The Instigator
beedebate
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MrHardRock
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
MrHardRock
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,594 times Debate No: 10810
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

beedebate

Con

My partner and I believe that President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is NOT in the United States' best interest. Therefore we negate the resolution. We define "best interest" as an activity consistent with guidelines established in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. We specifically make reference to providing for the common defence, domestic tranquility and promoting the general Welfare for purposes of this resolution.

Contention one, the surge will not improve our national security thereby failing to meet the definition of being in our best interest. First, the surge does not strengthen the Afghan government or solve corruption in it. The New York Times' David Sanger writes that even Obama's most modest aims in Afghanistan "require a legitimate government in Kabul, one with the authority to manage the army and to rebuild an incompetent and corrupt police force. It also needs the ability to install competent governors and spend Western aid effectively." The surge will provide none of these elements.
Second, Obama's plan includes a pullout date starting May of 2011. In order to hand the responsibility of security for Afghanistan over to the government there must be a great increase in Afghan military and security forces. According to Juan Cole, President of the Global Americana Institute, Obama's plan depends heavily on training 100,000 new soldiers and 100,000 new policemen over the next three years. It has taken 8 years to train the first 100,000 soldiers fairly well, and the same period for the Europeans to train a similar number of police badly. Can the pace really be more than doubled and quality results still obtained? The "soldiers" of the ANA are very difficult to train. Robert Pelton, an ex- NATO top advisor reports, "You don't need to train an Afghan soldier to fight, the real trick is convincing him not to use his body armor plate to cook his dinner." Clearly our soldiers need more than eighteen months to adequately train the ANA to be fully prepared. Kori Schake, an associate professor at West Point and a former National Security Council staffer in the Bush administration, said the timetable Obama is laying out is "completely unrealistic." Washington has been unable to commit the kind of civilian resources needed to help Afghanistan build civil institutions and has "an imperfect partner" in Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government, she said. It is unlikely to meet its goals for standing up an effective military and police force in that time.

Contention two, Operation Enduring Freedom, the description for our mission in Afghanistan, has largely been accomplished. According to Major Jeremy Kotkin, Strategist of US Special Operations Command: "The specified tasks, and therefore justification for, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM were limited: to destroy terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, capture al-Qaeda leaders, and, through military means, forcibly stop terrorist activities in Afghanistan." Note that General McChrystal stated: "I do not see indications of a large al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan now," "We know that South Asia is no longer their primary base," a source in the US defense agency said to the Washington Times. "They are looking for a hide-out in other parts of the world and continue to expand their organization." In fact Al-Qaeda has taken responsibility for the recent attempted terrorist act on the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. The Al Qaeda branch that took responsibility is based in Yemen. The conclusion is that adding troops in Afghanistan does not specifically address Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization with agents throughout the world.

Contention Three- Taxpayer dollars should be spent in the US best interest. The President's plan represents an expenditure of the US government. The resolution asks us to establish best interest. One way to establish "best interest" is to ascertain if there are more important expenditures for which the funds could be allocated. Note that according to AP: Since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan only 861 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. Now compare this to the number of murders in the U.S. According to the FBI and CIA, there are over 16,000 murders per year on U.S. soil and nearly 12,000,000 crimes nationwide. The projected cost of sending a single soldier to fight in Afghanistan is $775,000. These taxpayer funds, which could easily be used to strengthen our police departments to fight the rampant crime in the U.S., would be an example of "US best interest" as defined in the Constitution's goal to protect the general welfare, domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. Thus the President's plan is not in the best interest of the United States because there are better alternatives for the taxpayers' dollars.

For these reasons, my partner and I negate the resolution.
MrHardRock

Pro

Hello, Thank you beedebate for starting this debate.
I hate to tell you I disagree.

The increase of troops in Afghanistan is in the US's best interest.

Obama would not send more soldiers to Afghanistan if he thought it was an evil thing to do.(If that's what you meant by best interest if not keep reading)

The increase of troops will help stabilize the country and make the US presence more notable. This will help demoralize young soldiers thinking of joining The Taliban until we start to pull out. One thing I do agree on with you is that the pull out date is bad idea. We should not label any certain date to pull out and keep our soldiers there as long as it takes to finish the job.

I also agree with you that we should have sent more soldiers as General McKiernan request 30,000 and Obama only sent 17,000

Our increasing of troops in Afghanistan is to make sure there is absolutely no terrorist presence in that area. Yes we are not going to destroy the entire organization as you had said it is all over the world.
That means the war on terrorism is not yet over, but the war in Afghanistan may be coming to an end.

You then say that spending taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan is not in the US's best interest and would be better spent improving out police force. I believe this to be false as we should first eliminate terrorist threats before worrying about crime in our own states as terrorist usually posses more threat towards human lives. It is in our best interest to protect the lives of our citizens before improving our police forces and protecting lets say there car.

I await con's response
but in the meantime Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
beedebate

Con

beedebate forfeited this round.
MrHardRock

Pro

since my opponent has not defended his points or made new arguments I have nothing to say and await their response
Debate Round No. 2
beedebate

Con

beedebate forfeited this round.
MrHardRock

Pro

Okay?
Well since I doubt my opponent will return I will then make more arguments to make sure I win.

It is also in the US's best interest to send more troops to Afghanistan because

It will help reverse the momentum the Taliban is gaining from lack of manpower

General McChrystal said that the insurgents numbers in the area are increasing and he needs more men to cover the entire area and eliminate them.

Also look at history we did not send more troops to Korea and look at what that is like now. We are still there wasting lives and money.

We did not send more troops to Vietnam and look what happened there. lost over 60,000 men and fled the country with our tails between our legs leaving our allies to fall to communism.

We could face similar failures in Afghanistan if we did not send more troops and we do not want to face defeat again.
Debate Round No. 3
beedebate

Con

beedebate forfeited this round.
MrHardRock

Pro

Ok??? Confused to as why she made this debate to only post an opening argument, but its cool with me.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 4tunatecookie 6 years ago
4tunatecookie
The pro side's argument is shallow and doesn't properly defend the resolution. The con side's been absent but presents a more promising argument and a better understanding of the resolution. Just saying.
Posted by MrHardRock 6 years ago
MrHardRock
http://www.cnn.com...

he sent 12,000 with another 5,000 expected at a later date
Posted by EHS_Debate 6 years ago
EHS_Debate
"I also agree with you that we should have sent more soldiers as General McKiernan request 30,000 and Obama only sent 17,000"

Obama sent 30,000.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mathwiz25 6 years ago
Mathwiz25
beedebateMrHardRockTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ricky78 6 years ago
ricky78
beedebateMrHardRockTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by MrHardRock 6 years ago
MrHardRock
beedebateMrHardRockTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07