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

May this be an enlightening debate. First, a discussion on the proposition that my opponent has brought up. The proposition is clear that it is not a debate on the case of Afghanistan itself, but rather the specific proposal brought by President Obama. I would argue that it is impossible to discuss this proposition without talking about the merits of American troops being in Afghanistan right now. Second, a discussion of the specifics of the Obama plan should not go unnoticed in this debate. According to CNN. com the American troop involvement as of January 2009 was 36,000 troops. (. http://www.cnn.com...) Obama planned to add 12,000 marines in his plan, bringing total American involvement in the conflict to 48,000 troops (if you can find better/more recent numbers I would like to see them). This is sizable increase of troops in terms of the percentage deployed. Now on to my actual arguments. First of all, America is not in an economic position to be undertaking any of these foreign expeditions, let alone increasing their commitments. America, like much of the rest of the world is in the grip of one of the largest recessions in history. This is no time to increase spending on expeditions thousands of miles away when the President has far greater domestic concerns, like trying to balance the budget. America is currently twelve trillion dollars in debt (. http://www.usdebtclock.org...) and is looking for ways to combat impending economic disaster. Yes, cutting back in Afghanistan would only be a drop in the bucket, but it would at least be a start. Certainly escalating the amount of troops sends a bad message to taxpayers who are being forced to endure tough times while their fellow countrymen are sent abroad on expensive missions. Second, the United States and it's NATO allies have embraced a strategy of "clear, hold and build. " This strategy would be fine if Taliban forces could not just melt into the mountainside or into a crowded marketplace, allowing for profitable insurgency even if the US troops numbered 100,000. It simply is not a matter of numbers in Afghanistan. 12,000 more troops will allow for slightly more land taken, but it will not be enough to create a viable nation-state in Afghanistan. The Obama plan outlines no new framework, only allocates more resources to Afghanistan. Third, the United States and it's allies have failed to show any substantial improvement to Afghanistan. Yes, the Taliban is no longer in power and it's better for all involved that it isn't. Yet, the replacement Hamed Karzai who has been in power since 2004 has thrown away much of his credibility both internationally and domestically. The point here is that it doesn't matter how many troops that the US bring to Afghanistan they need to build a nation-state from a country that was merely drawn into existence by British empire in the late 18th century. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Afghanistan needs to be built up, economically, politically and socially and I fail to see how adding troops to this situation will do anything but exacerbate an already tense situation. I feel that this is a good start to my side of the debate, and would love to hear what my opponent thinks of my position.