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

== Introduction == As suspected, my opponent has forfeited the second round, and given the 30 minutes he has to post a third round, I suspect he will forfeit the last one too. However I wanted to take this time to address any specific arguments that Pro might have made in the previous round so as to ensure I've left nothing unrefuted. == Re: Point 2 == While Point 1 discusses Obama's plan, Point 2 (counterinsurgency) explains why it's relevant and Pro points out that the main goal is to counter corruption in the Afghan government. However this ideal is countered by my Argument 5 in the last round, when I suggested that a feasible option to rule out corruption is to buy out people who can help us achieve our goals. Of course Pro has not refuted this proposed solution. Basically, the officials and leaders at the top are going to be persuaded by dollar signs - not bombs. From there, they can help train and encourage the Afghan police and other soldiers to work on behalf of Afghanistan and not give up hope, i.e. succumb to the terrorists. == Re: Point 3 == Pro says that our foreign policy objectives will be helped with Obama's plan, though I suggest they will actually be hurt. The war is widely considered across the globe as, "A pointless conflict, maintained solely to spare politicians the embarrassment of admitting their blunder in getting us into it" [1]. Also, a poll conducted by BBC indicates that across the globe, there is more opposition to the war than support for the war [2]. == Point 4 == Pro says that increasing troops will make the world a safer place, but again I must disagree. So far 2009 has been the bloodiest year in Afghanistan (with the troop surges) taking more lives than any other year [3]. So how can there be an argument that this policy will save lives when in fact it has cost lives? The only argument Pro has put forth is that many American and Afghan lives have been lost thus far; however, that's simply because we're over there in the first place. Pro's plan calls for more lives lost - not less. Pro asserts that by sending more troops, it is more likely that the U.S. will win this war. However, increasing troops has only proven to upset the people in the region even more and even pushed them into supporting the Taliban [3]. == Argument 8 == I wanted to add an additional point for my side: cost. So far we have spent over 3.6 billion dollars in Afghanistan [4] while seeing no economic gains or returns. While it's tragic that 3,000 lives were lost on 9/11, an increase in troops only leads to more death - including American death - and we haven't seen any economic incentives to say the least seeing as how this war has only drained our economy. Pro says that the cost of 9/11 is more than the cost of increasing troops. However, there is no reason to assume that 9/11 or something like it will ever happen again. The reason the 9/11 conspiracy was successful was because "federal, state, and local agencies responsible for basic security fell down on the job, failing to install even minimally adequate security measures in the nation's airports. The national-security apparatus wasn't paying attention "indeed, it ignored or downplayed all sorts of warning signs, not least of all Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States" [5]. In other words, the so-called War on Terror and/or at least increased security and awareness by federal agencies devoted to securing our nation will be just as if not more effective at thwarting another 9/11-like attack as increasing troops in Afghanistan. == Argument 9 == Further, I'll point out that we cannot use the argument that we have a moral obligation to help these people, as we don't see this excuse being used to involve us in conflicts of every third world country.There are other nations that are also experiencing extreme hardships and conflicts, and yet we're not sending troops all over. [1] http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.fas.org... [5] http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com...