Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best

== Rebuttal 1== Pro's argument is that increasing troops in Afghanistan will save lives, when in fact troop surges have NOT increased security in Afghanistan. So far 2009 has been the bloodiest year in Afghanistan (with the troop surges) taking more lives than any other year [1]. So how can there be an argument that this policy will save lives when in fact it has cost lives? The only argument Pro has put forth is that many American and Afghan lives have been lost thus far; however, that's simply because we're over there in the first place. Pro's plan calls for more lives lost - not less. Pro asserts that by sending more troops, it is more likely that the U.S. will win this war. However, increasing troops has only proven to upset the people in the region even more and even pushed them into supporting the Taliban [1]. Further, while Pro mentions that eliminating radical groups in the region will stop many of the human rights violations, many of what we consider HR violations are merely a part of Muslim culture. I don't see how the argument that we have a moral obligation to help these people applies to Afghanistan more than any other third-world country. There are other nations that are also experiencing extreme hardships and conflicts, and yet we're not sending troops all over. == Rebuttal 2 == Pro brings up 9/11 and mentions that the horrific events from that day have hurt both the U.S. economy and took the lives of innocent people. While this is true, an economics argument hardly works in my opponent's favor. So far we have spent over 3.6 billion dollars in Afghanistan [2] while seeing no economic gains or returns. While it's tragic that 3,000 lives were lost on 9/11, an increase in troops only leads to more death - including American death - and we haven't seen any economic incentives to say the least seeing as how this war has only drained our economy. Pro says that the cost of 9/11 is more than the cost of increasing troops. However, there is no reason to assume that 9/11 or something like it will ever happen again. The reason the 9/11 conspiracy was successful was because "federal, state, and local agencies responsible for basic security fell down on the job, failing to install even minimally adequate security measures in the nation's airports. The national-security apparatus wasn't paying attention "indeed, it ignored or downplayed all sorts of warning signs, not least of all Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States" [3]. In other words, the so-called War on Terror and/or at least increased security and awareness by federal agencies devoted to securing our nation will be just as if not more effective at thwarting another 9/11-like attack as increasing troops in Afghanistan. == Argument 1 == Now in addition to the rebuttals I have put forth to Pro's 2 contentions, there are other reasons why NOT increasing troops in Afghanistan is the best way to go. For example, not increasing troops doesn't necessarily mean pulling out of Afghanistan prematurely. It simply means not ADDING more, thus saving lives and money. I propose that one alternative to the resolution is keeping the number of troops in Afghanistan to accomplish certain goals the same as it is now. == Argument 2 == Increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan cannot bring success in a reasonable time frame. The U.S. must narrow their objectives. As Jeffrey Simpson said, Afghanistan has a deep rooted history of warlords, intimidation, bribery and decentralization. He also notes that in regard to cutting off the insurgents' supplies of money, how does this get done when the sources are in Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan and the poppy fields of the south? How do you patrol a Pakistan-Afghanistan border that is almost completely porous? [4] Increasing troops in Afghanistan is not the way to accomplish these goals. == Argument 3 == One way to achieve success is not to increase our troops, but take a different war strategy - thwarting terrorists with targeted strikes (instead of increasing troops). George Will wrote in a September 1, 2009 editorial, "Americans should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous, 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters." Similar to the ideology behind bombing Hiroshima during WWII, the idea here is to save American lives. == Argument 4 == Another approach is to abandon violence all-together and look toward diplomacy. Ambassador Holbrooke should be engaging with the locals with the goal of achieving cooperation on addressing ongoing conflicts, strengthening civilian rule of law, and promoting economic development. These are all things that would empower Afghans and improve the conditions of their lives. Meanwhile, increasing troops only accomplishes targeting innocent Afghan civilians and tarnishing America's reputation. It also encourages the locals to support the Taliban rather than the U.S. While we may have good intentions, in the end they'd rather be ruled by fundamentalists than be dead. == Argument 5 == As I've said, Afghanistan has a bad history and diplomacy does not always prevail, though greed does. Thus 'buying our enemies' out might be a successful way to actually win the war. "The central problem in Afghanistan is that the Pashtuns, who make up 45 percent of the country and almost 100 percent of the Taliban, do not feel empowered. We need to start talking to them, whether they are nominally Taliban or not. Buying, renting, or bribing Pashtun tribes should become the centerpiece of America's stabilization strategy, as it was Britain's when it ruled Afghanistan... if we make the right deals, it will be ruled by leaders who keep the country inhospitable to Al Qaeda and terrorist groups like it." [5] == Argument 6 == More troops in Afghanistan will certainly be received with concern and anger in the Islamic world. This will make it more difficult for Western and Middle Eastern countries to work together toward mutual objectives, such as peace between Israel and Palestine [6]. == Argument 7 == Peter Navarro correctly points out that Afghanistan is now just one of many possible staging areas for al-Qaida. In fact, it is now much easier for al-Qaida's decentralized networks to conduct operations in numerous other places, with Algeria, Somalia, and Yemen emerging as the newest strongholds. Why aren't we invading them? [7] == Conclusion == While Afghanistan poses somewhat of a threat to the US, there are other countries that are far more dangerous the lives and well-being of Americans, i.e. Mexico. The war in Afghanistan has already gone on 50% longer than America's involvement in two other world wars. Throughout history, many countries (like Britain) have tried to 'save' Afghanistan and have failed with military force. The best way to go about "winning" this war is via bribery and/or diplomacy as history suggests. If we DO use force, then increasing troops isn't the answer but narrowing our objectives and targeting hot spots using more technology and less human resources IS. Increasing troops in Afghanistan is only increasing Islamic hostility toward the U.S. and hurting our side (negating our objectives) and costing us far more resources than we can afford. Given the alternatives, increasing troops is NOT in the US's best interest. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.fas.org... [3] http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.theglobeandmail.com... [5] http://www.newsweek.com... [6] http://www.fcnl.org... [7] http://www.ocregister.com...