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

So lets explain what has happened it simpler terms. Counter-insurgency is a means of winning the hearts and minds of people to build up Afghanistan, as said by Obama. I have dropped my nuclear arguments. My opponent claims he should win because of this. However, my argument that being in Afghanistan still stands. He provides arguments against this, and I have refuted those arguments. Additionally, my opponent has provided one alternative to this debate, focus our troops solely on Pakistan. He goes on to say that these terrorists will have an easy time getting these nuclear weapons unless we intervene. However, my evidence, and parts of my opponent's case, proves this contention to be irrelevant for the fact that these nuclear weapons will never be taken. I will outline a few pieces of evidence to support this. My opponent mentions in his case that "They [Al-Qaeda] are now insignificant" On a side note, the Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group with international objectives, whereas the Taliban are known for their national objectives. Now, my opponent says we should solely focus on Pakistan, this implies that we withdraw all of our troops out of other occupied countries, including Afghanistan. Now, bear with me, if the AL-QAEDA, are insignificant, and that "They [Pakistan] 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)." ((So with that out of the way, our presence in Pakistan would only be to drive out terrorists, since there is no nuclear threat. This is what my opponent clings to.)) Why would going to Pakistan be in the United States best interest? The answer actually is, that would be most likely in the United States WORST interest. We would seem weak, and then you can cross apply my opponent's contentions to help refute his own case :) First of all, if we put all of our eggs in one basket, as my opponent is advocating, we will be having a negative effect. All of the Afghanistan Taliban, and the Al-Qaeda would simply reclaim Afghanistan as they once previously had. As it is well known, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are taking refuge on the Afghan-Pakistan border. So, if my opponent is wanting to enter Pakistan and drive them out, the will have the same problem with terrain as mentioned in my opponents 1A Terrain makes winning an impossibility Here is a map that shows the almost symmetrical terrain around the border (where the terrorists are taking refuge). http://www.historycentral.com... So one must decide, which is in the best interest, putting all of your eggs in one basket which will have no effect as I have shown and send troops to rugged terrain only to shove the terrorists back into their stronghold, or send 30,000 troops to rebuild Afghanistan as I advocate. So Con 1A has been used against my opponents case. 1C.The war will be too costly 1C-1The cost to the US The cost of war will be much greater if we send and focus all of our troops in Pakistan because this will have the same drawback. 1C-2.The cost to Afghanistan Suddenly dropping in hundreds of thousands of troops in Pakistan will not be the smartest way to go. We have already set up ourselves in Afghanistan and are building up our economy while we add troops. The cost we also hit Pakistan just as hard. 1D. Military force NEVER works against terrorist organizations This actually confuses me as to why my opponent uses this contention when it directly contradicts his own. If we will be going into Pakistan with all of our troops to purge the terrorist threat, wont we be doing this through military action? Judges must decide, what is in the United States best interest, Military force that we both agree to wont work? Or a plan to build up a country through counter-insurgency to the point where it can sustain itself? 1E. We already accomplished our primary objective; we can't win more than victory Cross apply this to my case and my opponents and you can see that our plans in Afghanistan are clearly in the best interest of the United States over focusing on Pakistan. We have accomplished are primary objective, but now we need to make sure it stays this way. So the judges must decide here also, send all of our troops to Pakistan and do virtually nothing that would be in the best interest of the United States, or help Afghanistan to deny Taliban and Al-Qadeda members a safe haven? Contention 2- THE FOCUS OF OUR TROOPS SHOULD BE IN PAKISTAN EXCLUSIVELY, WHICH IS OUR BEST INTEREST Cross apply this to everything I have said this round to and you can clearly see that Pakistan is not in the United States best interest. ====== With everything aside. The question remains, as now developed by my opponent and myself What is in the United States best interest, Afghanistan or Pakistan? Because I have shown that much of my opponents case contradicts his stance we can see that the only sensible option of for the United States to go through with President Obama's plan to increase troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan hold know notable threat to the United States, as my opponent and I have shown, whereas Afghanistan can easily be turned BACK into the breeding ground for terrorism it once was. For these reasons, I stand in firm Affirmation Of the Resolution.