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

I will begin by challenging his framework and giving you reasons why you should look to a negative framework as defined by the US' best interest, and then I will proceed to refute his contentions. I will try to cross apply some of my arguments in order to bring about more clash. Here we go ------------------------------- As this resolution looks to president Obama's plan, we realize that it looks to the only speech in which he defined his plan- the speech at West Point on Dec. 2, 2009. The March 27, 2009 speech cannot be looked to because it does not outline the plan that is currently being enacted. So, I propose that, because the resolution tells us to look at the troop surge, we only look at the objectives of the troops. What is listed in Obama's speech is bolstering the fight and training officials, with NOTHING about stabilizing Pakistan. He only talks about relations with them. Moving on, my opponent says these troops will be sent to secure and protect key population centers such as Kabul and Kandahar. I don't refute this; I will bring this up later in my substantive refutation. He proceeds to talk about using surveillance drones; President Obama does not have this outlined in his plan either. He doesn't refer to it in his case anyways, so don't look to impacts from there. "The strategy. .. includes expanded economic development and reconciliation. .. " Reconciliation in Obama's plan is the training of the troops to "reconcile" them to fight on our side. If a source for this is needed I can provide one, but it doesn't seem necessary. Economic development is not mentioned in my opponents actual case, so don't look to it. I don't refute the definition of best interest, but "preventing a nuclear war and saving millions of lives" is only part of what encompasses the broad scope of "best interest". Best interest includes ALL future implications, possible repurcussions in the short term, and risk prevention. Now then. .. the fun part. ================================== Contention 1: The threat of a nuclear war outweighs the risk of sending 30000 more troops to Afghanistan consider the following responses 1) MAD or mutual assured destruction theory. explained . http://www.nuclearfiles.org... If the Taliban (which is a political party, NOT a terrorist group) seized control in Pakistan, they would put their entire existence at stake by launching a nuclear weapon. They would be inherently deterred out of their own self interest. 2) The Taliban has been significantly weakened over time by the US. Our occupation has rendered them vulnerable and insignificant, as a matter of fact, no one supports them anymore. The world public opinion poll finds that 88% of Aghan adults have an unfavorable view of the Taliban, and even more say so against al-Qaeda. This means that if they returned, the could not seize power because their ideals would not be upheld by the populus. . http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... 3) What is the likelihood that the Taliban, who has been weakened by years of warfare (since the Soviet Occupation even) will be able to not only conquer the nation of Pakistan, but also get infiltrate their military and access nuclear missiles with the minimal support they have? Very little. .. But 4) Even if you don't buy those arguments, turn all the impacts negative. My C2 provides you with a better alternative: using the troops ONLY to secure Pakistan to prevent all of these threats. The AFF never gives you any reason in contention 1 why the troops need to be in Afghanistan, so this argument not only fails to uphold the resolution, but plays right into the negative world! On a side note; at the bottom of the affirmative frame work, pro states that bin Laden proclaimed the goal is to kill 4 million americans because that is the number of deaths america has caused. .. 1) the entire population of Afghanistan is 2.5 million. We have not wiped out over 50% of their population obviously. .. 2) What public proclomation? Just wondering :) Contention 2: Without these troops being sent, the war in Afghanistan WILL BE LOST, thus giving Taliban and al-Qaeda forces a safe haven and rasing the chances of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being taken. Several responses. .. 1) Cross apply my contention 1E which shows that we already have won the war; this contention can be taken as internally flawed before looking to impacts 2) Cross apply my response to his first contention where I show you that they will not be able to regain control because nobody supports them anyways 3) Furthermore, Cross apply the response in which I turn the impact negative. He is STILL looking to Pakistan! Obama's plan is outlined to protect Pakistan, but NO WHERE in the pro world do we see any reason to be in Afghanistan. Now I am set up for a win-win; either you allow him to make his Pakistan arguments and therefore indefinitely extend my Contention 2, or drop my contention 2 and thereby drop his whole case. 4) None of the evidence provided in contention two warrants the claim. "Imagine. .. " "As the United States and NATO have known. .. " "This war in Afghanistan is a way. .. " "Obama's strategy. .. is in the. .. best interest. .. without it, a nuclear threat is highly probable. " Direct quotes from the pro. No warrant. Drop contention 2. 5) As shown, the pro wants to eliminate their safe havens. BUT notice how my opponent clearly outlines in the framework of his case. .. "The 30,000 new American troops being sent will focus on securing and protecting the country's top population centers, including Kabul, Khost, and Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual capital" The major cities are NOT where their safe havens are; rather they are the places we have secure already. The terrorists hide in the mountains and in spider holes in the desert, so pro doesn't even argue consistently with his own framework, which I have proven illegitimate anyways. As I still ahve 1600+ characters, I'll just reiterate a few important ideas. 1) Afghanistan is incapable of upholding the support we plan on sending them (see contention 1C-2) 2) The war would put a tremendous strain on americans that would decrease popular support for the war; if we don't have popular support we put up tremendous risks. Compare Vietnam to WWII. Vietnam lacked popular support by American citizens, and we failed with distinction, returning home to civil violence and economic insecurity. WWII not only was won, but it stimulated our economy because of war output and increased our economic output by encouraging economic stimulators by the citizens such as victory gardens. The difference was popular support. 3) Be SURE to look to which side Pakistan weighs with. Assuming pro does protect Pakistan through his plan, I provide more stability there so you can turn all AFF impacts to the NEG as well as extend NEG on contention 2. Side note to the viewers. .. please don't judge on grammar or writing style, just leave it as a tie. It's really insignificant and if we were actually speaking this wouldn't happen. Leave the votes up to the substantial debating. Thanks :) I hope for a good round. Good luck