Resolution is to long and will be in the first Round.

As for definitions I agree to his definition of United States but do not agree with his definition of best interest, as it is not suiting for this debate. I will define best interest as being the most plausible decision. ====== I will now begin by providing my case and then refuting my opponents contentions. ====== In an article about Obama's approach on Afghanistan Rebecca Griffin on March 27 2009 said that President Obama was mistaken when he stated in his speech, "the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. " The United States did have to respond to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There were, however, more effective alternatives to military force, but the debate was clouded in the heated response to the attack. Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work does work. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting. It is not too late for the US to switch to proven, effective, nonmilitary counterterrorism tools such as policing and intelligence. My partner and I stand in firm negation that President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. I would now like to provide a few key definitions within this debate. Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan- Earlier this year at West Point New York, President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U. S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan, nearly tripling the force he inherited as commander in chief. United States- can also be referred to as the people of the United States as a whole. Not just the government. Best interest- producing the greatest satisfaction Now for our arguments. My partner and I have created 3 contentions that indefinitely support the negation. 1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional. 2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense. 3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's. Contention One- The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional. Under the constitution, Article 1 Section 10, "No State shall…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. " We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States by terrorists who were in our country legally. A draft of the war in Afghanistan has never been drafted, therefore, it is unconstitutional to go to war with Afghan. In his speech on November 18 of last year, Ron Paul states that, "Under the constitution, your supposed to declare the war, know who your enemy is, and know when you can declare victory, and bring the troops home. " We did that up until World War II, but since then we must have forgotten. Contention Two- The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense. The president's National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? Remember that this debate focuses soley on the 30,000 troops being sent to Afghan. Contention III- We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's. This 30,000 "surge" will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful. In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, "Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels. " Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government. The United States government should take heed of the past and make the right decision. ====== My opponent begins his case begins with this Contention One - "Al Qaeda is still in existence, active and operating, and gaining more members and allies" I would like to note that Al Qaeda is not active and operating in Afghanistan anymore. As General James Jones has reported, there are only a max of 100 insurgents left within Afghanistan. So, if we are in Afghanistan for the reasons my opponent states, " leave an Afghanistan that doesn't allow for the return of those radical groups to be able to organize, train, and equip themselves and launch other attacks against us and our allies any time in the future . " So far, American forces have done this. Why then, would it be in the United States best interest to send 30,000 more troops to an area that we seemingly already have control over. Most of the Al Qaeda forces have already fled to Pakistan. ====== Contention Two - Osama Bin Laden is still in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region My opponent has not provided any proof to show that Osama Bin Laden is in Afghnistan. Recent reports indicate that he is not. It is the burden of PRO to back up his contentions. As of now Contention Two is irrelevant. ======