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

Considering my oppenent has decided to drop the ball, and use a copy paste method of a case written by Donald Rosenberry, I should consider dropping the debate. But I'll assume that my opponent had the same arguments in mind and found this case to represent her thoughts well. "His staff at the Department of Defense has had the opportunity to truly lay out a definitive purpose for action, one that includes measurable steps forward with the ability to know when progress is being made." As my opponent quotes, she refers to the idea that the framework for this plan (specifically, the timeframe) will be based around checkpoints, where we look at conditions on the ground. As Obama said, we will extend the timeline if need be, to even extend our progress. However, what we need to see is that, even if we are using these checkpoints and looking at ground conditions, we are not addressing the idea that for the past 200 years, many other countries have tried to accomplish the same goals that Obama has set for us. Obama states that "Afghanistan is not Iraq," meaning that this will not be an open ended war, but by repeatedly extending the timeline based on ground conditions, that is exactly what we are implying to the Afghans if we follow through with this. We don't have 200 years to spend fighting this war, and even if we don't keep this open ended, we most certainly don't have the time, money, or resources to even lightly extend our timeline. When president Karzai of Afghanistan announced that his forces would need our assistance and support until 2024, we have to realize that we cannot achieve our goals in 18 months, when the man in charge even disagrees. "so it is not possible to eliminate the possibility of terrorist activity from the world. By its nature, terrorism is unstoppable, as any single individual with a grudge can foment terror through violence." This tells us that terrorists cannot ever be completely stopped. This is TRUE! And this is exactly why Obama's plan is NOT in our best interest. We are fighting in this endless war on terrorism, in order to "...prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border." What Obama fails to see is that by using the strategies we're using, we're actually promoting terrorism. If we're not promoting it, then we're definately contributing to the Taliban's side of this war. By using unmanned drone attacks within Pakistan to kill off Taliban leaders and members, we're killing innocent civilians in a 10:1 ratio. These innocents are required by tribal code to seek revenge on those who are killing their families and friends. THE UNITED STATES. To fulfill this revenge, they are recruiting to the Taliban, and planning to attack the United States with a loose nuclear arsenal within Pakistan. This is NOT in our best interest. "The Taliban and Al Qaeda have no country; therefore they aren't hindered by the destruction of infrastructure, threats against its political efficacy, or even threats to the well being of a population." This is VERY true!! The Taliban and Al Qaeda will only move back up to other places in the world and create new havens. Yemen, especially, is is hot spot for terrorists because of the two cold wars going on right now. So, if we move them out of Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's doing two things... 1) Motivating them only to move out of these places and find new havens. 2) Giving them incentive to attack us. Neither of these are in our interest or achieve our goals. "Mass on the battlefield is still an important tenet of conflict, regardless how fleet the opposing forces are." DUH!!!! Excuse my rude tone, but HELLO! That's exactly what I said in my first round. Obama suggests we put 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. HOWEVER, General McChrystal has set the minimum amount of troops to be 40,000. If we want to set ourselves up for failure, that is. So yes, mass on the battlefield is important, and Obama's plan is simply not achieving this. "Likewise, our NATO allies were specifically mentioned in the president's announcement ." How is this beneficial? They're sending 10,000 troops. Even then, it's not helpful! The NATO forces, first of all, are not our troops! They aren't required to fight with our interest in mind, or anyone's interest but their own. They don't have to fight towards the goals we have set. Crossfire questions: Obama's plan calls for moving the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Pakistan and Afghanistan, however.. If this means that these terroristic groups will be moving to other havens where they can just as easily plan attacks, how is this achieving public safety for our citizens or our allies' citizens, which is in our best interest? General McChrystal set the amount of troops that would set us up for failure to be 40,000 troops. If he says that even 40,000 troops will be insufficient, how will we achieve our goals with only 30,000? How will Obama's plan strenghten Afghanistan's forces enough to 1) allow them to keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of the country when we leave? 2) keep the Opium production to a minimum in Afghanistan to lessen Taliban funding? How will we achieve this through Obama's plan in 18 months, with an amount of troops that McChrystal considered to be less than the amount that would set us up for Failure?!