Terrorism is a delicate topic that requires much of our governments attention in order to keep its citizens and foreign interests safe. There is such a wide variety of terrorism throughout the world that no one response can address every terrorist threat to America. Secretary of State John Kerry said in an address to the Global Counter terrorism Forum Ministerial said "Getting this right isn't just about taking terrorists off the street. It's about providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment.". This type of response to terrorism decreases the number of youngsters being recruited. These tactics also increase the world opinion of the U.S. by creating economic opportunities instead of decreasing the world opinion with violent and heavy handed attacks and drone strikes which often result in collateral damage.
You argue that we need to focus more on our economy, but the war on terror has created many payed positions in the military to carry out the operations that we use to keep this country safe. Spencer Tucker said in his article about the war on terror, "The plan developed called for the employment of the most advanced military and communications technology in the world in what was certainly one of the world's most primitive battlefields. Special operations played a key role in allowing the anti-Taliban forces to seize and maintain the battlefield initiative. From the beginning, U.S. forces constituted the bulk of the NATO forces committed."
Although the war on terror may create jobs it also costs an incredible amount of money to maintain. A study done by the congressional economic committee estimated that by 2017 the war on terror will have cost a total of 3.5 trillion dollars. Furthermore it estimated that between 2002 and 2017 the war on terror will have cost each family of four in the U.S. $46,600.
In addition to this the war on terror is potentially never ending since there is no defined enemy. Filip Spagnoli said in an article on humanrightsdefense.org "There is no well-defined enemy. Anyone can at any time become an enemy. For this reason, there is no conceivable end to the war. And if you claim to wage a war on terrorism, you might as well claim to wage a war on carpet bombing. Both are tactics or strategies, not something you wage war against.". The open-ended nature of the war on terror makes sustaining it economically almost impossible.
Sforza, Teri. "War on Terror's Financial Cost: Trillions." The Orange County Register. N.p., 12 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ocregister.com...;.
In your quote Mr. Spagnoli references the fact that there is "...no well-defined enemy. Anyone can at any time become an enemy." This is precisely why we need to keep our effort against the war on terror. If anyone can become an enemy than why would we stop fighting? If anyone can become an enemy then doesn't it posit that we need to increase our efforts to squash any threat that pops up before it can form into a larger entity resembling or adding to Al Qaeda and the Taliban? i believe it does.
People do not naturally hate the U.S. it is by invading their countries and waging war in them that we turn the people of the middle east against us. Zbigniew Brzezinski security adviser to president Jimmy Carter said in his article "Terrorized by 'War On Terror'". "In the meantime, the 'war on terror' has gravely damaged the United States internationally. For Muslims, the similarity between the rough treatment of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military and of the Palestinians by the Israelis has prompted a widespread sense of hostility toward the United States in general.". There is no evidence that there are entities rising up to join with Al Qaeda or the Taliban the perceived threat is created by fear mongering politicians and lobbyists for companies that cash in on huge defense contracts. Zbigniew Brzezinski also said."Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum. The terror entrepreneurs, usually described as experts on terrorism, are necessarily engaged in competition to justify their existence. Hence their task is to convince the public that it faces new threats. That puts a premium on the presentation of credible scenarios of ever-more-horrifying acts of violence, sometimes even with blueprints for their implementation.". It does not make sense to keep fighting a war that creates more resentment and ill feelings towards the U.S. against an enemy that poses little threat.
The U.S.'s war on terror has been a failure. Although Osama Bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been killed or captured both organizations are still committing acts of terror. It is time for the U.S. to adopt an approach to terrorism that isn't reliant on military force. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his article "Terrorized by 'War On Terror'" "The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S. "war on terror" against "Islamo-fascism.". By adopting the heavy handed approach that it did the U.S. alienated other countries in the middle east which have been ravaged by the war on terror and could have been potential allies. Resulting in the U.S. fighting an ineffective and un-winable war.
In the wake of 9/11 there was only one response to take and that was he heavy handed approach you have mentioned. Had we not retaliated with the force we did use, the country itself would have fallen apart as the people of this proud nation would have revolted. Our country would have failed if we had not attacked because that aggression would have turned inward and our attention would have been further diverted from the problems that you say the war has caused and the. The would have gotten worse then they are right now.
Reasons for voting decision: I needed more analysis by both debaters. Ultimately, I was unsatisfied by Con's extremely brief rebuttals and utter lack of sources. Con, please develop your responses further--you present claims, but fail to offer warrants to those claims. Also, don't through in things like "#jesushatesterrorists;" it's far too informal for a non-trolling debate. Consequently, sources and arguments go Pro. S/G is tied, as is conduct (forfeits cancel out.) Thus, I vote Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.