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

I have found it a bit difficult to understand but I will attempt to address it to the best of my ability. C1: I do not understand the overall point that is being made in the first paragraph, but I will attempt to address it. How does deploying 30,000 troops to Afghanistan help achieve the goals of the United States? I have already given my reasons for why it does not. I fail to see how surging to disengage, as you put it, is a viable strategy. You stated that, "The genius of Obama's reformulation of the U. S. commitment to Afghanistan is this-- Failure, if it comes, will follow a major surge of U. S. forces for about as long as it took to tame the insurgency in Iraq. " Supposing the operation does end in failure, as I have proposed it will, in what way does the fact that said failure follows a major surge of troops make this an ingenious idea? This strategy will not function the same way it did in Iraq because the political climate in Afghanistan is much different. The US exerts considerable influence over the Afghan government, but it does not control it in the manner it does in Iraq. That makes this short-term support strategy far less viable. C2: Barack Obama's personal commitment to winning the war has nothing to do with the viability of his strategy. I'm sure he is very strongly committed to achieving his goals but that does not in any way mean that his plan for increasing troops is in the best interest of the American people. This fact does not support your resolution. C3: I actually did give evidence to discredit the claim about the number of people that want Barack Obama's plan to be put in to action. I do not dispute that a large number of Americans may support it. However, just because a large number of people think something does not mean it is true. I don't think I need to got into that. C4: Wikipedia has been used as a source on this site consistently, including by the site administration itself. It is exceptionally well run by the standard of wiki's. If you dispute any specific fact I have brought up and can offer a better source, than I will in turn look to a better source in my favor. However, simply citing information from Wikipedia does not in any way discredit my argument. C5: I did in fact show evidence that sending more troops to Afghanistan is not in US interests because it will be used as propaganda by al Qaeda and will create a climate of violence and tension that can be blamed on the US by its enemies. However, I will admit I focused on dismissing the benefits of the plan rather than discussing the consequences. Deploying troops is an extremely expensive endeavor and the nation is already in an economic recession with a massive federal deficit. It will also be putting these troops in danger and will certain increase the number of US casualties. Conclusion: My opponent previously concluded by stating, "also again my oppoent has not show anything saying that sending more troops over to Afghanistan is not in the united states best interest. so i hope that all who vote take that into effect as well. " Though I have in fact given many reasons why this is not in the US interest, I don't believe that was even necessary. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, the burden of proof in matters of war is always on the attacker. The burden of proof is never on the pacifist to show why going to war is a bad idea since the costs of war are universally acknowledged. As I have dismissed all the possible benefits of this offensive strategy, it cannot be in the US' best interest simply by virtue of being an act of war.