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

Thank you for the brief introduction and for setting definitions. First I will refute my opponents contentions, then simply list my own. ====== ProC1, Rebuttal: If we are to break down this resolution on a technical level, we find that the debate is about the 30,000 troop increase employed by Obama as of late. General McChrystal did indeed warn political forces in the U.S, through a 66 page letter, to send more troops to Afghan as soon as possible in an attempt to prevent certain insurgencies from dominating the weak government of the Afghans. However, he did this IN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT. He made the request as a safety net, so that the U.S. absolutely could not fail like the Soviets did when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous results back in the 1980s. Now, with more knowledge, the president's National Security Adviser, General James Jones, said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. The United States themselves, already have sent more than 70,000 troops to Afghan, approx. 71,000. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? ProC2, Rebuttal: My previous rebuttal also stands for my opponent's 2nd contention. Included: Afghans are in the process of redirecting, stabilizing, and controlling their government with the help of the U.S. It is not America's job to be the "global police." The Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist forces' first target is Israel (U.S. allies) due to the religious [Muslamic] conflict. So, yes it is our obligation and commitment to step in; however, we have sent approx. 71,000 and are now sending 30,000 more. Our country is going to benefit AFTER Isreal. So why aren't our other allies such as Britain and France assisting with the war in Afghan? Why are we working so hard and spending so much money, men, and time on a war in which the U.S. is not prioritized as a direct benefactor. Does that sound like it's in the United States best interest? ====== ConC1, We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan: -Representative David Obey said on CNN's State Union, "The problem is that you can have the best policy in the world, but if you don't have the tools to implement it, it isn't worth a beanbag, and I don't think we have the tools in the Pakistani government and I don't think we have the tools in the Afghan government. And until we do, I think much of what we do is a fool's errand." -Being committed to Afghan for the next 8-10 years will cost approximately $800-900 billion. For only the first year of marines, costs are approx. $30 billion. The U.S. does not have this money; we are already in unnecessary war debt. Our country is being told to pay for this by a minimum of 1% increase tax, "war tax". ("Share the Sacrifice Act of 2010") On a side note, may I bring to your attention, that the new health care reform is ALSO costing Americans about $900 bil over the next 10 years. We don't have the money to continue doing this. The small amounts of money that will contribute are coming directly from the people of the U.S. This leads me to my second contention. ConC2, This country is by the people, for the people: -The majority of U.S. citizens do not want to be at war and do not want to pay an unnecessary war tax. -Obama is taking the initiative to force America into being the "global police." In this, he has put our country into further debt and gave up more men to this unending war. "The people" do not want to contribute to this war, especially financially, when overall it's to protect another country over our own. The U.S. is having to put their faith in the Afghan government completely. If they do not succeed in stabilization, then our entire efforts would have been a waste. ConC3, Terrorists are different form militaries: -Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. Terrorists operate very differently than stable armies. Success will not be reached by sending troops into a village against enemies that have no morals. -The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work is most beneficial. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting. -The Taliban and al-Qaeda organizations will continue to hide and use whichever weak government they can overtake. Prevention is good. However, we cannot stop every potential terrorist formation. We are using more money, time and men than necessary. ConC4, Terrorist Attacks still happen: Only in 2009: -Feb 4, West Memphis, Arkansas, United States. Trent P. Pierce Chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board was critically injured in a car bombing that occurred in his drive way. There are reports that he received serious injuries to his abdomen and face, but no internal trauma was reported. No one else was wounded in the blast. D-0, I-1 -May 25, New York City, a small explosive device exploded out front of a Starbucks in New York City destroying a bench it had been placed on. No injuries or deaths were reported in the blast that brings fears of terrorism. D-0, I-0 -June 1, Little Rock, Arkansas, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, an American Muslim opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded. D-1, I-1 -Nov 5, Killeen, Texas A gunman opens fire indiscriminately at Fort Hood. Connections to al-Qaeda are investigated. D-13, I-30 -Dec 25, A Nigerian suspect known as Abdul Mutallab attempts to activate an incendiary device on an aircraft en route from Amsterdam to Detroit. During the incident, the suspect ignites himself on fire until it is extinguished by the crew. The aircraft lands safely in Detroit with the only injuries reported to be the suspect himself and two others. D-0, I-3 ====== Summary: We don't have the tools to continue this war, especially not the money. The money will ultimately come from the citizens of the U.S. However, those same citizens don't believe the war should even be continued. The war that we have and are putting so much time and so many resources into is going to end up benefiting another country before the U.S. We are contributing to the war, but we are doing it the wrong way because terrorists differ from militaries so drastically. And in the end, terrorists are still happening anyway, aside from our prevention tactics. Thank you