You currently have javascript disabled. Please enable it to continue using this site.
356
[ X ]
Invalid submission.
Topics Homepage> The U.S. should negotiate with the Taliban

The U.S. should negotiate with the Taliban

PRO (6 assertions)

No framework

1. Assertion: The Taliban are not terrorists

Reasoning:

-Political party

-However, Taliban supply Al Queda

-When Taliban see the light through negotiating, no more supplies for Al Queda

-Negotiating with gov., not terrorists

-Even if in reality they are in reality for some people terrorists because they support terrorists, they are still political faction

-Blurry lines as to how we label factions_ Not black and white

(EV) Hezbollah, which the U.S. regards as a terrorist organization, is actually recognized by the European Union and much of the rest of Europe-Wall Street Journal

-From a moral standpoint, like we defined topic as, we should negotiate

-However, the terrorists won’t get any supplies because their main source, the Taliban, is on our side

(EV) According to the NYTimes, the Taliban funds from 85-95% of the Al Queda’s budget to by weapons and do other misdeeds.

-By taking away so much funding, they won’t be able to attack us again with such force

2. Assertion: Need to bring forth nation’s peace loving nature

Reasoning:

-More will die if we keep fighting

-Only proves to Afghans we’re evil

-Only supports the Al Queda brainwashing that the U.S. is evil

-This peace with the Taliban will disprove Al Queda and cause a rebellion

-Now, we have both the gov. (Taliban) and the people on our side

-Also, make U.S. look good in world’s eyes

-If we continue war, tells world Americans O.K. with killing innocent Afghans

-Let us at least try to negotiate and improve our dismal image for other countries in the world

(EV) CNN.com

3. Assertion: Can’t fight Taliban with military

Reasoning:

-U.S. claims we’re winning

-lie

-Just like in Vietnam War

-Taliban gaining ground despite an increase in U.S. military drone attacks

(EV) Taliban successfully subdued a Pakistani army and closed all girl’s schools and prohibited music in the entire district of around 15,000 people. Then, they also put in “complaint boxes for Anti-Islamic Behavior.”-Washington Post

-Demonstrates they do have military might

-We should at least try to negotiate

-Why should we put soldiers in danger when we haven’t used all our options yet to make peace?

-Not freeing people in Middle East

-Taliban refuses to negotiate until we pull out troops (www.brookings.edu)

-So by fighting fire with fire, we are worsening situation

-No win situation for anyone

-We’re hurting the Afghans, who we wished to free in first place

-Better if negotiated

-Also, too many to fight

-Scattered in areas far apart

-Somalia, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Algeria

-Easier to just negotiate with one guy

(EV) NYTimes

4. Assertion: U.S. is aiding the Taliban message that the U.S. is evil by fighting

Reasoning:

-War makes conditions worse for Afghans

-Leads to anger, resentment

-People feel life ruined by war

-Angry at U.S. military who swept through town and desolated it even though most were civilians

-Only thing left to do would be join Al Queda

-That is true reason why fight

-But if negotiate with Taliban, Al Queda won’t be able to make progress because the Taliban supplies the Al Queda with both troops and weapons

-If we pull out troops, there will be no anger or resentment

-Western 'occupation' of Afghanistan, particularly when it involves civilian casualties, is a powerful recruiting agent for Islamic extremists in Pakistan, and thereby increases the terrorist threat to countries such as Britain.

-And only way to pull out troops and still ensure our safety is to negotiate with Taliban for peace

(EV) Harvard Law Review


Assertions #5, 6

CON (5 assertions)

Burden:

1 Negation must prove why we should spend trillions of dollars and have thousands of people killed fighting the Taliban and Al Queda when we can just try to negotiate with them and make peace.

 

Define:

should: should as in “should.” Should implies morality and not an edict to follow

Negotiate: We should try to negotiate. May not have result we were looking for, but at least try to negotiate

So basically, we’re not saying, “We must negotiate and the results will be terrific.” We’re saying, “We should, for moral reasons, at least try to negotiate with the Taliban to see what happens before we resort to violence.”

1. Assertion: Negotiating would only worsen the situation for the U.S. in terms of international favor

Reasoning:

-One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter

-Taliban is not against U.S. for joy of it_ Stand for a political and religious reason

-Two sides to every conflict

-By negotiating, we are essentially saying that these people are humans with a legitimate cause to fight us

-However, if we don’t recognize them, we are still showing the world that they are inferior and that their cause is not worthy of recognition_ Which is true

(EV) ANC in South Africa. For many years they were regarded by the government as an illegal terrorist organization. No one knew about them until the apartheid government decided to negotiate with them. Then, the ANC grew international support and pressured the apartheid gov. out of South Africa. We all know that the apartheid gov. was wrong, but that’s not what is shown here. What is shown here is that by negotiating, we will send the world the message that the Taliban is actually fighting a just fight, which it is not, and the U.S. will be the loser.

2. Assertion: One cannot counter religion with diplomacy

Reasoning:

-These extremists hate the U.S. with every limb in their body

-The Taliban are too strongly rooted against us to be swayed in our favor by negotiations

-Can’t change their mind with logic and reasoning

-Why?

-Because the reason they want to kill us is a religious factor. It is an ideological fight, one that we cannot win. Religion is not based on logic and reasoning. So it won’t work on them. They have been taught their whole lives by the Taliban that if they give their lives killing Americans, then they will be granted salvation and admitted to Paradise when they die

-Cannot change their mindset when it is set so strongly against the U.S.

(EV) CNN.com

3. Assertion: Negotiating will do nothing to help the U.S.

Reasoning:

-May be able to persuade leader, but who says that the others will listen to their leader?

-These insurgents have loyalty to God, not their tribal leaders.

-So let’s say you persuade the leader

-He tells followers to join his side that fighting for God against the infidels is wrong

-Strict followers to Allah, the Islamic god, disagree and regard him as an outsider_ And the people in control of the Taliban are obviously extremists, unlike majority of peaceful practicing Muslim population

-Tribe rejects past leader and splits into many different factions_ Each elects its own extremist leader

-Cause more fighting to occur, causing more unnecessary deaths and innocent lives

-These are insurgents, not a political party.

(EV) “The tribal structure in Afghanistan is different than in Iraq; There’s no clear hierarchy. If you make a deal with one guy, you have a deal with one guy, and not his whole clan,” Daniel Markey, Head of State Department under Pres. Bush.

-“SHOULD” REBUTT: Morality rooted in reality

Should negotiate, but if know in advance will not work and will stir up resentment and give the Taliban more time to regroup, not worth it

4. Assertion: It would be extremely hard to find and negotiate with the Taliban

Reasoning:

-If you wanted to effectively negotiate with the Taliban, you’d have to find every single leader and talk to him

-Leaders will be hard to find, and may act violently toward negotiators

-The leaders fear us, and many will hide when the U.S. military is mentioned

-Not only hard to find them, some hidden in the mountains of Yemen and Somalia with their thousands of followers, but even harder to get them to come to you to negotiate

-What, invite them for some tea over negotiating peace?

-Most will not accept

-They are not organized, and don’t have definite leadership system anyway

-Cannot accurately contact their leaders, and we do not know that the leaders have much influence over their zealot followers

-Is not one certified leader of Taliban_ Not like the U.S. where we have a clear leader in our president

(EV) NYTimes


Assertions #5