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

=== I also hope for an interesting debate === I will begin by dropping ALL of my nuclear arguments and simply stating that preventing a safe haven to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in order to protect our national security is in the United States best interest. I will agree with my opponent on the defintion of Obama's plan to not include Pakistan, for the sake of time and characters. I am glad my opponent agrees that best interest is the well-being of America, in the present and future. Due to my opponent's ample amount of sub-points for one contention, you may find that there is not paragraphs upon paragraphs refuting each one, that is because I must use characters sparingly. I will only refute my opponents case this round and not build upon my own because I have scarce characters remaining (298 left) and I will build my case up in Round Three. Contention One = Winning in Afghanistan is Impossible. 1A. My opponent gives one quote of how terrain makes victory in Afghanistan 'impossible'. Terrain is a minute problem for armies with helicopters, missles, landers, battleships, swat teams, counterinsurgency squads, etc. So terrain has little to do with our success in Afghanistan. And as we have all agreed to, Obama's plan is to rebuild Afghanistan from the inside, and by sending the troops into cities, so terrain is irrelevant here. 1B. My opponent states that training them won't work. He says this is twofold. First, that we can't be sure that the army will be able to sustain itself. However, this is the exact reason why we are in this country. Afghanistan, for the past eight years, has been in the fog of Iraq. People wonder why we are taking so long in Afghanistan and why nothing is being done. It's because up until this point we have been primarily focused on Iraq, and now that we have that war under control Obama is shifting his focus to Afghanistan. That is why his plan will work, because it is the buildings blocks for what is to come. Second, he says that our withdrawal date will be the return of the Taliban. However, my opponent directly contradicts himself in his Round 2. Word for word he writes === The Taliban has been significantly weakened over time by the US. Our occupation has rendered them vulnerable and insignificant, as a matter of fact, no one supports them anymore. The world public opinion poll finds that 88% of Aghan adults have an unfavorable view of the Taliban, and even more say so against al-Qaeda. This means that if they returned, the could not seize power because their ideals would not be upheld by the populus. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org...... === So my opponent must drop his refutations or drop this contention. 1C He says that the war will be to costly. 1C-1 The cost to the US My opponent tells us that there will be an OUTSTANDING 30 billion a year tax. However, that is just sad. Our new health care bill alone will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. WASHINGTON - The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week would cost $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget analysts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Obama as a price tag for his reform plan. http://www.boston.com... 30 billion a year is a small price to pay for national security. 1C-2 The cost to Afghanistan He says that the Afghan's GDP cannot support this influx of troops. However, that is why the U.S. is there. To slowly build up the infastructure of Afghanistan to where they will be able to sustain themselves. So the cost to Afghanistan is irrelevant because it will be covered in Obama's plan, also agreed to by my opponent. 1D. Military force never works against terrorist organizations. Just looking at this tagline I spot a fallacy. Military force. The United States will be implementing counter insurgency plans that have been proven effective countless times. Contention rendered useless. 1E. We have already won. Yes we have driven out Taliban members and according to General James Jones there are only 200 Al-Qaeda fighters left. However, our goal, which is in the United States best interest, is to build up and restore Afghanistan to wear they can support themselves. My opponent mentions that we should stop using military force and be more diplomatic. However that is what counter-insurgency is. We are sending troops to Afghanistan to help then rebuild their home, we are not being aggressive. === Contention Two === The focus of our troops should be in Pakistan exculsively, which is our best interest. My opponent talks about nuclear weapons. I will now provide evidence to completely render this contention useless, I won't regard my opponent's evidence because, trust me, the following evidence will do the job. According to Dawn.com Sunday, 08 November 2009 Indeed so well guarded are the nuclear weapons that in the event of war, no outside power could take them out. London: Pakistan's nuclear installations are so well guarded that militants behind a wave of violence in the country's heartland would find it very hard to storm them and steal material for a nuclear bomb, analysts say. According to analysts and research reports, the warheads are not mated with aircraft missle delivery systems. Nor are they moved except in times of crisis, as happened in 1999 and 2001/2002 during confrontations with India. Other security measures cited by analysts, include the seperation of warheads from detonators. They also say the army is believed to have developed a rudimentary system to electronically lock its nuclear weapons, modelled on the US Permissive Action Link (PAL). Even if the Al-Qaeda could reach Pakistan's nuclear facilities this would not mean the attackers would obtain a functioning nuclear bomb. And even if they were able to penetrate a nuclear prodcution site, they would still have to manage the logistics under fire of reomving the 25 kg (55 lb) of fissle material needed to make a nuclear bomb. With all of this being said, a nuclear argument should be deemed useless. === Why a Pro Ballot should be cast === My opponent states that focus of our troops should be in Pakistan exculsively. This tells us that my opponent is advocating that we need to withdraw troops from all of our other exploits and focus them on Pakistan. My opponent has affirmed this. However, this cannot be in the United States best interest. Pulling out of countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq will no doubt make the United States look weak. Our efforts in these places will be lost. Just as we were starting to make improvements for Afghan we would have to pull out and the Taliban could easily take control as they had before. My opponents case attempts to support this. This would not be in the United States best interest whatsoever, what would be in the United States best interest it to rebuild Afghanistan and prevent safe havens for terrorists. Now that they war in Iraq is being won America can shift its focus. As I have shown, even if we did mass all our troops in Pakistan it would be pointless, the nuclear weapons that reside within Pakistan have already been shown to be in good hands. We must do what is most reasonable, and what will produce the greatest results in the security of the lives of the people in the United States, and that is by sticking with Obama's plan and making a notable difference. This is what is in our best interest, and this is why you should vote AFF.