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

== Introduction == My opponent has allotted for just 30 minutes of time to post each debate round. As such, I am going to include 7 arguments for my position in the first round, most of which address and combat all of Pro's R1 contentions. I suspect that since there is only 30 minutes to prepare each argument, that Pro will wind up forfeiting a least 1 of the next 2 rounds of debate. So, if there's anything else I'd like to say in the next round (ie. specic responses to everything Pro says) then I will continue my rebuttal there. I guess we'll see what happens. Good luck, Pro. == Argument 1 == Not increasing troops doesn't necessarily mean pulling out of Afghanistan prematurely. It simply means not ADDING more, thus saving lives and money. I propose that one alternative to the resolution is keeping the number of troops in Afghanistan to accomplish certain goals the same as it is now. == Argument 2 == Increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan cannot bring success in a reasonable time frame. The U.S. must narrow their objectives. As Jeffrey Simpson said, Afghanistan has a deep rooted history of warlords, intimidation, bribery and decentralization. He also notes that in regard to cutting off the insurgents' supplies of money, how does this get done when the sources are in Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan and the poppy fields of the south? How do you patrol a Pakistan-Afghanistan border that is almost completely porous? [1] Increasing troops in Afghanistan is not the way to accomplish these goals. == Argument 3 == One way to achieve success is not to increase our troops, but take a different war strategy - thwarting terrorists with targeted strikes (instead of increasing troops). George Will wrote in a September 1, 2009 editorial, "Americans should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous, 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters." Similar to the ideology behind bombing Hiroshima during WWII, the idea here is to save American lives. == Argument 4 == Another approach is to abandon violence all-together and look toward diplomacy. Ambassador Holbrooke should be engaging with the locals with the goal of achieving cooperation on addressing ongoing conflicts, strengthening civilian rule of law, and promoting economic development. These are all things that would empower Afghans and improve the conditions of their lives. Meanwhile, increasing troops only accomplishes targeting innocent Afghan civilians and tarnishing America's reputation. It also encourages the locals to support the Taliban rather than the U.S. While we may have good intentions, in the end they'd rather be ruled by fundamentalists than be dead. == Argument 5 == As I've said, Afghanistan has a bad history and diplomacy does not always prevail, though greed does. Thus 'buying our enemies' out might be a successful way to actually win the war. "The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the country and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan... if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it." [2] == Argument 6 == More troops in Afghanistan will certainly be received with concern and anger in the Islamic world. This will make it more difficult for Western and Middle Eastern countries to work together toward mutual objectives, such as peace between Israel and Palestine [3]. == Argument 7 == Peter Navarro correctly points out that Afghanistan is now just one of many possible staging areas for al-Qaida. In fact, it is now much easier for al-Qaida's decentralized networks to conduct operations in numerous other places, with Algeria, Somalia, and Yemen emerging as the newest strongholds. Why aren't we invading them? [4] == Conclusion == While Afghanistan poses somewhat of a threat to the US, there are other countries that are far more dangerous the lives and well-being of Americans, i.e. Mexico. The war in Afghanistan has already gone on 50% longer than America's involvement in two other world wars. Throughout history, many countries (like Britain) have tried to 'save' Afghanistan and have failed with military force. The best way to go about "winning" this war is via bribery and/or diplomacy as history suggests. If we DO use force, then increasing troops isn't the answer but narrowing our objectives and targeting hot spots using more technology and less human resources IS. Increasing troops in Afghanistan is only increasing Islamic hostility toward the U.S. and hurting our side (negating our objectives) and costing us far more resources than we can afford. Given the alternatives, increasing troops is NOT in the US's best interest. [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com... [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://www.fcnl.org... [4] http://www.ocregister.com...