The Americans And British Should Negotiate A Political Power-Sharing Deal With The Taliban
Mr.Obama has said that a power-sharing deal that may include the Taliban is in the works. However; he maintains that such a deal should be approached with caution and will in no way compromise American values of Freedom and justice. Even if the Taliban are not included; can Pakistan and Afghanistan be trusted? Hamid Karzai allegedly has connections in illegal narcotics trade. Pakistan has been accused repetitively of playing a double game with the U.S and Taliban. Speaking directly with Taliban leaders on an equal front; can clear away much of the confusion caused in communication by Pak-Afghan mediators.It could also, hypothetically give the Taliban a false sense of victory so that they are appeased and consequently; curb their murderous rampage. A false sense of victory could also mean a rise in terror resulting from confidence in their cause. Would it be wise to share power with the Taliban?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Funds are running out. A political solution to the conflict is necessary as continuing the war costs too much.
Both the U.S and U.K 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 this year. Albeit, Obama's policy of deploying more and more troops has cost the American People significantly more. "Every extra thousand personnel deployed to Afghanistan costs about $1 billion."
In the current financial climate taking on such exorbitant costs is not in the economic interest of the United States. 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 tragically on a steep climb; furthering the cost.To top that; war veterans feel that Americans have not paid enough. Mr.Obey,Rep. John P. Murtha and Rep. John B. Larson have gone on to levying an annual tax of $30,000 on U.S citizens to 'share their(the military's) burden'.
Chairman Carl Levin is pushing for American citizens to pay even more.
The U.S president has promised to start recalling troops from July 2011 [[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/01/politics/main5851527.shtml]] A political solution must be introduced before this date.
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 bad, it is necessary. Talking about history, what brought the US out of the great depression in the 1920s? It was the World War II. 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 cheap, 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. Economically our friends have lied but failed to make an argument.
Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, argues: “If you’re going to have a presence there [in Afghanistan], you just can’t pass the bill on, as we did in Iraq, to our kids and our grandchildren. I think that’s wrong. I think that’s immoral.” However, he has proposed no specific fiscal response. http://www.cfr.org/publication/15404/iraq_afghanistan_and_the_us_economy.html#p4
The majority of citizens in both countries oppose the war in Afghanistan and want troops to come/be-sent back home.
As was the case in Iraq, a diplomatic solution is required to end the war as smoothly as possible. If a diplomatic solution is not reached or even proposed; the security situation in both Afghanistan and Pakistan will escalate and this is a matter of serious concern since the latter is a nuclear power. Violence in the region can only be disseminated if the Taliban feel they are not being attacked but are included; then peace has a chance of prevailing. If the region were to be left as is; the Taliban could hypothetically topple both the Afghan and Pakistan government; then start launching nuclear weapons onto the rest of the world.Citizens of both U.K/U.S feel we're fighting a losing battle. The Taliban claim Victory often. 327 British soldiers have died in Afghanistan.About 2000 coalition soldiers in total expired in Afghanistan. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan]] [[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-military-casualties-afghanistan-pakistan-uzbekistan-exceed-1000/story?id=10698927]] More than1340 British soldiers have been wounded in action. U.S opinion poll proclaims that 62% Americans want troops home as soon as possible while the rest want a timetable for troop withdrawal. [[http://www.scribd.com/doc/34290347/CBS-News-Poll-Pessimism-about-Economy-Low-Marks-for-President-Obama-July-9-12-2010]]
According to Michael Moore Obama is the new war president. He needs to prove that he is a peacemaker to retrieve the support of his people. [[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_373457.html]]
reference for the transcript below: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec09/britain_12-08.html
"M.H: No...I wish they would bring them all home.
J.F, The Guardian: I think the people in Wootton Bassett are representative of a very widespread... feeling, actually, of outrage on their behalf that is quite new in British politics." A complete withdrawal is in public demand.This requires a power-sharing deal.
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. 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. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Civilian casualties in the war-zone as a result of the war and natural disasters. Make peace to stop the bloodshed.
The military action on and around the Pak-Afghan border has directly killed thousands of civilians.Additionally, starvation, disease, exposure to psychological and physical trauma, lack of medical treatment, crime and lawlessness as a result of the war has also claimed thousands of innocent lives.[[Wikipedia: Afghan casualties of war]]The constant air-strikes(drone attacks) in the region have caused severe damage to civilian property leading to abandonment of villages and an increase in the number of I.D.P.s. According to estimates there are 300,000 I.D.P.s, mostly in the south of the country. [[http://crisishub.org.au/country-watch/afghanistan]] An estimated 22 million Afghans, or 70% of the population, live in poverty and substandard conditions. 40% children who are less than three years old are undernourished and 54% of tots under five face stunted growth.[[http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/afghanistan_31224.html]].
In addition to civilian deaths; thousands of Both Pakistan and Afghan soldiers have been martyred(more soldiers than either Britain or America can account for). Infighting between the Taliban, pro-Taliban and anti-Taliban tribes has caused additional bloodshed.
In retrospect the claim that the war in Afghanistan is being fought on humanitarian grounds has lost credibility. If the war continues, after coalition forces leave on financial grounds; the devastating state of Pak-Afghan-Taliban affairs/region will deteriorate further; therefore on humanitarian grounds the Americans and British should negotiate with (rather appease) the Taliban. This will help restore peace and improve the living conditions of civilians everywhere.
The only means by which the war will end; is if the Taliban give in and they will only do so if they are somehow convinced of partial victory. This can be a farce doctored to cater to western demands but so long as the Taliban feel important there is a glimmer of hope for peace.
Civilian casualties in the war-zone as a result of the war and natural disasters. Make peace to stop the bloodshed.
Make peace to start the blood shed is what will actually happen as Afghanistan disintegrates into civil war. Again the New York Times article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
Afghanistan has received billions of dollars of aid that a re helping the poor. More importantly the minorities aren't oppressed, women aren't publicly flogged and stopped from schooling after 8. There is hope. Google Iraq war 2008. All the news articles say the war is lost, lets leave. Today no one can deny we have succeeded. The surge changed everything. The surge has just started in Afghanistan , give it time to play itself out. (surge is the tactic of increasing troop numbers dramatically to launch large scale operations that follow and enclose and drain format).
It is a (historically) losing battle.
Afghanistan is well known as the graveyard of empires. No nation has ever been able to conquer or defeat the afghan Guerrilla tribes.The Russians tried and so did the British but none were successful.In fact,the greatest massacre of the British soldiers happened in Afghanistan in 1842. The British then awarded These tribesmen with fancy titles and the Khyber pass was protected by Pakistani and Afghan tribes(the ancestors of the Mujahadeen & then the Taliban). The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was thus never manned by British soldiers. More than 16,000 people had set out on the retreat from Kabul, and in the end only one man, Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon, had made it alive to Jalalabad. [[http://answers.yahoo.com/questionT/index?qid=20081222202100AAALz0a]] The Russians threw bombs,tanks,landmines and napalm at the afghan Guerrilla army, the Mujahadeen, killed around half a million people; injured many more but they still faced dismal defeat in the soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980's.Therefore before the situation whacks out of control, the British and the Americans should commence a power sharing deal with the Taliban. [[Hania Jillani]]
The opposition may argue that the Taliban cannot be trusted. Nine insurgents are very capable of fibbing about the Pakistani intelligence. There is no way that funds siphoned off from any clandestine secret intelligence agency can realistically be traced to it. Word of mouth; especially when the mouth belongs to the enemy is rarely credible. Therefore negotiating with the Taliban directly feels ineffective. They might argue that talks solely with Pakistani-Afghan government representatives is a rather more feasible and less dangerous means of achieving the coalition's desired end.
However, such talks frequented and have borne little fruit. In fact Pakistan and Afghanistan are both pushing for talks including the Taliban; if any progression towards peace is to be made. The coalition's ancestors were wise.
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 just yesterday 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 who is backing up the Al- Qaeda group.
Power-sharing deals work: as is true for Africa and Iraq
Talks in Kenya ensued during the Bush administration when funds for the recuperation of fourth world African affairs were channeled to the region;jointly by the U.S and U.K. Both Blair and Bush worked side by side with formerly corrupt and violent African leaders to pick the Countries up. South Africa (formerly a fourth world country [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_South_Africa]] ) is now doing better than both India and China (third-world countries) on the economic front.
The Opposition may state that Africa is still in a big mess but relative to the mess the region was in before coalition supported power-sharing deals; it is a model and near-perfect example to follow.
The success in Iraq has been touted by the opposition as well. And there seems to be no need for us to prove that power-sharing has worked to greatly improve conditions in the country. Conditions that horrifically grew at an incredible pace during the war in Iraq.
The main objective of the US 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 US (collaborating with the UK, at times) are all for their own selfish interests. Be it in Africa or Iraq, US have 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 entered Iraq to preserve and protect the oil fields, a greater concern to the U.S. than that of searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 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 an watchful eye towards China, India and Russia.
Already in the works as most news items state; The proposition has given proof of not lying but telling the truth unlike the opposition which stakes its false accusation that we lied or are misleading the audience on pure fluff.
Obama, America and the coalition are all pushing for a power-sharing deal in light of historical proof that deals with these tribes work to favor the west, the successes in both Iraq and Africa and for all the other reasons the proposition has presented and opposition has scoffed at on no tangible basis.
An additional reason for necessitating talks with the Taliban is the upcoming Kabul conference in Afghanistan; which is centered on the theme of ‘reintegration’. Reintegration entails talking to low-level insurgents to convince them to give up fighting. Coupled with this; peacemaking talks with the Taliban will more likely; aide in ameliorating the situation in the region.
Extract from the Chicago press release article rebutting everything stated by Nepal 'til this time:"Negotiation with the Taliban has long been advocated by Hamid Karzai, the Afghanistan president, and the British and Pakistan governments, but resisted by the US... behind the scenes a shift is under way, and Washington is now encouraging Karzai to take a lead in such negotiations."- [[http://chicagopressrelease.com/news/obama-revises-afghanistan-strategy-us-will-negotiate-with-taliban]]
In the same article lie these quotes(Does this sound like what the proposition has been saying all along? It does to me.):
The Proposition basically tries to mislead this debate by refuting our case in the position where they must be bringing a new argument. This is NOT a new argument. Apart from that, the opposition firmly sticks to its argument and all these naive tries by the proposition to mislead this deabte will not be acceptable.
We, the proposition have been accused of lying and have proved otherwise with cited news articles and quotations.The opposition could have best argued their case by making historical references to how Pakistan was never ruled by the Taliban or that certain Afghan forces opposed Taliban rule when it was enforced and could potentially have toppled the Taliban without the help of the coalition. And thus refute our claim that if the coalition were not to strike an agreement; then Pakistan and Afghanistan would be helpless in the face of the Taliban.
However, The proposition's answer to that; if the case were made would be that we cannot risk testing whether Pakistan and Afghanistan can stand against the Taliban on their/our own. Then again; the opposition never made any case of the sort.
The opposition could very well have cited articles rebutting the proposition's claim that South Africa and Iraq are successes, instead the opposition claimed Iraq is a success(while there is dissent on this) and ignored the power-sharing aspects of the current Iraqi & African regimes. The case for power-sharing could also have been refuted with reference to failure in Lebanon. [[http://www.jstor.org/pss/2657902]]
Albeit; no effort was made by the opposition to prove that power-sharing does not always work. The opposition have not even used up the two points at their disposal in the penultimate phase of this debate.
They claim that violence against women and children factored in the war-zone solely and entirely because-of/during the Taliban-Afghan regime and has been curbed in the nine years of battle. Whereas statistics reveal that women and children are the main casualties of the wars of our time. [[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/03/1033538723853.html]] [[http://www.icrc.org/eng/children]] And that the situation on the ground for civilians is worsening. Let us not turn a blind eye to the fact that Children have been kidnapped and recruited by the Taliban to fight as soldiers and become suicide bombers. Fighting and suicide bombing occurs in the advent of perceived war. Engaging the Taliban in talks ultimately leading to peace will ideally put a stop to this.
The opposition has stated in the counterpoint to "Power-sharing deals work: as is true for Africa and Iraq"that power-sharing deals with Africa and Iraq serve American and British economic/political interests; as though that is a disincentive for the coalition to extract a power-sharing deal in the region. This point lands in our defense.
The proposition would like to be condoned for writing Noam Chomsky by mistake; instead of the intended Karl Popper in the counterpoint to "ethnic cleansing".
Recently, the Taliban killed aid workers on the plausibly false pretext that they were spies.[[http://topparked.com/taliban-kills-10-aid-workers-in-afghanistan/2289/]] This sort of barbarism has occurred before. Diplomatically/peacefully ending the war is necessary to avert such tragedies in the future.
1 women rights will be Violated
I guess you have read the story in Time Magazine about a girl, Aisha who ran away from her husband’s house. Her husband was abusing her physically and mentally. When she was caught by the Taliban “Soldiers”, she was taken to the Taliban Court and given a punishment in their law. The punishment was, her ears and nose was cut. She was then left to be dead however she survived because of some Afghan Rights's group saving her. She is just one example. Therefore, if we let the Taliban to come to power-sharing, they will try to implement their form of justice which is totally biased when it comes to women. We cannot afford to sacrifice women rights for peace in Afghanistan. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007238,00.html
Women' rights are already being violated in both coalition countries and the war-zone. Rape.murder and theft are soaring the world over. While petty financial crimes are reduced.[[www.nationmaster.com]] [[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes]]
[[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita]] Domestic violence especially against women and children is on a steep climb and remains largely under-reported. Only 35% cases are reported in the U.K. [[http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Domestic-violence-statistics]]
The war has done nothing to improve the conditions of women and children in the war-zone. If it had the opposition would be able to provide links proving that the opposite is not the reality. The proposition has however provided evidence that the conditions of Afghan and Pakistani civilians have deteriorated as a consequence of the war:air strikes, drone attacks,physio-psychological trauma and so forth.
'Not' negotiating with the Taliban will mean that the concerns of the opposition will permeate. The motion is not whether the coalition should continue fighting in the region or not. It is understood that troops will have to be withdrawn in the coming years for reasons already mentioned in earlier points. What we are debating is that should the coalition leave the war as is or put a stop to it via negotiations with the other side: the Taliban.
The opposition claims that wars create money. As though it is a universal truism. And yet all authorities/news-articles/world-leaders/economists on the war in question(which is not world war 2) say/deem that this war is costing more than it's making coalition countries.[[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf]]
2. THE WAR IS WINNABLE
The Times Square attack, The Twin tower attacks are examples of how the Taliban are actually manufacturing terrorists to create international insecurity. Therefore, the US and UK cannot afford to risk their nation's security by leaving Taliban to manufacture terrorists. Even for their own safety, they cannot leave the taliban in power. This war is winnable if the forces are dedicated towards the effort. The difference between Iraq war and this war, is that, in Iraq, the focus was on just winning the war. However, the Obama administration is working on establishing a stable government - a government that has trained police force, trusted government officials and better educational system. Therefore, letting the Talibans share power means, they will try to reinforce their own system which means, none of the above can actually happen. This is not acceptable in current situation. http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/516 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008786,00.html http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008763,00.html
We agree that the coalition cannot leave the Taliban fighting in the region. Which is precisely why a power-sharing deal has to be struck with the Taliban. To buy global security if you will. The proposition has time and time again asserted that the war must be put to an end and the only means to win it in real terms; is to talk the Taliban out of it. Both the Americans and British have a history of accomplishing peace with groups that the Taliban roots from by bargaining with them to renounce their natural guerrilla-fighting instincts. Again; the proposition has presented evidence of this in an earlier point. The opposition claims the proposition has presented a weak case for the strength of the Taliban while presenting no proof what so ever to support this. Perhaps because the U.S authorities have admitted and reported that the Taliban know the mountains/terrain better than they do and that they cannot find Osama bin laden for this reason.The opposition professes falsely that the coalition has confidence in the possibility that the Taliban will be defeated at their own game and on their own turf. The fact that efforts to negotiate with the Taliban through Pak-Afghan authorities have been made by the coalition and that Obama now wants American officials to talk directly with the Taliban points to the abject mediocrity of the argument on the right. To answer the opposition: The Obama administration has also stressed on the need for Taliban Cooperation for these plans in infrastructure building to work.Building schools that will be blown up by the Taliban on the day after they are built; is pointless.
The Iraqi government comprises of many members of the late Saddam regime; who have been granted amnesty for their crimes. Members of the Taliban can be instated in governments through power-sharing(not giving) deal; in the same way. Taking Iraq's example means negotiating with the enemy.
Massacre of Yakaolang, in January 2001 Hazaras were victimized for 4 days, detained 300 civilian adult males, including staff members of humanitarian orgnisations. Men were shot at public places. Rocket launchers were fired at Mosques were 73 women and children were sheltering. In May 2000, 26 civilians of Hazara Shi’as group were executed in robatak pass. In August 1998 Taliban captured Mazar- I- Sharif. Reports of killing of around 2000- 5000 people mostly of Hazara clan were presented. All of this shows the barbarity of the Taliban’s activities, which so far hasn’t stopped.
(Citation: Amnesty International had reported that the Taliban massacred 70 Hazara civilians, including children, in Qezelabad, near Mazar-I-Sharif. There were also reports that the Taliban forces in Faryab province killed some 600 civilians in late 1997.)
They are exhausted but they broke it and have a moral imperative to fix it.
The opposition cannot be expecting the proposition to defend the reinstatement of the pseudo-religious-extremist-fundamentalist Taliban regime. We are in fact calling for exactly the opposite: Please the Taliban by negotiating with them on the "coalition's" terms not theirs and avert the old form of taliban rule in the region.
If the coalition leaves without any talks whatsoever then an extremist Taliban takeover of both Pakistan and Afghanistan is a distinct possibility.
If the coalition leaves after buying the Taliban out while imposing conditions imperative to human rights and western values(including respect for other ethnic/religious/ideological groups). Then we have a chance for peace.
To claim that aggressively fighting on the ground will end racial conflict when 9 years of fighting have only exacerbated these problems; is rather ignorant. It entails learning nothing at all from history/past-mistakes. If this kind of warfare which the Taliban are much better at; continues the war will be lost. If instead as the wonderful Obama has suggested we resort to peaceful talks this time directly with the Taliban; (something the coalition is better at;) then we have a chance of winning.
As for a Pakistani minster backtracking on the country's original stance. This claim by the opposition is false. Again the quote is not presented and neither is proof for it; precisely because there is none.-[[http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/01/doherty.pakistan.bluff/index.html#fbid=hDekIbchTde&wom=false]]
As for tribes in the Afghan-Pakistan border never being defeated because of their skills on ground warfare; Christina Lamb has also said that in her book 'Waiting for Allah". So Noam Chomsky applies here to support us; as there is a causation. The Taliban's Tradition/culture is steeped in tribal fighting in the coarse mountainious region and they know how better than the coalition do; according to the coalition.- http://en.trend.az/news/politics/foreign/1396622.html
Letting them take power means a suicide mission
Many countries, including the USA condoned atrocious acts by Taliban when they captured Herat and expelled thousands of girls from schools, only in the hope that maybe it would reinstate peace in the war-ravaged country. But the Taliban failed to prove themselves as they murdered unarmed civilians, targeting ethnic groups, primarily Hazaras and restricted the rights of women, which is precisely why around the late 1997, America began distancing itself from the Taliban, after which the American-based oil company withdrew from negotiations on pipeline construction from Central Asia. Continuation of such activities cannot be condoned any more.
The opposition seems to think that negotiations equal to condoning human right's violations and handing over a sort of Carte blanche to the Taliban. Whereas talks pressurize such groups effectively to give up their evil ways.
Agreed that the U.S should not have defended atrocious acts by the Taliban before 1997. And should not do so now.
The point of talks is to give very little power on very definite humanitarian conditions/terms. To trade.
If there are no talks; then the Taliban will proclaim victory(as they do already; oh so often) once the coalition forces are withdrawn and continue fighting local governments at the cost of civilian lives in the region.(The eventual withdrawal of coalition forces is not being debated.The war is in an economic loss and the people/governments of the democratic nations of the U.K and U.S frankly care more about their/our failing economies than the state of Afghan civilians who have been suffering with the coalition's knowledge since before 1989. To clarify further for the opposition seems to not be wary of this; in democracies, Countries should and in time do; work according to the will of their people.
Summary part 1
Opposition strongly believes settlement with Taliban for power sharing will not be beneficial. No one wants war but still Taliban don’t show signs of peace building and doesn’t promise better future to Afghanistan and Pakistan even during peace. Women empowerment is still big issue to be dealt in Taliban governance and they have shown ethnic partiality in past and does not promise to end it. Proposition has failed to tackle issue of discrimination, in present day context discrimination is one of biggest crime.
Taliban has shown betrayal in past and coming to a settlement with traitors sound wrong. Proposition failed to present their argument in long term context. In case, power sharing happens no one can guarantee Taliban will be loyal to it. Who would be responsible for monitoring words in treaty, and what would be punishment it is violated? Final answer would be war. Taliban always has depicted westerners as their enemies. In this case, terrorism plans might follow because of feeling of vengeance. Sorrow of 9/11 has not yet dissolved and there should not be another such event. So, unlike proposition, opposition does not want general public to live in life threatening situation. Proposition has mentioned “IF” given a chance to Taliban for negotiation, they “MIGHT” come to a positive conclusion. “IF”s and “MIGHTS”s work only in fairy tale. We should consider activities performed by Taliban for such negotiations, and looking at activities performed in recent history, it seems peace is not their goal.
Proposition mentioned about civilian casualties in both regions. This very reason supports fact of not coming to a settlement. As mentioned above, Taliban not only targets Westerners but also people of their own region on ethnicity and gender. That is why in order to stop massacre in Afghan and Pakistan region, hunt should not end.
Summary part 2
It is also correctly known fact that all people of the nations involved want war to end, but it is resolution that decides whether end of war brings peace or not. So, stating war should end because people want it to, does not justify consequences it might follow later.
Proposition has repeatedly compared issue of Taliban and Western government with other past events. They need to understand that all events mentioned have different variables and are least bit comparable. In one of their points, proposition has hinted that Arab nations are super powers of the world by saying that every nation that battles Arab nation loses, and shall always lose in future as well. This is completely bogus and ridiculous. They have also stated power sharing deals have become successful; the opposition would like to re-emphasize their point of completely different scenario. Primary difference lies in battle with government. In past, battle was with respective government and not a certain group. All the previous foes were supported by certain government and Afghani and Pakistani government have continuously denied collaborating with Taliban group.
What do you think?