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

Thanks angelofdeath for starting this debate, this topic was way better :) Anyway, here's my case: In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in order to try to reinforce and prop up the country's weak communist government. At one point, the Soviet Union had over 100000 troops stationed in the country. However due to complex guerilla fighting campaigns by local insurgent and militia groups, a weak infrastructure, and a lack of a centralized government; the soviet military was unable to make any substantial political gains. Instead it became involved a long and costly cycle of warfare that ultimately amounted to a humiliating military and political failure. Preexisting conditions in Afghanistan have not significantly improved since the soviet invasion and U.S. efforts in the region so far have proven to be equally inept. Therefore I negate the stated resolution, resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. To better understand this resolution let us be reminded that the United States has been combating insurgents groups such as the Taliban and al Queda since the United States' entry into Afghanistan. The United States' purpose in Afghanistan is to eliminate these insurgents and fight the ongoing war against terrorism. President Obama has called for a troop surge of 30,000 in Afghanistan in order to bring a swift end to the insurgency, particularly along the eastern part of the country, which provides a "breeding ground" for terrorists. Such a measure would futile and costly; the reasons being that The United States military does not have the infrastructure to support 30000 more troops in Afghanistan and a troop surge will not make the job easier for our military. C1: The United States military does not have the infrastructure to support 30000 more troops in Afghanistan. According to Ed Hornick, Chris Lawrence and Frederik Pleitgen of CNN.com, "military leaders said it would be all but impossible to rush new troops to Afghanistan as quickly as they did Iraq." "A lack of paved roads outside the largest cities are easy places for the Taliban to place roadside bombs, known as IEDs, or improvised explosive devices." "The country is landlocked, and no navigable waterways lead to the ocean. Supplies must be flown in or shipped to Pakistan and driven to Afghanistan." "The weather also poses a problem for the troops. Temperatures can dip to -10 degrees Fahrenheit in winter and soar above 110 degrees in summer." "Most of the new forces will head south to places such as Camp Wolverine in southern Afghanistan, where construction is already under way to increase its capacity from 1,800 to 5,000 troops." ""But [the] problem is, it's getting there a little bit after the troop surge when it should have been vice versa, should have been support first or at the same time at least." Basically a greater amount of facilities and supplies are needed in order to support a troop surge this massive. It is impossible to implement the logistics of this operation in a short period of time. Due to Afghanistan's lack of infrastructure the basic needs of troops involved in the surge would not be met. C2: A troop surge will not make our military more effective Thus far American actions have been relatively ineffective at altering the lives of afghan citizens. According to George Will of The Washington Post, "Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." As can clearly deduce from this, the Afghanistan presidency, despite being the official and legitimate bureaucracy controlling the Afghanistan state, has actually very little de facto power and is considerably in a disadvantage in juxtaposition to the insurgent groups. Afghan insurgencies use guerrilla tactics, which make U.S. strategy difficult to implement. "The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible." However 30000 more troops to the area would not make the clear and build strategy any more viable. "Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more." A troop surge would however require a much greater amount of spending and put more American lives at risk. So far our military strategies have not worked and the troops in Afghanistan have not succeeded. A troop surge would be ineffective as these troops would be undersupplied and inefficiently deployed due to the countries lack of infrastructure and expanding the American presence in the area would not make the American military presence in the area more effectives. Therefore I ask you to support the con, that president Obama's plan will not be in the United States' best interest.