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

RE: ARGUMENT ONE Pro responds, "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." However, it would accomplish neither of those things: it would increase the cost, and the military is commanded by the politicians who in turn are commanded by the highest bidder - which I have explained in other contentions. Additionally Pro notes that keeping the troop level the same would be a waste of lives, money and time. On the contrary, LESS lives will be lost (statistically), far less money will be spent, and the time can better be spent looking towards other alternatives which I have mentioned. RE: ARGUMENT TWO I pointed out that the U.S. must narrow their objectives in order to meet success in Afghanistan. I also mentioned the fact that Afghanistan has a deep rooted history of warlords, intimidation, bribery and decentralization - meaning that the government will fall to whomever is the highest bidder. The members of the Taliban are hiding out all over the Middle East and not just Afghanistan. Pro has not combated any of this or explained how a troop surge will help or be relevant. It's unrealistic to think that a troop surge will wipe out the entire hidden Taliban, and even more unrealistic to think that they won't just take over as soon as America thinks they have won and left (because the politics and government in the region are so unstable and subject to be bribed, etc.). RE: ARGUMENT THREE I said that the U.S. can try an approach such as thwarting terrorists with targeted strikes instead of increasing troops. We should use intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and Special Forces to win the war and save time, money and lives. Pro has not responded to this argument at all whatsoever. Pointing out that "the U.S.is not alone" as Pro's third rebuttal consists of is not effective in negating my position on this matter. RE: ARGUMENT FOUR Pro seems to think that my proposal of diplomacy is contradictory to anything that I have said. In fact, it is not. I mentioned that the goal of achieving cooperation on addressing ongoing conflicts, strengthening civilian rule of law, and promoting economic development. These are all things that would empower Afghans and improve the conditions of their lives. Meanwhile, increasing troops only accomplishes targeting innocent Afghan civilians and tarnishing America's reputation. It also encourages the locals to support the Taliban rather than the U.S. Sure the people there may be saying that they don't support the Taliban... Did you expect otherwise? It doesn't mean that the Taliban won't take over or doesn't have power at the top. My point was simply that killing the people in Afghanistan and waging war in their country is no way to gain their support when it harms them more than helps them. Diplomacy would work by helping the people and not seeking just to appease or buy out the politicians. RE: ARGUMENT FIVE I said, "If we make the right deals, [Afghanistan] will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it." By bribery, I mean giving the leaders various incentives to NOT fall under Taliban threats or bribery. Your suggestion as described in your fifth rebuttal was literally "to train the Afghan government" which is essentially the same thing I am saying. RE: ARGUMENT SIX My 6th argument was that putting more troops in Afghanistan will be met with concern and anger in the Islamic world. This will make it more difficult for Western and Middle Eastern countries to work together toward mutual objectives, such as peace between Israel and Palestine. You said you have refuted this in your 4th rebuttal, but you haven't. Your 4th rebuttal is actually completely irrelevant to this point of mine. All you have done there was point out that the people in Afghanistan claim to support the U.S. over the Taliban; however, Afghanistan doesn't represent the Islamic world as a whole - nor does being set on this war help the U.S.'s reputation any overseas for people to concentrate on other important and relevant objectives. RE: ARGUMENT SEVEN Okay, I'm not sure if you're understanding my arguments correctly, Pro. For point 7 I wrote, "Peter Navarro correctly points out that Afghanistan is now just one of many possible staging areas for al-Qaida. In fact, it is now much easier for al-Qaida's decentralized networks to conduct operations in numerous other places, with Algeria, Somalia, and Yemen emerging as the newest strongholds." You said, "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." Uh, WHERE DOES MY 7TH ARGUMENT EVER SAY THAT? Where did I *EVER* suggest immediately pulling out anywhere in this debate, actually? Please show me where I have said that. Now you're just making stuff up. When I said, "Why aren't we invading them?" I in no way was suggesting that we actually invade them, so nowhere was a contradiction made. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in expecting the U.S. to help or solve conflicts in one area but not many. It points out the reality that we have no more of an obligation to be in those other places (and expect to win) as we do with Afghanistan. Please come back with a rebuttal that is not full of manipulated arguments; I don't appreciate when my words are twisted to fit an agenda. Thanks and good luck!