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

I will now post my own arguments. The plan for increasing troops is not in our best interest because. .. 1. The timeline is insufficient. 2. It puts an even larger economic strain on our government. 3. The number of troops is insufficient. 4. The part of the plan that addresses fighting on the border region of Pakistan is doing more harm than good. 1. The timeline is insufficient. For over 200 years, many countries have tried and failed to achieve similar goals to the ones Obama has set for us with his plan for increasing troops. We cannot achieve these goals in 18 months. President Karzai himself said his forces would need our support until at least 2024. He decided that that is how much assistance his country will need before the responsibility can be handed over to the Afghan forces and be effectively enforced. We cannot achieve that kind of security for Afghanistan in 18 months, especially when the man who will be in charge of keeping Afghanistan secure after we leave decides that we should be there longer. We don't have the money or the resources to be there until 2024, and we don't have 200 years to spend trying to stabilize Afghanistan. 2. It puts an even larger economic strain on our government. as of January 2010, the government debt in the US was 12.3 trillion dollars. The cost of one serviceman in 2008-09 was 1.1 million dollars. Take that times 30,000. Spending 30 billion dollars to add to that debt is not in our best interest. The impact of this debt is monumental, because according to the World Bank, the US dollar is at a 14 year low against the yen, meaning that our dollar is $1.44 lower in value than the Japanese Yen. This is bad, because according to the president of the world bank, "The United States' days as an unchallenged economic superpower are numbered. " 3. The troop levels are insufficient. McChrystal set a standard for our number of troops, and that was that we need 50,000 troops. He later announced that 40,000 is the minimum amount, for failure that is. 4. According to Obama's plan, we've been launching unmanned drones into Pakistan to try and kill off Taliban members and leaders. The problem with this is that these drone attacks are killing innocent pakistani civilians. According to a Pakistani general, for every one militant killed in a drone attack, 10 civilians are killed. So, the culture that these civilians were taught tells them that they need to get back at the people killing their families. They are required under tribal code to seek revenge on the attackers, and that's the United States. To fulfill this revenge, they are recruiting to the Taliban, to grab hold of a nuclear arsenal within Pakistan, which could be used to attack our soil, and kill our civilians. "Ok, first of all, I am anti-war. But in this case, I think it is certainly in the best interest to send in the troops. President Barack Obama announced a 30,000 strong troop surge to "seize the initiative" in Afghanistan and finally end the brutal eight-year war. If this is what it takes to bring it to an end, I see no alternative" [pro] I appreciate my opponents argument, which says that the plan is in our best interest because it will bring the war to an end. However, my opponent seems to assume that pulling out of the war will be in our best interest. This is not true, because if we pull out of this war, we are promoting not only the war on terrorism, but an illegitimate government. It is not beneficial for us to leave in 18 months, because we will not have fulfilled our goals. That will give the Taliban momentum to attack us, and leave their government illegitimate.