other nations in the world suffer. And not like a bombing every day or anything just more foreign attacks then what we see today is all.So I'm running low on characters and want to get to why we went to Afghan and not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or something. So sorry if I miss anything. So why Afghan? Its a good question but honestly one really simple answer. Yes its true that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and other nationality's other then Afghan but it wasn't their nationality that we were after. Each of these men were members of the terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda. They were under the leadership of one Osama bin Laden. This is the man we wanted. This was the organization we were and are primarily at war with. For instance we never declared war against the nation of Afghanistan. Cause they weren't what we were after. (Source1and2) as we see here after 9/11 Osama was in Afghanistan. His headquarters was in Afghan. The bulk of his forces, his training camps, his resources, his command structure. His closest allies and supporters were the Taliban and when they would not hand him over as demanded we invaded. I am going to have to conclude there unfortunately.