Troop Increase in Afghanistan

The almost-forgotten war in Afghanistan has dragged on for a weary eight years. President Barack Obama is under the impression that a significant increase in troops, an additional 30,000 to be exact, will lead to a more timely and decisive victory, subsequent withdrawal from the region, as well as a trained Afghan army and police force capable of protecting its own citizens. In short, the President hopes that an increased presence in the region will lead to success in combating its threats (Taliban, Al Qaeda, and even drugs). Unfortunately, President Obama’s reasoning is flawed. An increase of American troops in Afghanistan will only breed more hate, as it paints the US as imperialists. But more importantly, more troops do not necessarily mean more success. For the following reasons, my partner and I stand in negation of the resolution when it states, Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest.

Our first area of analysis will focus on why an increase in US military personnel is unnecessary to combat Al Qaeda. General Stanley McChrystal’s call for an increase in troops portrays the ongoing military campaign in Afghanistan as failing. But is this really true? As Fareed Zakaria wrote in the October issue of Newsweek, “The United States has had one central objective: to deny Al Qaeda the means to reconstitute, train, and plan major terror attacks. This mission has been largely successful for the past eight years. Al Qaeda is dispersed, on the run, and unable to direct attacks of the kind it planned and executed routinely in the 1990s. Fourteen of the top 20 leaders of the group have been killed by drone attacks. Its funding sources are drying up, and its political appeal is at an all-time low.” If the success of the war was based solely on the success of Al Qaeda (or lack there of), then this war has been won. General James Jones, Barack Obama’s national security advisor, noted, "The Al Qaeda...