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

I stand on the affirmative side of the following R="President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest." The following definitions have been provided for the clarification of the round: increasing troops in Afghanistan: the recently announced plan of president Obamas that shows how he plans to increase troops in afghanistan to 30,000 more U.S. best interests: Not only the welfare of the US people but we must take into account whether this is going to bring welfare for our Economy, Political standing, foreign affairs, and security. 30,000 new U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan "at the fastest possible pace." In July 2011, 18 months from now, the U.S. will "begin to transfer our forces out of Afghanistan." • An aspect of the plan said by president obama wasNo more "blank checks" to the Afghan government; the U.S. expects those it assists to combat corruption and "deliver for the people," and those "who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable." •The U.S. goals in Afghanistan are to "deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future." CONTENTION 1: Success In Afghanistan Is In The United States' Best Interest. Success in Afghanistan would lead to the end of the lawless and chaotic country of Afghanistan as we know it. If we put an end to this chaos there will be no longer a corrupted government that can create the chaos and improsperity needed for the creation and sustenance of radical terrorist groups such as Al quadea that have shown that can hurt us horribly. Therefore by stabilizing afhganistan we will have greatly reduced the risk of another terrorist group arising and the sustainance of existing ones therefore this would not only be in the best interest of our security but also the welfare of our people, our political standing as any countries will praise us for putting and end to this because these terrorist groups also have massive attacks that hurt their country, foreign affairs as said before our political standing would be higher and through afghansitan we would have opended communication to other middle east countires which could be great assets in the war against terrorisim. This would help our economy because despite the fact that it is going to take a lot of money to deploy our troops it takes more to sustain the for a year so by sending more troops and ending the war we would have save more money then going on with the troops we have and taking longer or not winning the war at all. This leads to my second contention SOURCE: Laksin in 2009, •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. CONTENTION 2: Under The Obama Plan The Generals Will Have Sufficient Troops to win the war: Our very capable field commander, General Stanley McChrystal, will have 100,000 American troops by the middle of next year to take the fight to the enemy and regain the initiative in the war. General McChrystal has ex‐ pressed confidence in his ability to execute his strategy with these resources. McChrystal has not stood still while the administration was pondering its options he made his forces move rapidly to set the conditions to take advantage of the surge of forces, accomplishing a number of important tasks that will make the job of taking the fight to the enemy when they get the first few installments of the extra troops in 2010. So by using my contention and this contention and using the transtivitve property that if A leads to B and B leads to C then A leads to C we can say if winning the war is our best interest and president obamas plan c does it then president obama's plan is in our best interests. Kagan & Kristol in 2009, Frederick W. Kagan [Director of the Critical Threats Project, American Enterprise Institute] and William Kristol [Founder and Editor of The Weekly Standard]. "Supporting the President; Beyond the Squabbling and Behind the Mission." The Weekly Standard. December 14, 2009. Gale: Academic OneFile. Accessed December 14, 2009. I urge an affirmitive vote as I have proved the resolution true.