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

RE: CONTENTION ONE Pro's point is essentially that increasing troops in Afghanistan will be met with the same success as increasing troops in Iraq. However while the U. S. has insisted that Iraq is a "safer" place, admittedly the U. S. is unsure of whether or not Iraq can sustain their gains [1]. This is especially true in Afghanistan where presumably it will be even harder to maintain any gains due to corruption and other drawbacks which I will detail in my upcoming arguments. RE: CONTENTION TWO Pro writes, "Afghanistan has wallowed in its infant democracy since 2004 because of a lack of a sense of urgency and importance. " However that is not indicative of being the whole truth. Pro continues, "A one-year deadline will re-establish the primacy of these goals to the mission in Afghanistan and force definitive action to be taken. " My upcoming arguments will illustrate how there are a plethora of reasons why democracy has failed in Afghanistan, and why increasing troops will not solve those problems. None of it has to do with being considered "unimportant" as Pro proclaims. RE: CONTENTION THREE Pro writes that "the 30,000 troop surge is a modest enhancement," however, try telling that to the people being directly affected! Much like what happened with Vietnam, the reality is that bringing more troops to Afghanistan will probably not accomplish much. In the end, it will only cost time, money and human life. Whether or not Afghanistan's military cooperates with the U. S. or falls to Al Qaeda again does not have to do with increasing troops. As my arguments will show, political corruption and popular support among the Afghan people play a very large role in how Afghanistan as a nation will cooperate and respond. Even if it SEEMS as if we're making progress there, that may very well not be the case considering Afghanistan's tendency to resort loyalty to the highest bidder. Now onto Con's contentions. .. ARGUMENT ONE Obama's plan of increasing troops does not 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 TWO 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? [2] Increasing troops in Afghanistan is not the way to accomplish these goals. ARGUMENT THREE 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 FOUR 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 FIVE 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. " [3] ARGUMENT SIX 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 [4]. ARGUMENT SEVEN 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? [5] [1] . http://www.cnn.com... [2] . http://www.theglobeandmail.com... [3] . http://www.newsweek.com... [4] . http://www.fcnl.org... [5] . http://www.ocregister.com...