Argument: The war is too expensive, so a deal needs to be made to end it.

President Obama himself has said, “Ultimately as was true in Iraq, so will be true in Afghanistan; we will have to have a political solution.”

At a time when fiscal policy has become a major concern among western legislatures and commentators, the increasing cost of the war is proving to be politically contentious. Therefore, a political solution to the conflict is no longer merely desirable, but necessary. Continuing the war will cost too much, both in political and budgetary terms. USA and UK have to make financial considerations in light of the continuing aftermath of the global financial crisis. One glaring estimate suggests that America will spend over 700 billion U.S dollars on the military in 2010. The conflict in Afghanistan cost approximately $51 billion in 2009 and was expected to hit $65 billion in 2010. The purchase of air conditioning systems for Afghani facilities accounts for more than $20 billion of this figure.

Obama's policy of deploying more and more troops has cost the American people significantly more than the status quo would have. Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion. [1] In the current financial climate taking on such exorbitant costs is not in the economic interest of the USA. It is not only sending troops (and reinforcements) to Afghanistan, but also the medical treatment of war veterans when they return that is costing America huge sums of money. The number of psychologically ill soldiers; as well as those suffering from near-fatal and/or debilitating injuries is still climbing tragically upwards, furthering the cost. To top that, war veterans feel that Americans are not paid enough. Mr.Obey, Rep. John P. Murtha and Rep. John B. Larson have proposed levying an annual tax of $30,000 on US citizens to 'share their(the military's) burden. [2]

[1] Doug Bandow, «A War We Can't Afford The National Interests», January 4, 2010, http://nationalinterest.org/article/a-war-we-cant-afford-3344

[2] ibid

Candidate 1: "How can the Taliban be included if they absolutely disagree on negotiating, but instead want to overthrow the government? So far the Taliban has always insisted that they will refuse to negotiate until all foreign forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan. [1] This means that we are actually making the problems worse for the people over there instead of better.

We really need to have a reliable partner in the region. Nowadays Pakistan is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States with fighting Taliban. In 2007, the National Security Council of Pakistan met to decide the fate of Waziristan and take up a number of political and administrative issues in order to control the “Talibanization” of the area. The meeting was chaired by President Pervez Musharraf and attended by the Chief Ministers and Governors of all 4 provinces. They discussed the deteriorating law and order situation and the threat posed to state security. The restoration of peace in North and South Waziristan will be a great challenge. The dilemma is not only that the local Taliban in North Waziristan are not ready to speak with the government, but they also disallow anyone else in the region from speaking with the authorities. In these troubled areas, political agents are seen only in their official functions and troops are limited merely to forts and bunkers. [2]

Yes, Pakistan already has nuclear weapon, but it is important to underline that legitimate government has it, not the terrorists group. If we go through, we can say, a ‘blackmail’ of terrorist having a nuclear weapon we are risked to have them a chance to capture the power and provide their cruel politics.

[1] Andrew Blandford, «Talking with the Taliban: Should the U.S. "Bargain with Devil" in Afghanistan?», Harvard Negotiation Law Review, http://www.hnlr.org/?p=142

[2] Sohail Abdul Nasir, «The Talibanization of the North-West Frontier», Terrorism Monitor Volume: 4 Issue: 12, June 15, 2006, 01:57 PM, http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=807&amp;tx_..."
Candidate 2: "This is the weakest argument by far. It isn't logical. As all of us who've read about Karl Popper will attest that a historical trend is not an indication of future courses unless causality can be proven. Here it can’t. It’s a different war altogether. Historical parallels make sense in college classrooms, not when a Taliban fighter faces a drone attack; Did the soviets have drones? No, they didn’t.

Also «Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban» is factually incorrect. The Pakistan president said that talking with the Taliban is not an option «unless we want to breed terrorism».

The current scenario is completely different from the past, not only about the time factor but also political conditions. Previous battles were fought against not only the militia but also its supporting government. This time, the battle is against an independent Taliban force that is backing up the Al- Qaeda group."
Candidate 3: "Here the argument presented by the proposition is an attempt to deceive the opposition and the house. The act that the proposition has presented has not been passed by the US government and is highly unlikely to happen in the future as well. The argument is right if the assumption that the deficits are long term. And it is not so. The deficit as a proportion of GDP is still more than manageable and more spending is needed. The only current indication of this is long term interest rates on US treasury bonds and these have been falling.

Secondly from a purely economic viewpoint, the battle between US and Taliban is not entirely negative. Historically military spending can help boost growth as was shown by World War II pulling the US out of the great depression of the 1930s. What nations need when in a recession is more economic activity and the arms industry and the countless other industries a war necessitates makes this war as good as it gets for the economy. Of course there is a danger of the US budget deficit leading to higher long term lending costs but if we look at the date from the last ten years interest rates on US treasury bonds have been falling. Therefore the US can borrow cheaply, has 9 million plus unemployed and companies are not willing to hire as they are already reaping huge profits off labor cost cuts. Economically the war in Afghanistan is good for America."
Candidate 4: "It should first be pointed out that all conflicts are unique, products of the political and social settings in which they arise. Geopolitics and foreign policy are not as dependent on precedent as most debaters would like to think.

The main objective of the USA and the UK behind the power sharing deal in Africa is to extract the resources of the African continent. The proposition is basically trying to deceive us with this point. The power sharing deals made by the USA (collaborating with the UK, at times) are all for their own selfish interests. Be it in Africa or Iraq, USA has applied its own vested interest in most cases. Africa is very rich in resources. The US saw all of these and then shared power with the nation just to earn some benefit in utilizing the resources. Furthermore, the United States went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, a greater concern to the USA than that of searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) [1] and taking Saddam Hussein out of power.

The power sharing in Afghanistan and Pakistan would not only to exploit the oil resources but also have a watchful eye towards China, India and Russia.

[1] Aryn Baker, «Afghan Women and the Return of the Taliban» , The Time Magazine, July 29, 20, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007407,00.html"
Candidate 5: "The argument here presented by the proposition that the majority of people in US are fed up with the war, true. But that is because they were not the ones facing abuse at the Taliban hands or fighting a civil war which resulted in the killing of 100,000, but the minority will be slaughtered if this is allowed to happen. [1] This genocide in the making should not be allowed to happen. This will also lead to a civil war. Though the minorities are exhausted but they broke it and have a moral imperative to fix it. A lot of people have come out in support of the "western" forces, they will face retribution and future attempts to win hearts and minds will fail when the fickleness of our resolve is exposed. This is a slippery slope if we slide down there is no telling how far down we will fall. This should be the centre of the discussion; our opponents want to put popularity before lives and security and which is wrong.

[1] Dexter Filkins, «Overture to Taliban Jolts Afghan Minorities», The New York Times, published June 26, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?_r=1&amp;pagewant..."

Here the argument presented by the proposition is an attempt to deceive the opposition and the house. The act that the proposition has presented has not been passed by the US government and is highly unlikely to happen in the future as well. The argument is right if the assumption that the deficits are long term. And it is not so. The deficit as a proportion of GDP is still more than manageable and more spending is needed. The only current indication of this is long term interest rates on US treasury bonds and these have been falling.

Secondly from a purely economic viewpoint, the battle between US and Taliban is not entirely negative. Historically military spending can help boost growth as was shown by World War II pulling the US out of the great depression of the 1930s. What nations need when in a recession is more economic activity and the arms industry and the countless other industries a war necessitates makes this war as good as it gets for the economy. Of course there is a danger of the US budget deficit leading to higher long term lending costs but if we look at the date from the last ten years interest rates on US treasury bonds have been falling. Therefore the US can borrow cheaply, has 9 million plus unemployed and companies are not willing to hire as they are already reaping huge profits off labor cost cuts. Economically the war in Afghanistan is good for America.
