The Instigator
fhsdebatenovice
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/29/2009 Category: News
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,070 times Debate No: 10606
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

fhsdebatenovice

Pro

Its a hotly debate topic in the newsworld.
Danielle

Con

Okay, so prove it...
Debate Round No. 1
fhsdebatenovice

Pro

As best said by John McCain, " We cannot let the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies conquer Afghanistan once more. Failure of this kind would also destabilize the entire strategically vital region, including nuclear-armed Pakistan." Since 2001, the USA and many other countries have been fighting in a nasty war against the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Islamic militants in Afghanistan. This war has consumed too many valuable US citizens, innocent Afghan civilians and needs to be ended soon. However, we cannot handover countries to the radical rule of Islamic groups such as the Al Qaeda. If we do not increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, the whole world's future is in jeopardy. Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States best interest. I'd like to offer the following definitions for clarity: Al Qaeda: An international terrorist organization whose goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic" and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. Best: Excelling all others.
Contention#1 USA need to finish the war in Afghanistan to save lives
Since 2001, the USA and many other forces have been fighting the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Radical Islamic Militants who are trying to gain a foothold in Afghanistan. Since then around 866 Americans have died in combat according to the US Department of Defense. By sending more troops to Afghanistan, we can end this now and we make sure that this war does not drag on for longer which will take not only young American lives but also innocent Afghan. According to CNN and John McCain, this war cannot be won with any less than an additional 40,000 troops. According to Obama's plan, the USA will send 30,000 to 40,000 extra troops and NATO will send another 5,000 troops to help end this war. With this many soldiers, the USA and the world will be able to win and accomplish its goal of wiping out Al Qaeda and any radical Islamic groups harboring in Afghanistan. Eliminating radical Islamic presence in Afghanistan will also stop the many human rights violations which have occurred repeatedly during the Taliban rule and free the Afghan people. The troop increase is the best options not only for the USA but for the whole world.
Contention#2 The monetary and human costs of an 9/11 attack are much more than the cost of sending troops to Afghanistan.
The cost of the September 11 attacks came to around $2 trillion dollars with a tremendous fall in global markets which is incalculable (Institute for the Analysis of Global Security). With the tremendous monetary costs were the 3,000 innocent human lives that died on that terrifying day. We cannot let an attack like that happen again. However, the only way we can guarantee that is by taking down the organization which helped the 19 killers, Al Qaeda. By sending 40,000 more troops we have a better chance of capturing Osama bin Laden and making sure an attack so brutal never occurs again. The costs for sending this many troops will be high, around $40 billion dollars. However, this is much lower than how much an attack such as 9/11 would cost and we can save many innocent lives. No amount is too much when it could save innocent people.
There is no question that President Barack Obama made the right decision in sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Because of this, the war will end sooner not putting our future in jeopardy. Finally it will cost less money and innocent human lives to send troops to Afghanistan to root out Osama bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda. I urge a pro ballot in today's case.
Danielle

Con

== 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...
Debate Round No. 2
fhsdebatenovice

Pro

fhsdebatenovice forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

My opponent has been online plenty of times in the past 3 days, yet has chosen not to respond to my arguments... probably because he had no real intentions of debating this, and just wanted me to write a case for his upcoming HS debate. That said, this has been essentially a 1 round debate in which I have addressed and negated Pro's 2 contentions, but he has not responded to any of my 7 arguments. I'd like to thank Pro anyway for the opportunity of debating this hot topic in current events and perhaps we will meet again. Thanks and good luck :)
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sammyH 6 years ago
sammyH
erm....can i have the site where you got the quote from McCain?
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
RFD: Given Pro's forfeit, my superior arguments and my plethora of sources... All points to Con.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
fhsdebatenoviceDanielleTied
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 Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
fhsdebatenoviceDanielleTied
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 popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
fhsdebatenoviceDanielleTied
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 Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
fhsdebatenoviceDanielleTied
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