Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US best interest."
Debate Rounds (3)
this is why I stand in firm affirmation of this topic.
Resolved: "President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest."
the instability of Afghanistan is the main reason as to why terrorism by Muslim extremist, al Qaeda and many others has been able to flourish.
which brings me to my first contention that: Afghanistan is a nation with an increasing level of active terrorist.
According to a list of terrorist organizations formed by the world trade center association, terror groups that reside in Afghanistan not only include Al Qaeda and the Taliban but also include 15 other groups. and the combined numbers in these groups are known to be from several hundred to several thousand. and to add on to that, according to an article Published in the Washington post on October 19, 2009, "the flow of terrorist recruits is increasing." so I stand here and say that obviously Afghanistan does have a terrorist problem that many people tend to over look, however, Obama's plan has brought this problem from the dark to the light, and we must act now.
Increasing the level of stability in Afghanistan, we would ultimately be putting ourselves in a better position in the war against terrorism.
According to an article published in late march 2009, by the guardians new and media, "Afghanistan only spends 2% of its GDP in education resulting in less than 25% secondary education enrollment, and less than 5% university enrollments and high literacy rates. with an uneducated population and many unoccupied male citizens, terrorism recruitment is as easy as possible. and even more unfortunately, on January 10, 2009, VP said that an unstable Afghanistan is a threat to us all. Obama;s plan stresses going into Afghanistan and stabilizing it as a nation. with education, a properly government, and nation control, Afghanistan will no longer be a target for terrorist recruiters, resulting in a shrink on terrorism, and ultimately ending in less of a threat to the U.S.
a Majority of America is in support of this plan.
According to an article published in politics daily on December 4, 2009, Americans backed up Obama's plan 62% to 36%. as we all know it is indeed America's job to tell our president how we feel, and the actions we believe should be taken in leading this country, and America has spoken. we have proved that we are ready to take action, ready to defeat the war in terrorism. and as I said before, it all begins with hitting it to the source. so evidently, with these reasons and more I hope that you can see that Barrack Obama's plan to increase troop in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest.
and I hope for a vote in Affirmation of this resolution. THANK YOU!!!!!
Anyway, here's my case:
In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in order to try to reinforce and prop up the country's weak communist government. At one point, the Soviet Union had over 100000 troops stationed in the country. However due to complex guerilla fighting campaigns by local insurgent and militia groups, a weak infrastructure, and a lack of a centralized government; the soviet military was unable to make any substantial political gains. Instead it became involved a long and costly cycle of warfare that ultimately amounted to a humiliating military and political failure. Preexisting conditions in Afghanistan have not significantly improved since the soviet invasion and U.S. efforts in the region so far have proven to be equally inept.
Therefore I negate the stated resolution, resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.
To better understand this resolution let us be reminded that the United States has been combating insurgents groups such as the Taliban and al Queda since the United States' entry into Afghanistan. The United States' purpose in Afghanistan is to eliminate these insurgents and fight the ongoing war against terrorism. President Obama has called for a troop surge of 30,000 in Afghanistan in order to bring a swift end to the insurgency, particularly along the eastern part of the country, which provides a "breeding ground" for terrorists. Such a measure would futile and costly; the reasons being that The United States military does not have the infrastructure to support 30000 more troops in Afghanistan and a troop surge will not make the job easier for our military.
C1: The United States military does not have the infrastructure to support 30000 more troops in Afghanistan.
According to Ed Hornick, Chris Lawrence and Frederik Pleitgen of CNN.com, "military leaders said it would be all but impossible to rush new troops to Afghanistan as quickly as they did Iraq." "A lack of paved roads outside the largest cities are easy places for the Taliban to place roadside bombs, known as IEDs, or improvised explosive devices." "The country is landlocked, and no navigable waterways lead to the ocean. Supplies must be flown in or shipped to Pakistan and driven to Afghanistan." "The weather also poses a problem for the troops. Temperatures can dip to -10 degrees Fahrenheit in winter and soar above 110 degrees in summer." "Most of the new forces will head south to places such as Camp Wolverine in southern Afghanistan, where construction is already under way to increase its capacity from 1,800 to 5,000 troops." ""But [the] problem is, it's getting there a little bit after the troop surge when it should have been vice versa, should have been support first or at the same time at least." Basically a greater amount of facilities and supplies are needed in order to support a troop surge this massive. It is impossible to implement the logistics of this operation in a short period of time. Due to Afghanistan's lack of infrastructure the basic needs of troops involved in the surge would not be met.
C2: A troop surge will not make our military more effective
Thus far American actions have been relatively ineffective at altering the lives of afghan citizens. According to George Will of The Washington Post, "Kabul controls only about a third of the country -- "control" is an elastic concept -- and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese, the Saigon regime." As can clearly deduce from this, the Afghanistan presidency, despite being the official and legitimate bureaucracy controlling the Afghanistan state, has actually very little de facto power and is considerably in a disadvantage in juxtaposition to the insurgent groups. Afghan insurgencies use guerrilla tactics, which make U.S. strategy difficult to implement. "The U.S. strategy is "clear, hold and build." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return, confident that U.S. forces will forever be too few to hold gains. Hence nation-building would be impossible." However 30000 more troops to the area would not make the clear and build strategy any more viable. "Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more." A troop surge would however require a much greater amount of spending and put more American lives at risk.
So far our military strategies have not worked and the troops in Afghanistan have not succeeded. A troop surge would be ineffective as these troops would be undersupplied and inefficiently deployed due to the countries lack of infrastructure and expanding the American presence in the area would not make the American military presence in the area more effectives. Therefore I ask you to support the con, that president Obama's plan will not be in the United States' best interest.
i would like to point out that my opponent has not attacked any of my Contentions so they all stand and can not be dismissed from this debate. And my opponent states things back all the way from 1979. So I believe that this evidence should be discredited because everyone has changed from the year 1979. We are more advanced and better equipped in this year of 2010. also my opponent says that they are landlocked that is true but because of that our enemies can pin point where our supplys are coming from and that helps out alot cause if we were taking a river they could just pick a point and wait for our troops to arrive while useing air craft has many transportion routes along with land craft.
From--Douglas Birch, Moscow Bureau Chief, on December 3, 2009 " i think we wasted eight years under the bush administration just wasting time and making things worse," said Gregory Feifer, Author of " the great gamble: soviet war in Afghanistan."
From CNN, December 7, 2009
"Afghanistan is certainly, historically, a difficult place to conquer and to rule, and the "graveyard of empires" does suggest some thing that are true, but they need to be strongly Qualified." said Porter. Though empires tend to fall after their Afghan skirmishes, he says, for the British this was largely down to World War II, for the soviets, it was ideological crisis in eastern Europe and for Alexander the Great it was a failure to ensure the stable succession of his Asian empire. "The notion of a "graveyard of empires" is actually a false extrapolation from something that is true, that there is tactical and strategic difficulty," says porter
Also Gen.Mccrystal stated that he needed 10,000 to about 80,000 troops, but they agreed on a happy middle of 30,000 troops.
Also Gen. Mccrystal said i can end this with just 10,000 to 80,000 more troops.
Also i would just like to say this many in America and around the world have wondered about MR.Obama's personal dedication to winning the war. The presidents speech offered a qualified answer. He said he must "weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces," and argued against a more expansive commitment to Afghanistan "because the nation I am most interest in building is our own." But he also described powerfully the threat posed by "violent extremism" and said; "it will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world." with obvious reluctance but with clear-headedness, Mr. Obama has taken a major step toward meeting that test.
this is why i can only see a AFF ballot in this debate
gayaznpanda94 forfeited this round.
all we are trying to do over in Afghanistan is restablize there government and let them help them selfs by feeling confident to fight there own wars and let them deal with there problems till they get back out of hand. and this way they can count on us and the same way around.
thank you and all i can see in this debate is a AFF ballot my contentions still stand firm and untouched thank very much and have a nice day
gayaznpanda94 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DavidSSabb94 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||3|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.