The Instigator
jimmye
Con (against)
Winning
60 Points
The Contender
Kirke32
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,662 times Debate No: 10880
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (10)

 

jimmye

Con

My partner and I negate the resolution resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest. 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 defense, domestic tranquility and promoting the general Welfare for purposes of this resolution.
Contention 1: The Afghan army is incompetent and the training them will be near impossible.
President Obama may or may not realize that Generals Petraeus and McChrystal cannot fix Afghanistan. They cannot stabilize or control it. What Petraeus and McChrystal can do is further entangle the United States, its resources and its forces in an unending war inside the ungovernable wasteland that lies between Iran and India.
According to Time Magazine, the centerpiece of Obama's exit strategy is the training of Afghan security forces to take responsibility for fighting the Taliban. Although the U.S. has officially trained 94,000 Afghan soldiers, there's no signs of an effective Afghan security force capable of fighting the Taliban.
Desertion rates are high; an estimated 1 in 4 soldiers trained last year deserted the army. Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Afghanistan did not have a powerful army or strong state before the U.S. went in nor does it have the oil wealth to pay for its own armed forces. There's also the question of whether they'll be willing to fight the Taliban on behalf of a foreign-backed government.
The Sunday Times reports that at any given moment, 20% to 30% of Afghani soldiers are absent without leave. Illiteracy is also high 70% of inventory receipts are signed with a thumbprint. This breeds corruption because a soldier who cannot read has no idea what he has just confirmed receipt of.
The $120 paid to the lowest ranks in the army means the force attracts those who have no other possibilities and need the three meals a day that come with the job; such desperate folk rarely feel guilty demanding bribes. Meanwhile, Taliban pay is reported to be anywhere from $250 to $350 a month.
Corruption is rife, and many police are addicted to drugs. There is some evidence that Hamid Karzai, the president inaugurated in 2009 amid allegations of fraud in the election and corruption in his government.
Contention 2- Increasing troops in Afghanistan will distract the president from more pressing domestic and foreign policy needs.
According to Stephen M. Walt professor at Harvard University, "Obama will have to devote a lot of time, a lot of time, attention, and political capital to the war in Afghanistan, an impoverished land locked country of modest strategic importance. So in addition to the human and financial cost of the decision to escalate in Afghanistan, throw in the opportunity costs. There are only 24 hours in a day and seven days in a week, and a lot of important issues are going to get less attention than they deserve."
According to David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Afghanistan is a costly distraction for the president, and the military. Every minute the president is focused on Afghanistan and every dollar we spend there is a withdraw from some other account, some higher priority." Rothkopf lists nine priorities that are more important than Afghanistan in the Middle East alone, including: dependence on oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction between Pakistan and India, the likelihood of a regional arms race, the growing influence of Muslim extremism is countries from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, the loss of influence of Russia and China in the region, deterioration of the Israeli--Palestinian situation, failure of the American Experiment in Iraq, and consequences of economic failures in the Gulf. Not only that but sending 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan will cost many lives as well as close to an addition 10 billion dollars a year.
Kirke32

Pro

Ok this is good for the USA because they need to get more troops into Afghanistan so that the people that are serving now can come home to their families
Debate Round No. 1
jimmye

Con

What you must see is Obama's plan is not in the best interest because the Afghan army is corrupt and training them will be near impossible. First off we need to look at the past, one of the objectives of the war on terrorism was to successfully train an Afghan security force enabling the United States to leave as soon as possible. Although the U.S. has officially trained 94,000 Afghan soldiers, there's no signs of an effective Afghan security force capable of fighting the Taliban. Also the Desertion rates are high; an estimated 1 in 4 soldiers trained last year deserted the army. Drug usage is rampant throughout the army, and police force. Corruption is a huge problem too, the soldiers and police are all underpaid, so they rarely if not at all feel guilty about accepting bribes. Too note how widespread the problem is lets look towards the 2009 election, where Hamid Karzai, the current president committed election fraud. Now if we look at the deadline Obama's set there is no way an entire country can change its mindset in just 18 months.

Now we need to look at the opportunity costs of Obama's plan. According to David Rothkopf, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Afghanistan is a costly distraction for the president, and the military. Every minute the president is focused on Afghanistan and every dollar we spend there is a withdraw from some other account, some higher priority." Rothkopf lists nine priorities that are more important than Afghanistan in the Middle East alone. This seemingly endless war will waste the lives of the Americans sent there along with an estimated 2 billion dollars a year. Now ask yourselves, is it in the best interest of the American people to be devoting so much in terms of resources, to train an army that is so incompetent? With all of this money, it could be spent elsewhere for example the 9 other higher priorities in the Middle East alone. Or better improve our own infrastructure and education systems? Is is in the best interest of the citizens to be fighting an endless war; or to be allowing that money to be better spent elsewhere?
Kirke32

Pro

If you had a family member fighting out there and Obama said "We want to send more troops so the ones currently there can come back" you would say no i want my family member to stay there ?????
Debate Round No. 2
jimmye

Con

Well what we need to look at is the objective of Obama's plan. The troops that are being sent to Afghanistan will not be withdrawn immediately following the 18 month time period. As soon as that 18 month period is up, Obama needs to reacquire the ground situation. So if we look too see how incompetent the army is most of the troops will be in Afghanistan a lot longer than 18 months. The British General David Richard who has served in Afghanistan states that the war could last as long as 40 years. So what we can see here is that if we favor the lives of our troops Obama's plan is not the the best interest for the United States.
Kirke32

Pro

well i agree but the more people serving down there the quicker we can get out
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by sammyH 6 years ago
sammyH
Eh....pro has no evidance, she is only basing things on opinions. she does not have a good argument at all. =\
Posted by sammyH 6 years ago
sammyH
Um. isnt it cheating for the debaters to vote?
O.O
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
RFD:

Conduct: Niether both fairly cordial

Spelling and Grammar: Con, even though by his stance he sounds schizophrenic....

Arguments: There were none by PRO

Sources: Con, even though they weren't explicitly cited.
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
Also edit your case before you submit it.
Posted by Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
PF stinks...
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
jimmyeKirke32Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ruined the debate.
Vote Placed by jimmye 6 years ago
jimmye
jimmyeKirke32Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
jimmyeKirke32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:61 
Vote Placed by DAKegger 6 years ago
DAKegger
jimmyeKirke32Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by tynews2001 6 years ago
tynews2001
jimmyeKirke32Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by ZKnecht 6 years ago
ZKnecht
jimmyeKirke32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
jimmyeKirke32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Kirke32 6 years ago
Kirke32
jimmyeKirke32Tied
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 Cherymenthol 6 years ago
Cherymenthol
jimmyeKirke32Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by Scott_Mann 6 years ago
Scott_Mann
jimmyeKirke32Tied
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:70