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

Thank you for the oppertunity to debate-- Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. We offer the following clarifications to the resolution: 1)We define best interest as a regard for one's benefit from the Princeton Dictionary. Therefore, the burden on the Affirmative is that Obama's plan for increasing troops is benefiting the United States in some way. 2)Obama's plan includes the following logistics according to Bennis Phyllis from the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. •30,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan and in July of 2011, the U.S. will begin to transfer our forces out of Afghanistan •The U.S. will combat corruption in the Afghan government •The U.S. goals are to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum, and strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces. •Work with the Pakistanian government There are 4 reasons why Obama's plan for increasing troops is a benefit to the United States. Point 1 (Obama's plan solves): President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan solves the conflict in three ways. According to Michael O' Hanlon Senior fellow at the Brookings institution, President Obama's troop increase trains Afghan Forces, Neutralizes Taliban Sanctuaries, and supervises unofficial armed groups. Obama's plan partners with Afghan and NATO units, creating a "sister-unit" to build up Afghan security forces to be larger and more effective. Afghan security forces will reach 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police. Obama's plan then seeks to use these forces to neutralize Taliban safe havens. NATO forces will establish joint stations with Afghans to consolidate areas of security and control. Furthermore, Obama's plan includes an integration of militia armies that are rapidly spreading in areas of conflict. According to the New York Times, "American and Afghan officials have begun helping a number of anti-Taliban militias that have independently taken up arms against insurgents in several parts of Afghanistan, prompting hopes of a large-scale tribal rebellion against the Taliban. The emergence of the militias, which took some leaders in Kabul by surprise … there are hundreds of Afghans who are acting on their own against the Taliban, officials say…" Clearly, the consolidation of security forces along with inclusion of afghan militia armies are a solution to the conflict - thus a benefit to the U.S. Point 2 (Counterinsurgency): The second main reason why Obama's plan can solve this issue is because he is changing the status quo. Obama's strategy is based on counterinsurgency tactics - the importance of encouraging legitimate and effective indigenous governments and security forces. (RAND Institute). Obama's plan already tackles the encouragement of security forces as shown in Point 1, and it includes a plan to eliminate corruption in the Afghan government. According to the NY Times, "Obama is making tougher demands on the Afghan government to change… pressed him (Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai) on the need to combat the corruption and drug trafficking". Obama is also accomplishing this through withholding aid to create leverage over the Afghan government. Point 3 (Foreign Policy): The third benefit to the U.S. is to our Foreign Policy – both with our allies and our enemies. Our allies NATO are supporting our effort by supplying 42,000 troops deployed in crucial areas such as the Hindu Kush mountain region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our enemies however, are gaining more and more influence over the region. According to the American Enterprise Institute, Iran has actively increased its influence in Afghanistan over the past several years. "Tehran increasingly attempts to undermine Afghanistan's relationship with the U.S. and fracture Kabul and Washington's joint commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan, lobbying publicly for a withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. " Clearly, to combat an increasing force the U.S. needs to increase its forces as well. Point 4 (Terrorism): The alternatives to the troop increase are an overall global safety issue. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute writes with an "Absent stable government and a more capable Afghan National Army, the Taliban will fill the vacuum as they did from 1994 to 2001." Moreover, the Taliban forces will control Pakistan bringing forth even greater implications. Afghanistan has already controlled the Buner district just 60 miles away from Islamabad in April of 2009. Furthermore, with a weak central government the Taliban has potential access to Pakistani Nuclear weapons 100 of them causing an enormous global concern. Clearly, the alternatives to a troop surge are not benefits to the United States. We have shown Obama's troop increase has the following benefits: 1)The methods to solve the conflict with joint support from NATO, the U.S. and the Afghans, along with a counterinsurgency tactic. 2)Foreign Policy benefits 3)The alternatives of a global security crisis can be solved through a troop increase For the above mentioned reasons, I urge you to affirm the resolution.