Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the U.S.' best interest

I will begin by building up my own case and then refuting my opponents. ====== Contention One - The War in Afghanistan is Clearly Constitutional. My opponent tries to sweeten the fact that there is no war draft for Afghanistan. Without a war draft this "war" is unconstitutional. How can an unconstitutional war be in the United States best interest? It can't. My opponent also states that "What Ron Paul said wasn't a law." I never contended to prove that what he said was law. But he sums it up nicely with regards to Afghanistan. I have successfully held up this contention. ====== Contention Two - The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense. My opponent's refutation is "This fully makes sense because my opponent is focusing on how that this isn't needed for only a 100 al queada operatives" I am not focusing on that alone. By the addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense I also meant that it wouldn't work and therefore not be in the United States best interest. Graham E. Fuller states somewhat lengthly, "The "objective" situation in Afghanistan remains a mess. The details are well known. Senior commanders acknowledge that we are not now winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan; indeed, we never can, and certainly not at gunpoint. Most Pashtuns will never accept a US plan for Afghanistan's future. The non-Pashtuns - Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. - naturally welcome any outside support in what is a virtual civil war. America has inadvertently ended up choosing sides. US forces are perceived by large numbers of Afghans as an occupying army inflicting large civilian casualties." These extra 30,000 troops will not aid in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, instead they will present more American targets to attack. Along with this, Afghan nationalist pride will rise, as pride always seems to rise within a nation that is being occupied by foreign nations. Failure. There are three basic reasons that increasing troop deployments to Afghanistan will fail. - Inadequate troops. Some say as many as 600,000 troops are needed to stabilize Afghanistan. - Alienation. Adding more troops could alienate the populace, driving them into the hands of Al Qaeda. - Other parts of the plan. Committing to withdrawing within 18 months could undermine stabilization goals. ====== Contention Three - XXXXXXX I am dropping this contention as it is not completely relevant. However, the dropping of this contention should not harm my chances of winning this debate. Note that my opponent has two contentions also :) ====== I will now refute my opponents contentions. AFFCon One - Success In Afghanistan Is In The United States' Best Interest. I have revised my arguments on this contention. First off, my opponent hardly builds up this contention by providing a link. The problem is, success can't be reached with 30,000 troops. So yes, I agree that Success in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest, but this success is not found through Obama's plan. Therefore, Obama's plan is not in the United States best interest. ====== AFFCon Two - Under The Obama Plan The Generals Will Have Sufficient Troops to win the war. It seems as though I have found two important flaws in my opponent's argument. First, The whole of my opponent's arguments is that the 30,000 troops are going to help train more Afghan troops. Obama said in his own speech that "Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan Security Forces. For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police." So Obama states that 4,000 will be plenty to help the infastructure of Afghanistan. Why then, do we need 30,000? Second, my opponent states "but by having this troop increase we will be able to end it in 4 years maximum thus bringing the war debt to 430 billion over 900 billion. Therefore the troop increase is in our best interests." Part of Obamas plan is to withdraw troops within 18 months. Not four years. However,,, as stated earlier. "The US won't pull out of Afghanistan in 2011. President Obama's top national security adviser, who has played a key part in designing the new Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, has been trying to clear up some confusion about the exit strategy. Gen James Jones told me that "in no manner, shape or form" would the US withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011." Because Obama's plan was to withdraw in 18 months and now it is known that he most likely lied his plan as a whole is not in the United States best interest. == Also, as I have shown in my second contention, under the Obama Plan the generals will NOT have sufficient troops to win the war anyway. I have now refuted this contention sufficiently. ====== SOURCES : http://www.usnews.com... gothamist.com/2009/.../obamas_afghanistan_plans_30000_more.php http://www.planetdebate.com... http://www.campaignforliberty.com...... http://www.democraticunderground.com...... "Jacob Laksin. [Managing Editor of Frontpage Magazine]. "Obama's Hedged Bet on Afghanistan." FrontPageMag.com. December 2, 2009. http://frontpagemag.com.......... Accessed December 8, 2009. Graham E. Fuller is a former CIA station chief in Kabul and a former vice-chair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He is author of numerous books on the Middle East, including "The Future of Political Islam." Christian Science Monitor, December 2, 2009, Obama speech: kicking the can down the road in Afghanistan," p. 9