The Instigator
pofoer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EHS_Debate
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the U.S.' 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 2 votes the winner is...
EHS_Debate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,707 times Debate No: 10686
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

pofoer

Pro

I stand on the affirmative side of the following R="President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest."

The following definitions have been provided for the clarification of the round:

increasing troops in Afghanistan: the recently announced plan of president Obamas that shows how he plans to increase troops in afghanistan to 30,000 more

U.S. best interests: Not only the welfare of the US people but we must take into account whether this is going to bring welfare for our Economy, Political standing, foreign affairs, and security.

30,000 new U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan "at the fastest possible pace." In July 2011, 18 months from now, the U.S. will "begin to transfer our forces out of Afghanistan."
• An aspect of the plan said by president obama wasNo more "blank checks" to the Afghan government; the U.S. expects those it assists to combat corruption and "deliver for the people," and those "who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable."
•The U.S. goals in Afghanistan are to "deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future."

CONTENTION 1: Success In Afghanistan Is In The United States' Best Interest.
Success in Afghanistan would lead to the end of the lawless and chaotic country of Afghanistan as we know it. If we put an end to this chaos there will be no longer a corrupted government that can create the chaos and improsperity needed for the creation and sustenance of radical terrorist groups such as Al quadea that have shown that can hurt us horribly. Therefore by stabilizing afhganistan we will have greatly reduced the risk of another terrorist group arising and the sustainance of existing ones therefore this would not only be in the best interest of our security but also the welfare of our people, our political standing as any countries will praise us for putting and end to this because these terrorist groups also have massive attacks that hurt their country, foreign affairs as said before our political standing would be higher and through afghansitan we would have opended communication to other middle east countires which could be great assets in the war against terrorisim. This would help our economy because despite the fact that it is going to take a lot of money to deploy our troops it takes more to sustain the for a year so by sending more troops and ending the war we would have save more money then going on with the troops we have and taking longer or not winning the war at all. This leads to my second contention
SOURCE: Laksin in 2009,
•Jacob Laksin. [Managing Editor of Frontpage Magazine]. "Obama's Hedged Bet on Afghanistan." FrontPageMag.com. December 2, 2009. http://frontpagemag.com.... Accessed December 8, 2009.
CONTENTION 2: Under The Obama Plan The Generals Will Have Sufficient Troops to win the war: Our very capable field commander, General Stanley McChrystal, will have 100,000 American troops by the middle of next year to take the fight to the enemy and regain the initiative in the war. General McChrystal has ex‐ pressed confidence in his ability to execute his strategy with these resources. McChrystal has not stood still while the administration was pondering its options he made his forces move rapidly to set the conditions to take advantage of the surge of forces, accomplishing a number of important tasks that will make the job of taking the fight to the enemy when they get the first few installments of the extra troops in 2010. So by using my contention and this contention and using the transtivitve property that if A leads to B and B leads to C then A leads to C we can say if winning the war is our best interest and president obamas plan c does it then president obama's plan is in our best interests.

Kagan & Kristol in 2009,
Frederick W. Kagan [Director of the Critical Threats Project, American Enterprise Institute] and William Kristol [Founder and Editor of The Weekly Standard]. "Supporting the President; Beyond the Squabbling and Behind the Mission." The Weekly Standard. December 14, 2009. Gale: Academic OneFile. Accessed December 14, 2009.

I urge an affirmitive vote as I have proved the resolution true.
EHS_Debate

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate with him.

I agree to his definitions of increasing troops in Afghanistan and U.S. best interests.

======

My opponent states this early on:

"In July 2011, 18 months from now, the U.S. will "begin to transfer our forces out of Afghanistan.""

I strongly believe that this is not true.

"The US won't pull out of Afghanistan in 2011.

President Obama's top national security adviser, who has played a key part in designing the new Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, has been trying to clear up some confusion about the exit strategy.

Gen James Jones told me that "in no manner, shape or form" would the US withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011."

http://www.democraticunderground.com...

======

I will now refute my opponent's case

======

CONTENTION 1: Success In Afghanistan Is In The United States' Best Interest.

I have strong problems with my opponent's first contention. The United States has already proven successful. According to General James Jones there are only 100 insurgents left within Afghanistan. Because the U.S. is already acting effectively I don't believe sending 30,000 more troops is in the United States best interest.

Then, my opponent's source is faulty.

"Jacob Laksin. [Managing Editor of Frontpage Magazine]. "Obama's Hedged Bet on Afghanistan." FrontPageMag.com. December 2, 2009. http://frontpagemag.com....... Accessed December 8, 2009.

Here is an excerpt from the above sited article,

"I don't even think that the President himself was persuaded by his own speech that his strategy would be successful. And he did not appear to have the passion to win"

Obama failed to use the word "œwin"� even once in his 33 minute speech at West Point"

This article does not support the PRO case whatsoever, as it looks down upon Obama�€™s plan on increasing troops.

======

Contention 2 : Under The Obama Plan The Generals Will Have Sufficient Troops to win the war.

That is not the point. There are a very small number of terrorists left in Afghanistan, the rest have fled to Pakistan, where U.S. drones are already scouting.

Why then, would the United States need to send troops to a country that doesn�€™t need them? Because of this, it is not the United States best interest to do this.

Being committed to Afghan for the next 8-10 years will cost approximately $800-900 billion.
For only the first year of marines, costs are approx. $30 billion.
The U.S. does not have this money; we are already in unnecessary war debt.

It is not the best interest of the U.S. to send troops where they are not necessarily needed.

======

I will now post my own case

======

In an article about Obama's approach on Afghanistan Rebecca Griffin on March 27 2009 said that

President Obama was mistaken when he stated in his speech, "the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan." The United States did have to respond to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There were, however, more effective alternatives to military force, but the debate was clouded in the heated response to the attack. Terrorists are criminals of the worst kind, but they are not warriors. Terrorist networks are not the same as armies at war with the United States, and they need to be dealt with differently. The RAND Corporation has demonstrated that military force is almost never effective against terrorist groups, and that policing and intelligence work does work. It would be impossible and unwise to occupy every country where terrorists may be plotting.

It is not too late for the US to switch to proven, effective, nonmilitary counterterrorism tools such as policing and intelligence.

My partner and I stand in firm negation that President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

I would now like to provide a few key definitions within this debate.
Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan- Earlier this year at West Point New York, President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan, nearly tripling the force he inherited as commander in chief.
United States- can also be referred to as the people of the United States as a whole. Not just the government.

Best interest- producing the greatest satisfaction

Now for our arguments. My partner and I have created 3 contentions that indefinitely support the negation.
1) The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.
2) The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.
3) We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

Contention One- The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.

Under the constitution, Article 1 Section 10, "No State shall…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001 was, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, largely planned in the United States by terrorists who were in our country legally. A draft of the war in Afghanistan has never been drafted, therefore, it is unconstitutional to go to war with Afghan.

In his speech on November 18 of last year, Ron Paul states that, "Under the constitution, your supposed to declare the war, know who your enemy is, and know when you can declare victory, and bring the troops home."

We did that up until World War II, but since then we must have forgotten.

Contention Two- The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.

The president's National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim.

Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? Remember that this debate focuses soley on the 30,000 troops being sent to Afghan.

Contention III- We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.

This 30,000 "surge" will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful.

In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander, Marshal Sergei Akhromeev, told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, "Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nonetheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels." Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure. Thousands were dead on both sides, yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government.

The United States government should take heed of the past and make the right decision.

======

SOURCES:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com...

http://www.democraticunderground.com...

"Jacob Laksin. [Managing Editor of Frontpage Magazine]. "Obama's Hedged Bet on Afghanistan." FrontPageMag.com. December 2, 2009. http://frontpagemag.com....... Accessed December 8, 2009.
Debate Round No. 1
pofoer

Pro

I will now refute my opponents contentions and strengthen mine.

Contention One- The war in Afghanistan is clearly unconstitutional.
My opponents fails to make any connection why this isn't in our best interests and the part of the constitution he posted doesn't say anything about anything relevant other than states cannot invade unless attacked upon. We are fighting this war as a whole united country not as states. And Congress did consent for the war along when in consented for the Iraq War. What Ron Paul said wasn't a law. It was a protocol that was discontinued since war with its surprising outcomes didn't allow us to with one plan and many times we didn't know who we were fighting. Now I have refuted their 1st contention.
Now going on to their 2nd contention.
Contention Two- The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.
This fully makes sense because my opponent is focusing on how that this isn't needed for only a 100 al queada operatives. This isn't only al Quadea we are fighting now as my opponent say this focuses on them going to Afghan not going to fight a specific enemy. The reason the troops are being sent is to protect Afghanistan from becoming a base to the al-quadea and for the Taliban to regain control of Afghan so that we can stabilize Afghanistan once and for all and not worry about the birth of another terrorist group or about Afghan using as meeting place for planning terrorist attack. Having refuted my opponents 2nd contention I shall move to the 3rd.
Contention III- We should be retreating out of Afghanistan like the Soviets did in the 1980's.
This makes no sense as my opponent doesn't a give a reason other than it happened to the Soviets. The Soviets were doing this for their own self interest not to create a stable government and the were also against us the US at the time when we were supplying the Mujahadeen with weapons to fight of the communists because we were afraid of communism at the time. We will not lose in Afghanistan because we have 50+ nations helping us and we are just trying to create a new government for the Afghan neither of what the Soviets had. I have now refuted my opponents 3rd and last contention. I shall now go to my own contention.
CONTENTION 1: Success In Afghanistan Is In The United States' Best Interest.
My opponent says just because their are only 100 terrorist left we should not worry and we should not increase troops. This isn't just about al-quada any more we are sending the troops so that we may set things right for the final push toward afghan stability.
For the source I used an older version of my sources wit ha newer version of my case so the fault is mine so here is the right one http://www.heritage.org.... Now that I have successfully defended my 1st contention I will move onto the second one.

Contention 2 : Under The Obama Plan The Generals Will Have Sufficient Troops to win the war.
We aren't just going for Al-Quadea as I have stated numerous times before we are protecting the government so it can stabilize itself. This country is in a severe need of troops and if we don't do this it threatens virtually every countries security interest including ours therefore it is in our best interest. My opponent them self said it is going to take 800 to 900 billion for a war of 8 years but by having this troop increase we will be able to end it in 4 years maximum thus bringing the war debt to 430 billion over 900 billion. Therefore the troop increase is in our best interests.
For the following reasons I urge a affirmative side.
EHS_Debate

Con

I will begin by building up my own case and then refuting my opponents.

======

Contention One - The War in Afghanistan is Clearly Constitutional.

My opponent tries to sweeten the fact that there is no war draft for Afghanistan. Without a war draft this "war" is unconstitutional. How can an unconstitutional war be in the United States best interest? It can't.

My opponent also states that

"What Ron Paul said wasn't a law."

I never contended to prove that what he said was law. But he sums it up nicely with regards to Afghanistan. I have successfully held up this contention.

======

Contention Two - The addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense.

My opponent's refutation is "This fully makes sense because my opponent is focusing on how that this isn't needed for only a 100 al queada operatives"

I am not focusing on that alone. By the addition of 30,000 troops does not make sense I also meant that it wouldn't work and therefore not be in the United States best interest.

Graham E. Fuller states somewhat lengthly,

"The "objective" situation in Afghanistan remains a mess. The details are well known. Senior commanders acknowledge that we are not now winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan; indeed, we never can, and certainly not at gunpoint. Most Pashtuns will never accept a US plan for Afghanistan's future. The non-Pashtuns - Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, etc. - naturally welcome any outside support in what is a virtual civil war. America has inadvertently ended up choosing sides. US forces are perceived by large numbers of Afghans as an occupying army inflicting large civilian casualties."

These extra 30,000 troops will not aid in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, instead they will present more American targets to attack. Along with this, Afghan nationalist pride will rise, as pride always seems to rise within a nation that is being occupied by foreign nations.

Failure. There are three basic reasons that increasing troop deployments to Afghanistan will fail.

- Inadequate troops. Some say as many as 600,000 troops are needed to stabilize Afghanistan.

- Alienation. Adding more troops could alienate the populace, driving them into the hands of Al Qaeda.

- Other parts of the plan. Committing to withdrawing within 18 months could undermine stabilization goals.

======

Contention Three - XXXXXXX

I am dropping this contention as it is not completely relevant. However, the dropping of this contention should not harm my chances of winning this debate. Note that my opponent has two contentions also :)

======

I will now refute my opponents contentions.

AFFCon One - Success In Afghanistan Is In The United States' Best Interest.

I have revised my arguments on this contention. First off, my opponent hardly builds up this contention by providing a link. The problem is, success can't be reached with 30,000 troops. So yes, I agree that Success in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest, but this success is not found through Obama's plan. Therefore, Obama's plan is not in the United States best interest.

======

AFFCon Two - Under The Obama Plan The Generals Will Have Sufficient Troops to win the war.

It seems as though I have found two important flaws in my opponent's argument.

First, The whole of my opponent's arguments is that the 30,000 troops are going to help train more Afghan troops. Obama said in his own speech that

"Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan Security Forces. For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police."

So Obama states that 4,000 will be plenty to help the infastructure of Afghanistan. Why then, do we need 30,000?

Second, my opponent states

"but by having this troop increase we will be able to end it in 4 years maximum thus bringing the war debt to 430 billion over 900 billion. Therefore the troop increase is in our best interests."

Part of Obamas plan is to withdraw troops within 18 months. Not four years. However,,, as stated earlier.

"The US won't pull out of Afghanistan in 2011.

President Obama's top national security adviser, who has played a key part in designing the new Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy, has been trying to clear up some confusion about the exit strategy.

Gen James Jones told me that "in no manner, shape or form" would the US withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011."

Because Obama's plan was to withdraw in 18 months and now it is known that he most likely lied his plan as a whole is not in the United States best interest.

==

Also, as I have shown in my second contention, under the Obama Plan the generals will NOT have sufficient troops to win the war anyway.
I have now refuted this contention sufficiently.

======

SOURCES :

http://www.usnews.com...

gothamist.com/2009/.../obamas_afghanistan_plans_30000_more.php

http://www.planetdebate.com...

http://www.campaignforliberty.com......

http://www.democraticunderground.com......

"Jacob Laksin. [Managing Editor of Frontpage Magazine]. "Obama's Hedged Bet on Afghanistan." FrontPageMag.com. December 2, 2009. http://frontpagemag.com.......... Accessed December 8, 2009.

Graham E. Fuller is a former CIA station chief in Kabul and a former vice-chair of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He is author of numerous books on the Middle East, including "The Future of Political Islam." Christian Science Monitor, December 2, 2009, Obama speech: kicking the can down the road in Afghanistan," p. 9
Debate Round No. 2
pofoer

Pro

pofoer forfeited this round.
EHS_Debate

Con

My case still stand that President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is NOT in the United State's best interest. My opponent has forfeited this round and therefore concedes to all of my new arguments.

I thank-you for this debate and strongly urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sammyH 7 years ago
sammyH
hehe okey. just wondering. I hafta write a case for my debate class its due friday!!
and im conpletley confused. i need to write a case for aff n neg. I CANT EVEN GET A CLAIM!!!
im gunna get a F in that class T-T
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
AGHH. huge tourny tomorrow. time to print my evidence out.. gonna be a long night
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
at SammyH: for real? cmon use common sense... how are you gonna have crossfire? rounds online are rounds of debate... crossfire would use up three halves of a round to answer and ask both ways and cover everything. No, online there is no cross examination
Posted by sammyH 7 years ago
sammyH
theres no cross examination?
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
thats a good idea hahaha
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
In my actual case I've dropped the constitution argument.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
Pro wasn't really presenting a substantive case. Con might've won... Anyways EHS_debate remember how you added me and asked for a critique in one of your other debates? Well here's my first criticism... About your unconsitutionality contention. How do you gain any ground? Let me put it this way..
1) We have been attacked by terrorists, so this is technically an undeclared war on their part
2) Even if they hadn't declared war, we have to "provide for the common defense" (in the constitution)
2a- If they put a gun to your head, or hijack a plain with a bomb and point it to a government building, do you have to wait until they hit you to respond?
2a1- If so, then the constitution violates itself (can't provide defense in anticipation)
2a2- If not, then the consitution vilates itself (defending yourself subjects you to felony)
2b- If they shoot you in the head or crash the plane without declaring war, do you have to wait until they declare it to take action?... I could go on for ever but seriously consider revision.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
I used to have a full length intro with a part of Ron Paul's speech in my case. :)
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
OK job, Con -- definitely better than Pro. Nice citation of Ron Paul though.
Posted by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
Thanks. I figured I'd give it a look.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
pofoerEHS_DebateTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by EHS_Debate 7 years ago
EHS_Debate
pofoerEHS_DebateTied
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