2012-stoa-bb-012-aff-saudiarabia-submitted.docx€¦ · web viewthe united states has had military...

AFFIRMATIVE: WITHDRAW US FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN

GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES: THE CASE FOR WITHDRAWING US FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN

By Kathryn Sumner

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its foreign policy regarding international terrorism.

The United States has had military forces in Afghanistan to fight terrorism since 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks. Thousands of Americans have been wounded or killed and billions of dollars have been spent in the war there. Unfortunately, the corruption in Afghanistan means we end up helping the Taliban instead of the Afghanistan troops. The money and lives being poured into the figurative Afghanistan bucket end up wasted because there hasn’t been much progress in Afghanistan and there never will be.

Graveyard of Empires: The Case for Withdrawing US Forces from Afghanistan...........................................3OBSERVATION 1. DEFINITIONS......................................................................................................................................3

Substantial............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3Foreign policy........................................................................................................................................................................................3Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

OBSERVATION 2. INHERENCY, the structure of the Status Quo. We offer two key facts:.............................................4

FACT 1. Foreign policy on terrorism.....................................................................................................................................4US military involvement in Afghanistan is part of our foreign policy on terrorism.............................................................................4

FACT 2. 15,000 troops...........................................................................................................................................................4There are nearly 15,000 US troops in Afghanistan...............................................................................................................................4

OBSERVATION 3. HARMS................................................................................................................................................4

HARM 1. Huge Cost in Blood & Treasure............................................................................................................................42400 military deaths, 20,000 wounded, and over $800 billion.............................................................................................................4

HARM 2. Fueling more terrorism..........................................................................................................................................5A. Our "good guys" sell our supplies to the bad guys...........................................................................................................................5B. Troops in Afghanistan increase the threat by fueling the hate.........................................................................................................5

OBSERVATION 4. We offer the following PLAN implemented by Congress and the President.......................................5

OBSERVATION 5. ADVANTAGES...................................................................................................................................5

ADVANTAGE 1. Save lives & money being spent in vain..................................................................................................5Withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan ends our unnecessary and counterproductive involvement...............................................5

ADVANTAGE 2. Reduce terrorism......................................................................................................................................6US exit would be an antidote to terrorism and would reverse the Status Quo environment fueling it.................................................6

2A Evidence: Withdraw US Forces from Afghanistan........................................................................................7OPENING QUOTES / AFFIRMATIVE PHILOSOPHY......................................................................................................7

We should just leave..............................................................................................................................................................................7The war is pointless...............................................................................................................................................................................7“Not Losing” should not be a reason for further sacrifice.....................................................................................................................7

MINOR REPAIR RESPONSES............................................................................................................................................8

COPYRIGHT ©2018 MONUMENT PUBLISHING PAGE 1 OF 19 MONUMENTMEMBERS.COM

This release was published as part of Season 19 (2018-2019) school year for member debaters. See the member landing page for official release date and any notifications. This is proprietary intellectual content and may not be used without proper ownership.


1. A/T “Increase Troops”.......................................................................................................................................................8More troops can't solve: It would only increase casualties and violence, not win anything.................................................................8More troops would only cost more lives as the inevitable withdrawal is postponed and more die in the meantime...........................8

INHERENCY.........................................................................................................................................................................8Trump is surging more forces into Afghanistan....................................................................................................................................8

HARMS / SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................................................................................................9

1. Huge Cost...........................................................................................................................................................................9US aid to Afghanistan is the largest expenditure to rebuild a single country.......................................................................................9Fighting is not worth the cost................................................................................................................................................................9Big cost, yet few results.........................................................................................................................................................................9A lot of cost with no return..................................................................................................................................................................10Enormous cost that has achieved very little........................................................................................................................................10

2. US aid leads to more corruption.......................................................................................................................................10Giving more money means more money is wasted.............................................................................................................................10The US has contributed to the problems in Afghanistan.....................................................................................................................10Even Norway says more aid equals more corruption..........................................................................................................................11Two examples of corruption................................................................................................................................................................11Lack of proper management means wasted funds...............................................................................................................................11

3. Fuels terrorism..................................................................................................................................................................12US presence in Afghanistan justifies (in their minds) attacks against the US everywhere.................................................................12US mission in Afghanistan creates cultural clash that fuels anger and backlash in the region...........................................................12

SOLVENCY / ADVOCACY...............................................................................................................................................12US should be reducing its military role in Afghanistan. Intervention isn't needed and is counterproductive....................................12US interventions guarantee perpetual war. Without it, they lose all our free money..........................................................................13We’ve made things worse, not better in Afghanistan..........................................................................................................................13The US has accomplished very little and nothing more can be done. It needs to be left up to the Afghan people............................13US efforts in Afghanistan have failed, and will continue to fail. Only Afghans themselves can fix their problems..........................14US cannot improve Afghanistan’s situation. Only Afghans can do that.............................................................................................14

DISADVANTAGE RESPONSES.......................................................................................................................................14Big Link Cut to all Disads: Remaking Afghan society is a hopeless task..........................................................................................14

1. A/T “We need to be there to win”....................................................................................................................................15Winning is an unrealistic expectation..................................................................................................................................................15We won’t leave Afghanistan alone......................................................................................................................................................15Leaving would force countries to deal with local problems................................................................................................................15Russia would step up...........................................................................................................................................................................16

2. A/T “We would let Afghanistan down”...........................................................................................................................16Afghanistan is the one who has let the US down................................................................................................................................16

3. A/T “Terrorism against the West would increase”..........................................................................................................16There are plenty of countries with terrorists that don’t have American sending troops and money...................................................16Non-unique. Terrorists simply move elsewhere, and we don’t have the resources to stamp out all of them.....................................17There are many other countries open to terrorism that don’t have US troops. Adding Afghanistan to that list will not make matters worse.......................................................................................................................................................................................17“Al Qaeda resurgence” - Response: Victory won’t matter and leaving won’t make it more dangerous............................................17

Works Cited............................................................................................................................................................18




GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES: THE CASE FOR WITHDRAWING US FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN

James Downie said it best in 2017 QUOTE1:

Before becoming a presidential candidate, Donald Trump called for a “speedy withdrawal” of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. During the campaign, he backed off the “speedy” part of that phrase, but he still touted his opposition to “nation building.” On Monday night, though, Trump became the latest president to prolong what is already the longest war in American history, announcing that more U.S. forces would be deployed there even though “my original instinct was to pull out.” For once, Trump should have stuck with his instincts. The United States has no long-term strategy for winning the war, and there is no voter interest in the troop levels that would be required to win anyway. It’s past time to get out of Afghanistan.

END QUOTE. Since 2001, the war in Afghanistan was supposed to fight terrorism. The only clear objective, killing Osama Bin Laden, was accomplished 7 years ago. Please join my partner and me as we affirm that: The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its foreign policy regarding international terrorism.

OBSERVATION 1. DEFINITIONS.

Substantial

Merriam Webster Online Dict. copyright 2018 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial

"important, essential"

Foreign policy

Collins English Dictionary 2018 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/foreign-policy

"the policies of a government regarding relations with other countries"

Terrorism

Collins English Dictionary 2018 https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/terrorism

Terrorism is the use of violence, especially murder and bombing, in order to achieve political goals or to force a government to do something

1 James Downie 2017. (The Washington Post’s Digital Opinions Editor. He was previously a reporter-researcher for The New Republic and has also written for Foreign Policy magazine. He graduated from Columbia University with a BA in History.) "Trump’s instincts were right: The U.S. should leave Afghanistan" 22 August 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/22/trumps-instincts-were-right-the-u-s-should-leave-afghanistan/?noredirect=on



https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/terrorism

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/relation

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/policy

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/foreign-policy

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial


OBSERVATION 2. INHERENCY, the structure of the Status Quo. We offer two key facts:

FACT 1. Foreign policy on terrorism

US military involvement in Afghanistan is part of our foreign policy on terrorism

Ashley J. Tellis and Jeff Eggers 2017. (Tellis –senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy with a special focus on Asia and the Indian subcontinent; formerly senior adviser to the US ambassador to India; former professor of policy analysis at the RAND Graduate School. Eggers – senior fellow at New America, focusing on the behavioral science of policy decision making.) "U.S. Policy in Afghanistan: Changing Strategies, Preserving Gains" 22 May 2017 http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/05/22/u.s.-policy-in-afghanistan-changing-strategies-preserving-gains-pub-70027

The unprecedented trauma of the September 11 attacks prompted the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan, which was intended to decimate al-Qaeda and its protectors “in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.”

FACT 2. 15,000 troops

There are nearly 15,000 US troops in Afghanistan

Associated Press 2018 (journalist Robert Burns) "Amid Little Scrutiny, US Military Ramps Up In Afghanistan" 11 March 2018 https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/11/amid-little-scrutiny-us-military-ramps-afghanistan.html

The U.S. is bolstering its military presence in Afghanistan, more than 16 years after the war started. Is anyone paying attention? Consider this: At a Senate hearing this past week on top U.S. security threats, the word "Afghanistan" was spoken exactly four times, each during introductory remarks. In the ensuing two hours of questions for intelligence agency witnesses, no senator asked about Afghanistan, suggesting little interest in a war with nearly 15,000 U.S. troops supporting combat against the Taliban.

OBSERVATION 3. HARMS.

HARM 1. Huge Cost in Blood & Treasure

2400 military deaths, 20,000 wounded, and over $800 billion

Doug Bandow 2017. (Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute; former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution with the Institute on Religion and Public Policy; graduate of Florida State University and Stanford Law School.) "The Nation-Building Experiment That Failed: Time For U.S. To Leave Afghanistan " 1 March 2017 https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2017/03/01/the-nation-building-experiment-that-failed-time-for-u-s-to-leave-afghanistan/#147c752565b2

Since Washington’s intervention in the aftermath of 9/11, roughly 2400 American military personnel have died and more than 20,000 been wounded attempting to bring democracy to Central Asia. Some 3500 military contractors have been killed, along with more than 1100 allied personnel. Overall the U.S. has poured more than $800 billion into the war. Set aside the costs of combat. The U.S. has spent $117.3 billion on relief and “reconstruction,” that is, attempting to create a functioning state in Afghanistan.



https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/11/amid-little-scrutiny-us-military-ramps-afghanistan.html

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/11/amid-little-scrutiny-us-military-ramps-afghanistan.html


HARM 2. Fueling more terrorism

A. Our "good guys" sell our supplies to the bad guys

Doug Bandow 2017. (Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute; former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution with the Institute on Religion and Public Policy; graduate of Florida State University and Stanford Law School.) "The Nation-Building Experiment That Failed: Time For U.S. To Leave Afghanistan " 1 March 2017 https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2017/03/01/the-nation-building-experiment-that-failed-time-for-u-s-to-leave-afghanistan/#147c752565b2 (brackets added)

Corruption is thought to eat up 20 to 25 percent of the value of procurement contracts, and the losses in Afghanistan are “almost certainly more substantial,” said SIGAR. Moreover, corruption makes it difficult to maintain projects, no matter how well constructed. Noted the inspector general, an earlier audit found that “most U.S.-funded roads needed repair and that corruption, inadequate funding, insecurity, and weak capacity limit the Ministry of Public Works’ ability to maintain Afghanistan’s road infrastructure.” So pervasive is the problem of corruption that the Taliban often purchases weapons and supplies from Afghan soldiers, who sell their U.S.-provided materiel. [Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John] Sopko reported that up to half of the fuel paid for by Washington was “siphoned off” and sold to Taliban forces. In effect, Americans are arming the very people who are killing their family members and friends.

B. Troops in Afghanistan increase the threat by fueling the hate

Prof. Andrew Bacevich 2017. (Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston Univ.) "Viewpoint: Why the US should withdraw from Afghanistan" 22 August 2017 BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41016347

If keeping US troops in Afghanistan could guarantee that our country would not be targeted by further terrorist attacks, I would favour making our longest war longer still. But the terrorist threat has evolved since 9/11 and keeping US forces in Afghanistan does not "make America safe". The opposite is true. Occupying countries in the Islamic world exacerbates the threat rather than reduces it.

OBSERVATION 4. We offer the following PLAN implemented by Congress and the President

1. Withdraw US troops from Afghanistan2. Funding is net savings in federal expenses through reduced military budgeting3. Enforcement through normal military chain of command.4. Plan is phased in over the next 4 months after an affirmative ballot. 5. Affirmative speeches may clarify

OBSERVATION 5. ADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGE 1. Save lives & money being spent in vain

Withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan ends our unnecessary and counterproductive involvement

Eric Goepner 2018. (visiting research fellow in the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department; retired colonel from the U.S. Air Force, his military assignments included unit commands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Pacific region; doctoral candidate at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government) "War State, Trauma State: Why Afghanistan Remains Stuck in Conflict" 19 June 2018 https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-844.pdf

Little or no correlation appears to exist between American efforts in Afghanistan and the ability or willingness of Afghans to fundamentally change the situation on the ground. Each year U.S. leaders say that gains are being made and that next year will be different, yet it never is. American blood and treasure should not be spent on a mission that only makes sense if the years of evidence are ignored. Additionally, America’s reputation abroad will continue to suffer as long as the country supports an Afghan government that ranks at the bottom on freedom and at the top on corruption.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2017/03/01/the-nation-building-experiment-that-failed-time-for-u-s-to-leave-afghanistan/#147c752565b2



ADVANTAGE 2. Reduce terrorism

US exit would be an antidote to terrorism and would reverse the Status Quo environment fueling it

Doug Bandow 2017. (Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is also a Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution with the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. He is the author and editor of numerous books and is a graduate of Florida State University and Stanford Law School.) "The Nation-Building Experiment That Failed: Time for U.S. To Leave Afghanistan " 1 March 2017 https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2017/03/01/the-nation-building-experiment-that-failed-time-for-u-s-to-leave-afghanistan/#147c752565b2

In fact, a Taliban victory, or a political settlement resulting in some form of stable authority throughout most of the country, would ironically offer an antidote to terrorism. The Taliban apparently was not happy with their guest, Osama bin Laden, for bringing the wrath of the U.S. down upon them, and the movement would not want to face U.S. intervention a second time. Moreover, war is the perfect environment which births and fosters terrorist groups.




2A EVIDENCE: WITHDRAW US FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN

OPENING QUOTES / AFFIRMATIVE PHILOSOPHY

We should just leave

Prof. Andrew Bacevich 2017. (Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston Univ.) "Viewpoint: Why the US should withdraw from Afghanistan" 22 August 2017 BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41016347

We should not accept President Trump's absolute certainty that if we leave then Afghanistan will become a terrorist haven. Finally, I would emphasise that the more preoccupied we are with Afghanistan, the less attention we give to far more pressing issues such as climate change and potential instability in East Asia. The strategically prudent course of action for the US is to acknowledge our failure and leave.

The war is pointless

Steve Chapman 2018. (columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune; has appeared on numerous TV and radio news programs, including The CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News; attended Harvard University and graduated with honors in 1976.; has been a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin and has served on the Visiting Committee of the Univ. of Chicago Law School.) "In Afghanistan, We Persist in Futility" 22 June 2018 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-afghanistan-taliban-deasefire-war-20180622-story.html

Last month, The New Yorker profiled Patrick Skinner, who was deployed to Afghanistan several times as a CIA counterterrorism agent. Eventually, he attached a note to his ballistic vest in case he was killed. It said: “Tell my wife it was pointless.”

“Not Losing” should not be a reason for further sacrifice

Robert E. Hunter 2017. (served as US ambassador to NATO from 1993-98 and was on the National Security Council staff in the Carter administration; former Director of the Center for Transatlantic Security Studies at the National Defense University, 2011-2012; served on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and is a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy.) "It’s Time to Leave Afghanistan" 30 August 2017 https://lobelog.com/its-time-to-leave-afghanistan/

In the final analysis, it may be that Trump, treading in Obama’s footsteps, decided to persevere in Afghanistan for a special, political, but understandably human reason: the fear of being seen to lose a war. Regarding Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson said it directly: “I’m not going down in history as the first American President who lost a war.” And yet he and the nation did, seven long years and tens of thousands of American dead later. Afghanistan is less costly to the United States in blood and treasure. But that is no argument for further sacrifice, however limited it could prove to be.



http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Presidential-Power-Presidential-war-in-vietnam.html


MINOR REPAIR RESPONSES

1. A/T “Increase Troops”

More troops can't solve: It would only increase casualties and violence, not win anything


Unfortunately, as Davis [Retired Col. Daniel Davis of Defense Priorities] argued, replaying the past will result in the same future. Deploy another 30,000 troops and Kabul will be more secure, but “it will also cause a spike in U.S. casualties and a predictable increase in insurgent violence throughout the country. What it will not do is defeat the insurgency and end the war. If the United States expands the mission into Afghanistan at this present time, we may well end up committing our armed forces to permanent state of war.”

More troops would only cost more lives as the inevitable withdrawal is postponed and more die in the meantime


The most tempting policy might be to follow President Obama’s approach—add a few more troops, accompanied by lots of positive rhetoric. Yet a few more combat boots won’t transform a conflict which has continued in one form or another for years. All that strategy would achieve is to put off the inevitable withdrawal, which will be seen as a retreat and ultimately defeat. But the loss would occur on the next president’s watch, albeit at the cost of hundreds or thousands of American and allied lives.

INHERENCY

Trump is surging more forces into Afghanistan

Eric Goepner 2018 (visiting research fellow in the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department; retired colonel U.S. Air Force, military assignments included unit commands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Pacific region; doctoral candidate at George Mason Univ. Schar School of Policy and Government) " War State, Trauma State: Why Afghanistan Remains Stuck in Conflict" 19 June 2018 https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-844.pdf

Seventeen years in, the United States remains torn between maintaining the status quo, surging military forces, or leaving the country altogether. The Trump administration has chosen to surge forces, but regardless of the path pursued, Americans can expect continued civil war involving the Taliban and other insurgent groups, as well as a corrupt, illiberal, and largely incompetent Afghan government.



https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-844.pdf






HARMS / SIGNIFICANCE

1. Huge Cost

US aid to Afghanistan is the largest expenditure to rebuild a single country


This is, noted SIGAR [Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction], “the largest expenditure to rebuild a single country in our nation’s history.” It is more than the Marshall Plan delivered to all of Europe. This financial tsunami was used to train Afghan security forces, buttress the Kabul government, and spur economic development. Outlays continued as the U.S. began withdrawing its armed forces. Expenditures ran about $6 billion each of the last two years; they are scheduled to drop to $2 billion this year, but could be augmented once the Trump administration addresses the issue. Moreover, $8.4 billion previously appropriated remains to be disbursed.

Fighting is not worth the cost

Gary Wetzel 2017. (experienced military and aviation writer who has authored two books examining the combat operations of the A-10 Warthog in Afghanistan. He also served over six years in the U.S Navy as sonar technician aboard USS Philadelphia and USS Dallas.) " Why It's Time For America To Leave Afghanistan Behind" 25 April 2017 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-its-time-for-america-to-leave-afghanistan-behind-1794627301

But approaching 16 years of combat operations, $1 trillion in cost and the lives of approximately 179,000 people—including nearly 2,400 American military personnel—the question needs to be asked, when is enough really enough? The United States is no longer fighting to win the war in Afghanistan. It is now fighting not to lose, and that makes it a war not worth fighting.

Big cost, yet few results

CBS 2017. (mass media company that creates and distributes industry-leading content across a variety of platforms to audiences around the world. This article was written by Will Rahn, the Digital Politics editor for CBS News.) "Why are we still in Afghanistan?" 5 June 2017 https://lobelog.com/its-time-to-leave-afghanistan/

In reality, the price is quite large. Thousands of Americans have died in our post-9/11 wars, along with hundreds of thousands of the foreign civilians we set out to liberate. In a pure dollar amount, we've sunk more into Afghan reconstruction that we did to rebuild Western Europe after World War II. For all that, Afghanistan remains a backwards, largely illiterate, and essentially feudal society of competing tribes and Islamist militants with no real central government. Setting up some kind of stable democratic government in Afghanistan was always a transparently fantastical notion, but for all the money spent, it stands to reason that we should expect a little more by way of results.



https://news.brown.edu/articles/2016/08/costs-war

https://www.ft.com/content/14be0e0c-8255-11e4-ace7-00144feabdc0




A lot of cost with no return


Policymakers need to avoid what economists call the fallacy of sunk costs. The U.S. and other nations have invested much, but those lives and money are gone. The only question is whether a continued military commitment is worth the future cost. Retired Col. Daniel Davis of Defense Priorities noted that the “surge” under President Barack Obama accomplished “the protection of the Afghan government in Kabul and the security of select lines of communication elsewhere in the country. But it did nothing to quell the insurgency.” To the contrary, observed Davis, the level of combat actually increased.

Enormous cost that has achieved very little

Eric Goepner 2018 (visiting research fellow in the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department; retired colonel from the U.S. Air Force, his military assignments included unit commands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Pacific region; doctoral candidate at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government) " War State, Trauma State: Why Afghanistan Remains Stuck in Conflict" 19 June 2018 https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-844.pdf

Since initiating combat operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban in October 2001, America has deployed nearly three million military members and more than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in Afghanistan at an estimated financial cost of $840 billion. Forty-one other countries have contributed to the Afghan war in varying degrees too. These gargantuan efforts have achieved very little.

2. US aid leads to more corruption

Giving more money means more money is wasted


IWA [Integrity Watch Afghanistan] figured that Afghans had paid $2.9 billion in bribes, up from $1.9 billion in 2014. It has been difficult for Washington to achieve more, since, noted SIGAR, “security and political goals consistently trumped strong anticorruption actions.” Moreover, U.S. aid has exacerbated the problem. Explained SIGAR [Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction], Washington “failed to recognize that billions of dollars injected into a small, under-developed country, with limited oversight and strong pressures to spend, contributed to the growth of corruption.” Amid the flood of foreign money “Controls were sometimes insufficient to prevent embezzlement, bribery, fraud, and other forms of corruption—by both Afghan and international actors—that drained resources from the reconstruction effort.”

The US has contributed to the problems in Afghanistan


Alas, Afghanistan’s development, stated SIGAR [Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction], “remains tenuous and incomplete,” which seems unduly generous judgment. Stated the inspector general: “the United States contributed significantly to the problems in Afghanistan by dumping too much money, too quickly, into too small an economy, with too little oversight.”











Even Norway says more aid equals more corruption


Similarly, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation reported that development efforts suffered from “the shortage of management and implementation capacity within the Afghan government, particularly at the provincial level.” Moreover, “High levels of aid, together with limited absorptive capacity and a poorly functioning public administration, meant that the international presence in Afghanistan itself became a driver of corruption.”

Two examples of corruption

Gary Wetzel 2017. (experienced military and aviation writer who has authored two books examining the combat operations of the A-10 Warthog in Afghanistan. He also served over six years in the U.S Navy as sonar technician aboard USS Philadelphia and USS Dallas.) " Why It's Time For America To Leave Afghanistan Behind" 25 April 2017 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-its-time-for-america-to-leave-afghanistan-behind-1794627301

Perhaps the loss of most of Helmand was due to the corruption of the Afghan 215th Corps where 40 percent of its troops existed only on paper; these “ghost soldiers” being counted only to allow corrupt officers to collect extra pay. In 2015, the U.S. spent over $100 million training the 215th Corps to take on the Taliban, when in reality it appears much of the food and fuel was stolen by senior officers who choose profit over their soldiers’ lives.

[END QUOTE. HE GOES ON LATER IN THE SAME CONTEXT, QUOTE:]

Corruption is so rampant, that the Afghan general assigned to investigate the true scope of corruption within the army was himself recently arrested on corruption charges.

Lack of proper management means wasted funds


It wasn’t just the quantity of cash. Noted SIGAR [Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction], “The United States currently lacks a comprehensive strategy to guide its reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. It also lacks overarching plans with clearly defined metrics to guide its work in a number of key areas such as anticorruption, counternarcotics, health, education, gender, rule of law, and water. The lack of planning and related strategies means the U.S. military and civilian agencies are at risk of working at cross purposes, spending money on nonessential endeavors, or failing to coordinate efforts in Afghanistan.” Moreover, the DOD [Department of Defense] acknowledged, noted SIGAR, that “U.S. forces in Afghanistan lacked the capacity to administer, oversee, and close contracts to ensure proper performance.” Oversight has become increasingly difficult as security has deteriorated.








3. Fuels terrorism

US presence in Afghanistan justifies (in their minds) attacks against the US everywhere

Eric Goepner 2018. (visiting research fellow in the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department; retired colonel from the U.S. Air Force, his military assignments included unit commands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Pacific region; doctoral candidate at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government) "War State, Trauma State: Why Afghanistan Remains Stuck in Conflict" 19 June 2018 https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-844.pdf

Moreover, the use of military force in Afghanistan and other Muslim-majority states has hardened anti-American sentiments. Survey data indicate that more citizens in a number of Muslim-majority states agree than disagree with the statement, “The US presence in the region justifies attacks against the US everywhere.” Those countries include the likes of Jordan, Kuwait, and Iraq. And finally, the Taliban threat does not necessitate a continued American military presence in Afghanistan.

US mission in Afghanistan creates cultural clash that fuels anger and backlash in the region

Malou Innocent 2012. (Masters in International Relations, U of Chicago; member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies) 27 Feb 2012 It’s Time to Cut Our Losses in Afghanistan http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/its-time-to-cut-our-losses-in-afghanistan/

As I argued months ago, “Recent events in Afghanistan should be a wake-up call to how our 10-year occupation is actually being perceived. Rather than winning ‘hearts and minds,’ America’s civilizing mission has become increasingly associated with a Western cultural invasion.” Many Afghans see outsiders constantly changing their mayors, their governors, and their customs. They are told how to dress their women, what is culturally acceptable, and what is culturally repugnant. Americans are infuriated when their politicians redistribute their taxes, yet they ignore how intrusive their own military and civilian planners have become to foreign peoples. It’s no surprise that a report published last May by the Kabul-based Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit concluded that negative sentiments about democracy emerge from “the stated distaste among respondents for ‘Western culture’ and the potential threat it poses to ‘Afghan culture,’ traditional norms or values, and an Islamic identity.” None of this should imply that the Quran burning or the grisly violence meted out against innocent people was justified. But the fact remains that America is widely scorned throughout the region—in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

SOLVENCY / ADVOCACY

US should be reducing its military role in Afghanistan. Intervention isn't needed and is counterproductive

Eric Goepner 2018 (visiting research fellow in the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department; retired colonel from the U.S. Air Force, his military assignments included unit commands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Pacific region; doctoral candidate at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government) " War State, Trauma State: Why Afghanistan Remains Stuck in Conflict" 19 June 2018 https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/war-state-trauma-state-why-afghanistan-remains-stuck-conflict

Trauma at this level imposes profound limits on America’s ability to effect enduring change in Afghanistan and other places. Accordingly, the United States should decrease its military footprint in the country and focus on efforts to incentivize a more effective and less corrupt Afghan government. More broadly, America should restrain its use of military force to those instances in which it is both effective and necessary, since sustained war in already traumatized states such as Afghanistan increases psychological damage and societal instability, making continued war more likely. Although it has become a common element of U.S. foreign policy, intervening with military force in another country’s civil war is almost never necessary to secure U.S. interests.



https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/war-state-trauma-state-why-afghanistan-remains-stuck-conflict

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/war-state-trauma-state-why-afghanistan-remains-stuck-conflict

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/its-time-to-cut-our-losses-in-afghanistan/

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/its-time-to-cut-our-losses-in-afghanistan/


US interventions guarantee perpetual war. Without it, they lose all our free money


As noted by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the billions of U.S. and international community dollars flooding into the country have inadvertently introduced “perverse incentives.” The artificial and unsustainable increase in the size of the economy encourages Afghans to enter political life for corrupt purposes and further incentivizes them to keep the war going lest Americans and their money leave. Afghan government officials have siphoned off an estimated 20 percent of each contract, while the insurgents typically require a payment as well to prevent them from destroying the new project. The net result? More grievances against the government, increased viability for the insurgents, and more war.

We’ve made things worse, not better in Afghanistan

Steve Chapman 2018. (columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune; attended Harvard University and graduated with honors in 1976. He has been a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin and has served on the Visiting Committee of the Univ. of Chicago Law School.) "In Afghanistan, We Persist in Futility" 22 June 2018 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-afghanistan-taliban-deasefire-war-20180622-story.html

Our efforts have amounted to an interminable, expensive failure. In May, the U.S. government’s special inspector general for Afghanistan issued a “lessons learned” report that was a chronicle of futility. “The U.S. government greatly overestimated its ability to build and reform government institutions in Afghanistan,” it said. “The large sums of stabilization dollars the United States devoted to Afghanistan in search of quick gains often exacerbated conflicts, enabled corruption, and bolstered support for insurgents.” In short, we made things worse rather than better.

The US has accomplished very little and nothing more can be done. It needs to be left up to the Afghan people


In addition, what the United States, along with some allied and partner nations, has already done in Afghanistan has made little decisive, positive difference despite nearly 16 years of effort. The Taliban controls more territory than it has for years. And there is no obvious basis for believing that further US military commitment—whether “training,” “advising,” “providing air support,” or “stiffening”—will succeed now when it has so far proved inadequate. For whatever reason, including the structure of the country’s political and economic power, the Afghan government and military forces have not been able to do the job. It’s wishful thinking to imagine that the United States—and perhaps NATO allies, as President Trump is asking—will succeed, against all odds, in the face of Afghan incapacity to respond sufficiently to the challenge. As President Trump put it succinctly: “Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace.”





US efforts in Afghanistan have failed, and will continue to fail. Only Afghans themselves can fix their problems


The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to destroy al Qaeda, remove the Taliban from power, and ensure that the country would not become a sanctuary for transnational terrorists again. Sixteen years later, those objectives are largely unmet. Al Qaeda has not been defeated, and the number of other Islamist-inspired terrorist groups has proliferated. The Taliban no longer constitute the national government, but they do control, influence, or contest almost half of Afghan districts, while the nominally democratic government ranks at or near the bottom of all states in capacity, transparency, and freedom. Additionally, terror groups like ISIS appear to be increasingly active within the country. U.S. efforts have largely failed and will continue to fail because of the dysfunctional features of a society that only Afghans can fix.

US cannot improve Afghanistan’s situation. Only Afghans can do that


Unfortunately, neither the United States nor the international community can substantially improve Afghanistan’s situation. Instead, the future of the country rests primarily in the hands of Afghans who, to date, have largely been incapable of or uninterested in fundamentally changing conditions on the ground.

DISADVANTAGE RESPONSES

Big Link Cut to all Disads: Remaking Afghan society is a hopeless task

Doug Bandow 2012. ( J.D. (law degree) from Stanford Univ; senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties; worked as special assistant to President Reagan) 6 Mar 2012 Why Are We Still in Afghanistan? http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-are-we-still-afghanistan

Remaking Afghan society is a hopeless task. Social engineering is hard enough at home. Doing so abroad is far more difficult, especially when many Afghans are ready to kill when offended by those who believe differently than them. The problem runs far deeper than the loss of mutual trust between Afghans and allies, as some observers suggest. Afghan society may — and hopefully will — eventually evolve in a more humane direction, but it will do so on Afghanistan's, not America's, schedule.



http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-are-we-still-afghanistan




1. A/T “We need to be there to win”

Winning is an unrealistic expectation

Doug Bandow 2017. (Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is also a Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution with the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. He is the author and editor of numerous books and is a graduate of Florida State University and Stanford Law School.) "The Nation-Building Experiment That Failed: Time For U.S. To Leave Afghanistan " 1 March 2017 https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2017/03/01/the-nation-building-experiment-that-failed-time-for-u-s-to-leave-afghanistan/#147c752565b2

Of course, it would be wonderful if America could create a liberal future for Afghans who desire to escape the past. Before leaving office, Secretary of State John Kerry declared: “it will take sustained engagement and effort in the years ahead to protect the progress we’ve made. We have invested significant blood and treasure in Afghanistan’s future, and we must continue to support the Afghan people as they work to build a secure and peaceful future in the months and years ahead.” But that task has proved to be far beyond Washington’s capabilities. And while worthy, that objective cannot justify continuing to expend American lives and monies. Unfortunately, ivory tower warriors in Washington have proved all too ready to sacrifice their countrymen.

We won’t leave Afghanistan alone


An American withdrawal wouldn’t leave Kabul friendless and alone. India, Iran, and China also are interested in a nation which sits uncomfortably close in their neighborhood. Russia had its own unhappy experience with Afghanistan and long backed U.S. efforts, even until recently providing logistical support. All could promote stability and combat terrorism. But if Washington isn’t going to fight a big war, Moscow prefers that American forces leave. Kabulov argued that there is no “clear-cut answer” as to why the U.S. maintains “land bases in Afghanistan” which would allow the speedy deployment of as many as 100,000 soldiers.

Leaving would force countries to deal with local problems

Prof. Barry R. Posen 2017. (Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT, and the director of the Security Studies Program. He has been a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow; Rockefeller Foundation International Affairs Fellow; Guest Scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Woodrow Wilson Center Fellow; most recently Visiting Fellow at the John Sloan Dickey Center at Dartmouth College.) "It's Time to Make Afghanistan Someone Else's Problem" 18 August 2017 https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537252/

From a strategic perspective, then, a dramatic reduction of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan—or even a complete drawdown—would likely realign regional behavior in ways that would drive current U.S. adversaries apart, force them to deal with difficult local problems, and encourage other regional powers to seek better ties with Washington. From an American perspective, it is a win-win.






Russia would step up


If the United States left Afghanistan, Russia, effectively an ally of Iran in the Syrian civil war, would also find it reasonable to assist the Afghan government in its fight against the Taliban. Russia intervened in Syria for many reasons, but fear of a jihadi victory there was central. A Taliban victory in Afghanistan would be as problematic for Russian security because Islamist groups from the Caucasus—hostile to the Russian government—could then find sanctuary there, as they have in the past. Like Iran, Russia once aided the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. Thus, it would also be in Russia's interest to support the Afghan government and oppose the Taliban. While the United States insists that Russia is providing aid to the Taliban—perhaps an instance of Vladimir Putin succumbing to the temptation to discomfit America—when the Taliban is pointed at Russian forces, they will be forced to change their behavior.

2. A/T “We would let Afghanistan down”

Afghanistan is the one who has let the US down


Some may also argue that Washington cannot afford to undermine its prestige by leaving Afghanistan in the lurch. Given the lives, money, and time that it has poured into building a stable Afghanistan, it is Afghans who have let the U.S. down, pouring more resources into a losing effort won’t enhance confidence in U.S. judgment or its staying power.

3. A/T “Terrorism against the West would increase”

There are plenty of countries with terrorists that don’t have American sending troops and money

Gary Wetzel 2017. (experienced military and aviation writer who has authored two books examining the combat operations of the A-10 Warthog in Afghanistan. He also served over six years in the U.S Navy as sonar technician aboard USS Philadelphia and USS Dallas.) "Why It's Time For America To Leave Afghanistan Behind" 25 April 2017 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-its-time-for-america-to-leave-afghanistan-behind-1794627301

Keeping Afghanistan from becoming a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorism is the leading reason for continuing the basing of American troops in Afghanistan. Yet, there are plenty of failed states around the world where terrorists gather and collude without America keeping thousands of troops and spending hundreds of billions of dollars in a never-ending saga of “just a bit longer.”




Non-unique. Terrorists simply move elsewhere, and we don’t have the resources to stamp out all of them


However, there appears to be no dearth of havens for terrorists. Indeed, U.S. military action in Afghanistan merely pushed al-Qaeda into neighboring Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden resided. Washington responded by killing him, not invading and occupying Pakistan. There are plenty of other chaotic lands and ungoverned spaces from which terrorists could operate. The U.S. does not have the resources and will to conquer and pacify all of them.

There are many other countries open to terrorism that don’t have US troops. Adding Afghanistan to that list will not make matters worse


So why is the United States still involved in Afghanistan and is even increasing its military engagement, although by a modest amount of perhaps 4,000 or so troops? A case can be made, as President Trump and his two predecessors did, that the Kabul government’s collapse would open the way for the Taliban to regain dominance and that could lead to increased terrorism against the West, including the United States. Yet given the territories already open to al-Qaeda and its ilk, including IS, it is far from clear that adding Afghanistan to the list of possibilities would make matters worse.

“Al Qaeda resurgence” - Response: Victory won’t matter and leaving won’t make it more dangerous

Prof. Stephen Walt 2012. (professor of international affairs at Harvard University) 3 Apr 2012 “Don’ t Prolong the Inevitable” NEW YORK TIMES, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/03/should-the-us-leave-afghanistan-now/there-is-no-need-to-prolong-the-inevitable

Fortunately, Afghanistan is not a vital United States interest. President Obama had said that we must prevent Al Qaeda from establishing safe havens there, but Osama bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda already has better safe havens elsewhere. Victory in Afghanistan will not eliminate Al Qaeda, and leaving won’t make it more dangerous. If it makes no difference whether we win or lose, why fight on?

We don’t need to build a strong Afghan state to fight terrorism and Pakistan’s nukes are not vulnerable to Taliban

Prof. Joshua Rovner & Prof. Austin Long 2011. (Rovner is assistant professor of strategy and policy at the U.S. Naval War College. Long is assistant professor in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia Univ) 14 June 2011 “Dominoes on the Durand Line? Overcoming Strategic Myths in Afghanistan and Pakistan” http://www.cato.org/publications/foreign-policy-briefing/dominoes-durand-line-overcoming-strategic-myths-afghanistan-pakistan

Coalition strategy is based on the assumptions that the only way to deny al Qaeda safe haven is by building a strong central Afghan state and that Pakistan’s nuclear complex will become increasingly vulnerable to militant attacks if the Taliban succeeds in Afghanistan. Both assumptions are wrong. The United States does not need to build a state in Afghanistan because the conditions that allowed al Qaeda safe haven in the 1990s have permanently changed. Moreover, the steps needed to help Pakistan secure its nuclear arsenal have nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan.



http://www.cato.org/publications/foreign-policy-briefing/dominoes-durand-line-overcoming-strategic-myths-afghanistan-pakistan

http://www.cato.org/publications/foreign-policy-briefing/dominoes-durand-line-overcoming-strategic-myths-afghanistan-pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/03/should-the-us-leave-afghanistan-now/there-is-no-need-to-prolong-the-inevitable

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/03/should-the-us-leave-afghanistan-now/there-is-no-need-to-prolong-the-inevitable




WORKS CITED

1. Andrew Bacevich 2017. (Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University.) "Viewpoint: Why the US should withdraw from Afghanistan" 22 August 2017 BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41016347

2. Ashley J. Tellis and Jeff Eggers 2017. (Tellis – holds the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, specializing in international security and U.S. foreign and defense policy with a special focus on Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Previously, he was commissioned into the Foreign Service and served as senior adviser to the ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. Prior to his government service, Tellis was senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation and professor of policy analysis at the RAND Graduate School. Eggers – senior fellow at New America, focusing on the behavioral science of policy decision making.) "U.S. Policy in Afghanistan: Changing Strategies, Preserving Gains" 22 May 2017 http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/05/22/u.s.-policy-in-afghanistan-changing-strategies-preserving-gains-pub-70027

3. CBS 2017. (mass media company that creates and distributes industry-leading content across a variety of platforms to audiences around the world. This article was written by Will Rahn, the Digital Politics editor for CBS News.) "Why are we still in Afghanistan?" 5 June 2017 https://lobelog.com/its-time-to-leave-afghanistan/

4. Doug Bandow 2017. (Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is also a Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution with the Institute on Religion and Public Policy. He is the author and editor of numerous books and is a graduate of Florida State University and Stanford Law School.) "The Nation-Building Experiment That Failed: Time For U.S. To Leave Afghanistan " 1 March 2017 https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2017/03/01/the-nation-building-experiment-that-failed-time-for-u-s-to-leave-afghanistan/#147c752565b2

5. Eric Goepner 2018 (visiting research fellow in the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department; retired colonel from the U.S. Air Force, his military assignments included unit commands in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Pacific region; doctoral candidate at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government ) " War State, Trauma State: Why Afghanistan Remains Stuck in Conflict" 19 June 2018 https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-844.pdf

6. Gary Wetzel 2017. (experienced military and aviation writer who has authored two books examining the combat operations of the A-10 Warthog in Afghanistan. He also served over six years in the U.S Navy as sonar technician aboard USS Philadelphia and USS Dallas.) " Why It's Time For America To Leave Afghanistan Behind" 25 April 2017 https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-its-time-for-america-to-leave-afghanistan-behind-1794627301

7. James Downie 2017. (The Washington Post’s Digital Opinions Editor. He was previously a reporter-researcher for The New Republic and has also written for Foreign Policy magazine. He graduated from Columbia University with a BA in History.) "Trump’s instincts were right: The U.S. should leave Afghanistan" 22 August 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/22/trumps-instincts-were-right-the-u-s-should-leave-afghanistan/?noredirect=on




8. NBC News 2017. (NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and visually engaging stories on your platform of choice. NBC News Digital features world-class brands including NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. This article was written by Andrew Rafferty, a political reporter for NBC News.) "The War in Afghanistan: By The Numbers" 21 August 2017 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/war-afghanistan-numbers-n794626

9. Prof. Barry R. Posen 2017. (Ford International Professor of Political Science at MIT, and the director of the Security Studies Program. He has been a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow; Rockefeller Foundation International Affairs Fellow; Guest Scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Woodrow Wilson Center Fellow; Smithsonian Institution; Transatlantic Fellow of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and most recently Visiting Fellow at the John Sloan Dickey Center at Dartmouth College.) "It's Time to Make Afghanistan Someone Else's Problem" 18 August 2017 https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/537252/

10. Steve Chapman 2018. (columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. His twice-a-week column on national and international affairs, distributed by Creators Syndicate, appears in some 50 papers across the country. He has contributed articles to several national magazines, including Slate, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, Reason, and National Review. He has appeared on numerous TV and radio news programs, including The CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and National Public Radio's Fresh Air, Talk of the Nation and On Point. He attended Harvard University and graduated with honors in 1976. He has been a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin and has served on the Visiting Committee of the University of Chicago Law School.) "In Afghanistan, We Persist in Futility" 22 June 2018 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-afghanistan-taliban-deasefire-war-20180622-story.html

11. Robert E. Hunter 2017. (served as US ambassador to NATO from 1993-98 and was on the National Security Council staff throughout the Carter administration, first as Director of West European Affairs and then as Director of Middle East Affairs. In the last-named role, he was the White House representative at the Autonomy Talks for the West Bank and Gaza and developer of the Carter Doctrine for the Persian Gulf. He was Senior Advisor to the RAND Corporation from 1998 to 2011, and Director of the Center for Transatlantic Security Studies at the National Defense University, 2011-2012. He served on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and is a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy.) "It’s Time to Leave Afghanistan" 30 August 2017 https://lobelog.com/its-time-to-leave-afghanistan/



2012-stoa-bb-012-aff-saudiarabia-submitted.docx€¦ · web viewthe united states has had military...

Documents