The Instigator
ami.bleu
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
51 Points

The United States has entered wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that it cannot win.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,345 times Debate No: 8908
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (17)

 

ami.bleu

Con

I am new to debate and this website. If anyone would like to take the Pro position, I would appreciate it if you would argue first. Thank you.
mongeese

Pro

Thank you for starting this debate, and welcome to Debate.org.

Joshua: "STRANGE GAME. THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY."

War can't be won. There is no winner in war. By entering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has prevented itself from being able to win.

How about a nice game of chess?
Debate Round No. 1
ami.bleu

Con

Thank you for your interesting and philosophical argument, but I must disagree that there are no real winners in war. Short of total thermonuclear war and the alternate reality in which the film "War Games" exists, there are winners. Now, as I know you've been waiting, here is my round's argument.

We can agree that all foreign wars are foreign policy decisions made by the United States government.

We can also agree that foreign policy is crafted by Congress and the Executive branch of government, with the primary actor being the Department of State (DoS) in the executive branch.

Finally, the mission of the DoS is to advance U.S. objectives and interests worldwide.

The Department of Defense, through military means, is carrying out a foreign policy, crafted by the DoS, in Iraq and Afghanistan. This lends itself to the quote coined by Carl Von Clausewitz that, "War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means." This means that the wars waged in these countries, managed by the DoD, are instruments in advancing U.S. interests and objectives. Interests and objectives determined in our Houses of Congress and the DoS, both of which are political entities.

A quote by Franklin Delano Roosevelt is also worth mentioning, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Therefore, the true scope of these wars must be greater than merely meeting, capturing, or defeating terrorists in the killing fields of central Asia on the whims of the former President. But instead, a premeditated action aimed at advancing the global position of the United States. So, let us examine the stated objectives of the "Bush Doctrine" as most people believe them to be.

The stated objectives of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are:

1.Spread democracy
2.Find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction
3.Stop the spread of terrorism and remove regimes which harbor terrorists

But, a primary objective of the DoD is to plan for and prevent the ascension of Peer Competitors, which is any nation, or group of nations, that compete for influence with the hegemony of the United States of America. http://www.rand.org...

Therefore, one can be certain that this too is an objective. Because, carrying on the motif of chess, why would one rout the King in two moves when it can be done with one?

Now, "win" according to the Merriam Webster's online dictionary means to succeed. Success in these wars would be to complete objectives. Now, here is the tricky part. Thought on war is divided into tactics and strategy. Tactics are the things that happen on the ground, the individual battles and movements within these battles. Strategy is the use of force to complete strategic and political objectives. Tactically, the U.S. cannot be beaten in either theater due to the large amount of military training, spending, and leadership versus small guerilla units lacking significant equipment and tactical leadership. And, the U.S. has completed objectives one through three in Iraq, while completing two through three in Afghanistan (It is debatable whether the Afghan democracy is viable).

Strategically, both locales allow the United States to straddle Iran, a significant regional power. Both theaters place the U.S. within 600 miles of the Caspian Sea, a major oil producing region. Coincidentally, 600 miles is also the range of the F-15 Strike Eagle; allowing the U.S. to conduct air strikes and combat operations in the Caspian if need be. Troop movements in Afghanistan also threaten Russia's southern border as well as China's western border; both are countries which aim to be peer competitors of the United States. To win strategically the U.S. must only deny or delay the rise of the peer competitors of Iran (Now facing governmental crisis), Russia, and China. I propose that these are merely two small wars within the geo-political arena.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be won tactically, though the number of causalities may be high, and they can be won strategically. They are the U.S. attempt of influence on the world island.
mongeese

Pro

"Thank you for your interesting and philosophical argument, but I must disagree that there are no real winners in war. Short of total thermonuclear war and the alternate reality in which the film 'War Games' exists, there are winners."
You don't give much support to this statement.
War Games uses the philosophy that in war, both sides take so much damage that everybody is a loser, and horrible casualties make the war lost.

"A quote by Franklin Delano Roosevelt is also worth mentioning, 'In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.'"
I happen to disagree with FDR on a lot of things. This is one of them.

"Therefore, the true scope of these wars must be greater than merely meeting, capturing, or defeating terrorists in the killing fields of central Asia on the whims of the former President."
You're using a false quote to say that something must be true?

"So, let us examine the stated objectives of the 'Bush Doctrine' as most people believe them to be."
You mean, we don't even know? How are we supposed to win a war when we aren't even sure of the objectives?

"2.Find and destroy Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Well, were there any weapons of mass destruction?
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"By March 2003 Hans Blix had not found any stockpiles or evidence of WMD..."
"Many of these documents seem to make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s."

"3.Stop the spread of terrorism and remove regimes which harbor terrorists"
The wars themselves have spread terrorism. People realize that American troops are invading their homeland, so they join the neared jihad recruitment center and become a terrorist.

"But, a primary objective of the DoD is to plan for and prevent the ascension of Peer Competitors, which is any nation, or group of nations, that compete for influence with the hegemony of the United States of America."
Proof?

"Now, 'win' according to the Merriam Webster's online dictionary means to succeed."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
That was the intransitive verb. We're talking about a transitive verb.

"Tactically, the U.S. cannot be beaten in either theater due to the large amount of military training, spending, and leadership versus small guerilla units lacking significant equipment and tactical leadership."
For one thing, the U.S. has less secrecy protection, because the U.S. has to announce practically every move it makes, while the guerillas can move around without us even knowing that they exist.

"And, the U.S. has completed objectives one through three in Iraq, while completing two through three in Afghanistan (It is debatable whether the Afghan democracy is viable)."
We have not located any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Afghanistan doesn't even appear to be important enough to have its own Wiki article about WMDs.

"To win strategically the U.S. must only deny or delay the rise of the peer competitors of Iran (Now facing governmental crisis), Russia, and China."
Denying something wins wars? That doesn't even make sense.

"Therefore, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be won tactically, though the number of causalities[sic] may be high, and they can be won strategically."
By the War Games philosophy that I established, the appearance of casualties makes the war lost.
Plus, there's the lack of WMDs.
Debate Round No. 2
ami.bleu

Con

ami.bleu forfeited this round.
mongeese

Pro

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
ami.bleu

Con

ami.bleu forfeited this round.
mongeese

Pro

Extend all arguments. It's a shame we couldn't continue.

By my philosophy, war cannot be won, affirming the resolution.

By my opponent's, war is won by fulfilling objectives, so we can't win, because one of our objectives cannot be completed, as there are no WoMD in Iraq and Afghanistan, affirming the resolution.

Either way, vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
B/A: Tie/Pro
Conduct: Pro. Con forfeited.
S/G: Pro. Con made clear errors.
Arguments: Pro.
Sources: Pro.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Conduct, args, and sources to Pro.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
And the first day is coming to a close...

Dawn of the Second Day.
48 Hours remain.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Do not disagree with War Games. I'm using the philosophy that there are no real winners in war.
Posted by youngpolitic 7 years ago
youngpolitic
Yeah you can win war. Now this type of war I'm not sure about.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
War can be won. And there are winners in war.

Bad argument.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tynews2001 7 years ago
tynews2001
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Gmoney 7 years ago
Gmoney
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
ami.bleumongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70