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

I will begin by backing up my own case and then by refuting my opponent's arguments. ====== CONTENTION ONE - Increased troops in Afghanistan are needed. My opponent's only argument to my contention one was that since there are less than 100 al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan according to General James Jones that the increased troops sent are not necessary. However, the 30,000 troops being sent aren't going to be stationed in Afghanistan just to rid the country of the rest of the insurgents. They will be helping in establishing the new Afghan government and strengthening the borders. General James Jones also mentions that Mr. Obama has received Gen. McChrystal's request for additional troops, and the force numbers will be part of a larger discussion that will include efforts to beef up the size and training of the Afghan army and police, along with economic development and governance improvements in Afghanistan. Wether or not there is a significant terrorist threat in Afghanistan is not the case. ====== CONTENTION TWO - Establishing democracy in an allied country is for the best interest in this country My opponent asks, "So why aren't our other allies such as Britain and France assisting with the war in Afghan? " * France has more than 3,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. In August 2008 10 French soldiers were killed and 21 wounded in a Taliban ambush in the Uzbin Valley. * In a detailed Commons statement, the prime minister confirmed that all the conditions had been met to allow an extra 500 troops to be deployed in December – taking the force level to 9,500. Our allies are helping with the war in Afghanistan. As my opponent has stated, there are less than 100 al-Qaeda fighters left in Afghan, this only helps my case. It will now be much easier for our troops overseas to help establish a stable government for Afghanistan. There is a less likely chance for American casualities and the troop increase will greatly speed up the process. ====== Con-Contention One Rebuttal - We don't have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan I will refute this with a few comments. The President of the United States met with his advisors at several war meetings and have discussed the issue of Afghanistan. If the United States did not have the tools to continue a war in Afghanistan, wouldn't the President of the United States know about it before you? Another problem with this contention is that we do in fact have the tools. We have the apporoximate 30,000 troops at the ready. The leading General in Afghan notes that there has been enough water provided by U. S. aircraft to keep the troops hydrated, thankfully. All our troops need to do in Afghan is aid in the rebuilding of the Afghan government. This is included with Obama's plan for increased troops. ====== Con-Contention Two Rebuttal - This country is by the people, for the people. This contention's tagline suggests that the whole contention depends on wether or not the people support the war. Americans over the last two weeks have become slightly more likely to favor sending more U. S. troops to Afghanistan, and slightly less likely to favor a reduction in forces. At this point, 47% of Americans would advise President Obama to increase the number of U. S. troops -- either by the roughly 40,000 recommended by the commanding general in Afghanistan or by a smaller amount -- while 39% would advise Obama to reduce the number of troops. Another 9% would opt to leave troop levels as they are, while 5% have no opinion. "Since August 2008, between 30% and 37% of Americans have said it was a mistake to send troops to Afghanistan. Sixty percent in the current poll say U. S. involvement was not a mistake. " I have just turned my opponent's contention around and have used it for my own case. ====== Con-Contention Three Rebuttal - Terrorists are different form militaries My opponent is shooting herself in the foot. She states earlier that there are less than 100 insurgents in Afghanistan now. Does this not show that our efforts in Afghan have been successful? The last part of our presence in Afghanistan is to help develop a new government. Yes, terrorists are different from militaries, but the United States forces have proven effective in the Afghan area. ====== Con-Contention Four Rebuttal - Terrorist Attacks still happen My opponent then lists accounts of Terrorist happenings. However, this contention is irrelevant. In no way can this support the Con of the resolution. Why have a police force then to stop crime? Crime will still occur won't it. With the use of this analogy, Contention Four is irrelevant within this debate. ====== Summary - My opponent claims that we do not have the money to continue this war, however, I have shown that that is not the case. She also believes that the only reason why American forces are in Afghan is because of the insurgents, which I have shown also to not be the case. My case still stands that the increased troops are needed, and that establishing democracy in an allied nation is in the United States best interest. ====== Sources - . http://www.washingtontimes.com... . http://www.google.com... . http://www.guardian.co.uk...