President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest

Now i am going to be addressing the points my opponent made and show you the fallacy he has made. 1) he says that adding troops does not make for an easier pullout date. And brings Vietnam. First we need to see that the nature of this war compared to Vietnam are completely different and i am sure everyone can agree on that issue. Next we also need to realize that this troop surge is not meant to flood Afghanistan with troops. Actually we are sending the 30,000 to train afghan soldiers and stabilize their government. The president of Afghanistan said himself that he is willing to comply with the United states. Thus keeping Afghanistan stable and able to protect themselves without the United states. Next i would like to state that the troops will not all be taken out in 2011 like my opponent will have you believe all it is is a guideline 2) Now my opponent brings up how Al-Qaeda and the Taliban may simply wait out until we leave. First i would like to state that for this reason we will train the afghan soldiers to deal with this problem. Not only that but again the date we pulling troops out is a guideline and can be changed if needed. Next he brings up the real problem is Pakistan but if you look at my case i show you specific quotes from the president himself as well as other that state that the troop surge will actually focus and try to protect Pakistan. My opponent also states how he doesn't see how this policy will lead to success in Afghanistan. To address this we need to see that all this policy is is a step in the right direction. 3) My opponent states that since the nine years the united states has been in Afghanistan little improvement on training troops has happened as well as success. To address this issue i would like to state that back then we did not have a focus to train afghan soldiers and as of now with this troop surge it will be a main priority. This piece of evidence proves my point. The Canadian Press(CP), September 5, 2009Anthony Cordesman, a member of the team advising Gen. McChrystal on strategy in Afghanistan, reached a similar conclusion. "Between 2002 and 2008 the United States never provided the forces, money or leadership necessary to win, effectively wasting more than half a decade," he wrote in a recent column in The Washington Post. "We have a reasonable chance of victory if we properly outfit and empower our new team in Afghanistan; we face certain defeat if we do not," he concluded." So adding these troops will be effective being as in the past this evidence proves that we didn't do much. We can also see that training these afghan soldiers is successful because not only do they no the land but they also have prior knowledge of how to fight and it is being successful http://www.marines.mil... proves my point. My opponents brought up in his conclusion that 1) obama is basically going to pull out all troops one it is a guideline and two we need to see that not all or most will be pulled out until we know we are ready. 2) he states that Afghanistan's governement is basically too corrupt but what my opponent fails to see is that the troop surge is addressing this corrupt government we are also aided by the Afghan president himself saying he will aid the united states. So from this and from my case we can turn the tide into our favor with this troop surge. Now to my opponents case. 1) his first point talks about how the economic crises needs to be dealt with before this. I agree with my opponent that we are in an economic disaster but what we need to see is are in a war and our troops are dying everyday and this needs to be a high priority as high or higher than our economic issue because people losing money is important but it can't harm them like a gun shot can. WE also need to see that drawing out of Afghanistan would lead to even more terrorism and a Withdrawal destabilizes Pakistan which is in the United states best interest. http://www.emorywheel.com... "As of now, U.S. troops form the glue keeping the semblance of order in Afghanistan solvent. Should the U.S. withdraw, the country would be sure to fall into further disarray. This would have vast security implications for the United States. It would allow the Taliban, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in the hinterlands to regroup. More worryingly, a US withdrawal would destabilize Pakistan — a nuclear power with weak democratic institutions. The spread of the Taliban in Afghanistan will spread global terror and collapse Pakistan" http://www.washingtonpost.com... content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090302862.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns The strategic importance of Afghanistan is difficult for critics of the war to deny. The events of Sept. 11, 2001, which began in state-sponsored terror academies there, are not yet generally regarded as a myth. The spread of Taliban havens in Afghanistan would permit al-Qaeda to return to its historical operating areas. This would allow, according to one administration official to whom I spoke, "perhaps a hundredfold expansion of their geographic and demographic area of operation." And Taliban advances in Afghanistan could push a fragile, nuclear Pakistan toward chaos. 2) his second point brings up how the 30,000 or even 100,000 wouldn't be enough to "take over" Afghanistan. just cross apply what i said earlier about how the plan isn't to just completely wipe out Afghanistan it's for several other purposes. 3) his third point states that basically the afghan government is too corrupt and we have seen little to no improvement in the past. Again cross apply my arguments from above that state that the focus is to fix the afghan government as well as get support from their president in the making. Also cross apply my evidence stating why we have seen little to no improvement in the past. So overall we can see that the troop surge is in the united states best interest and it does address my opponents points as well as his attacks. Thank you