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

I will now proceed by negating your points, and in doing so, reinforcing mine. To refute your first argument, as published on December 2nd of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the ultimite goal of the Afghanistan surge of 30,000 troops would be to "balance the costs and reduce the risk by building capability within the Afghan military, the unltimate determinant in this equation to ultimately withdrawal all US and NATO forces from Afghanistan as a result of the potential sucess of this surge". To also refute your suggestion, the United States has kept the number of troops in Afghanistan the same for 8 years, and nothing has been accomplished, clearly the surge of 30,000 troops is a change in strategy in Afghanistan, and therefore is in the best interest of the United States as opposed to keeping the number of troops the same, which is a waste of money, lives and time. To refute your second argument, the primary objective united states is not patroling an afghanistan - pakistan border, it is simply building an Afghan government strong enough to control its borders, and to defend itself from the taliban, which has since been conquered in december of 2001 by the US. I also feel that my accurate comparison of the sucessful surge of Iraq in 2007 as compared by expert analystis at cbs nightly news as "very similar ideals, that began as unpopular, yet as the surge was carried out the public support increased. " To refute your thrid argument, and to suppor the case that the Obama plan is the best avaliable option as reported by Peter Bergen of Washington Monthly "The united states can neither percipitously withdrawl from Afghanistan nor help foster the emergence of a stable Afghan state by doing it on the cheap; the consequence would be the return of the Taliban and Al - Qaeda. Fortunately, the US is not alone, unlike in the sucessful surge of Iraq, there is an international coalition of forty - two countries in Afghanistan supporting NATO efforts. This is NOT something the US is doing on its own. To refute your fourth argument, you are contradicting yourself, you stated earlier that "Afghanistan has a deep rooted history of warlords, intimidation, bribery and decentralization. " If so, how would diplomacy work in the situation? And accoarding to the Washington monthly, reporting on a bbc poll, only 7% of Afghan citizens are in favor of the taliban, while 78% of Afghans are in support of the United States. So clearly, the Afghan citizens are not about to support the taliban, which by the way is under complete control of the US. To refute your fifth argument, you completely nullified your previous argument by stating that "diplomacy does not always prevail. " Bribing? You've got to be kidding! It is the attitude of a higher intelligence and oppressive power that has got the United States into the current hatred they have with the Middle East, the Untied States has too often tried to Dictate these terrorism groups, and by training the Afghan government, the Untied States can break this habit, and allow Afghanistan to gain control of their country, and allow the US to leave the country, which is in their best interest. I have refuted your 6th argument by refuting your 4th. Your 7th argument is suggesting the United States drop what they are doing in Afghanistan, immedialty pull out, a plan supported by only 2% of Americans, and start whole new wars against terrorist organizations that we can not defeat, and spend more money and lives on a cause that can be prevented by simply tightening national security, and learning from the christmas day bomber. You continue to press on how it is impossible for the US to "defeat' these terrorist groups, and now youre suggesting that we invade the countries in which the threat is much greater? You have contradicted yourself throughout the entire debate so far. Thanks again, and I look forward to your response. Source(s): . http://www.brookings.edu... . http://www.americanprogress.org... . http://www.washingtonmonthy.com... . http://online.wsj.com... htttp://www. nytimes. com. .. . http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com... . http://www.heritage.org...