Is Obama’s plan for increasing troops in the United States’ best interest?

YES

By: Taylor Herring

Obama’s plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan is the most probable and feasible idea for counterinsurgency. After eight years of fighting the war overseas, the military and officials are desperate for the light at the end of the tunnel. With Obama’s proposed plan and timeline in check, insurgency will only continue its recent fall.

The actual plan itself entails to first deny the Taliban and Al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan. As of the past several years, the American troops have been using the strategy of driving the terrorists out, city to city. This has seemed to work, to some extent, but there is one problem: the terrorists are being driven out of one city by American troops, and as soon as the troops move on to the next city, the terrorists move directly back in. This is simply a viscous cycle that almost guarantees failure in Afghanistan. Obama’s plan, however, offers to not only force the Taliban to flee the cities at that time, but to also leave troops stationed in the cities- training Afghan militia against terrorism. While this idea sounds nearly foolproof, the only way to ensure success is to increase the number of soldiers, so they will actually have enough troops to remain stationed in the Taliban-fled areas.

An increase of troops in Afghanistan will also help the Afghan government and military, and thus benefit the United States. The fact is: the Taliban is already unpopular among Afghan citizens, and success lies on their need to realize that foreign aid is essential. The government in Afghanistan is already corrupt and unstable; and General McChrystal stated that they will be more apt to side with counterinsurgents when they see that terrorists will not win the war. The only way to show this is to send more United States and Coalition troops to continue driving insurgents out. Furthermore, once American soldiers have driven the Taliban and Al Qaeda out of reach of recruitment, we will be able to teach the Afghan army to defend themselves.

Many argue that United States troops should not be in Afghanistan in the first place. However, this is hardly the case, considering that pulling out immediately would be “flying a white flag” and surrendering to the terrorists. If insurgents think that they can virtually get off the hook from 9-11, who is to say they won’t simply attack American soil once again? If we were not to increase troops and training, we can never expect to defeat the Taliban.

Finally, since we currently lack sheer numbers, unqualified personnel stationed on American bases are being forced to perform a job they do not know how to do. For example, when crisis occurs, an engineer stationed in Afghanistan on a United States army base could be asked to be present in battle, simply because we do not have enough soldiers for combat. The more counter-insurgents we send, however, the less likely this is to happen. Therefore, if we are expecting to be able to begin pulling troops out after a mere 18 months, we obviously need to have as much of an impact, as fast as possible. Logically, the more troops we have on Afghan soil training their troops, the better off they’ll be. As the quantity of American troops increases, the quality of training will also increase. The fact is, 30,000 additional troops in itself will not be enough to completely turn the tides and defeat the insurgency; therefore, training the Afghan army to continue defending themselves after we’ve withdrawn is crucial to our eventual success. Obama’s plan offers the most viable exit strategy, and will benefit both the United States and Afghan society in the long run.

NO

By: Will Bedwell

The priority for the United States in the Middle East must be to prevent radicalization and the spread of terrorism from Afghanistan to surrounding areas. Failure to do so will spark catastrophic consequences for the U.S and the entire international community. However, President Obama’s plan provides an impractical solution that will only further ethnic instability in the region and result in a greater threat to the United States.

Obama’s new plan is to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to reinforce the already 68,000 on the ground. According to his tentative timeline, the increased force level is to be maintained for 18 months. The idea is that by July 2011, security responsibility can be transferred to the Afghan military, and our troops can begin returning home. In reality, the plan causes two problems: an increase of violence in Afghanistan and an increase of terrorism on U.S. soil.
Much of Obama’s new plan focuses on training 100,000 new soldiers and new policemen in time for our troops to pull out. But, to train that amount of both has already taken eight years. Of the 94,000 troops trained thus far, only 39,000 are considered combat ready. The plan lies to Americans by stating we will be able to leave in 18 months and Afghanistan will take over. The problem is we have no Afghan partner to work with. The United States Armed Services committee reports, “Without a legitimate and credible Afghan partner, the Obama strategy is fundamentally flawed, and the current Afghan government is neither legitimate nor credible. In fact, it has recently been installed by nothing more than a fraudulent political default.”

As the Karzai government becomes worse, more Afghans join the ranks of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Council on Foreign Relations recently stated, “Obama’s counter insurgency will likely fail, because these strategies only work when the domestic government enjoys the respect and support of most of the domestic population. Rising perception of Karzai’s government as ineffectual and corrupt indicate that it does not have that sort of credibility among Afghans.” Also the Afghan army consists of mostly Tajiks, the dominant ethnic group in Northern Afghanistan. They are widely hated by the Pashtun ethnic group, who live in the southern and eastern portions of the country. If the U.S. plans to continue its support of the Tajik army, it will only further ethnic conflict and radicalization in the region. Patrick Cockburn, author of two books on the Middle East, states, “President Obama’s plan will deepen and spread the Afghan crisis. It is not going to end civil conflict and check terrorism; rather, it is likely to radicalize minority ethnic groups and turn the entire region into a battlefield.”

Terrorists attack the U.S. because we interfere with their way of life: we take over peoples’ land, instill governments upon them, and then allow these governments to become extremely corrupt on every level. The only way to fix the rampant corruption in Afghanistan is for Karzai to be removed and for reelections to be held for all government positions; something Obama’s plan does not provide for.

The Obama plan fails to provide an adequate political solution to horrific realities within Afghanistan, and will only further radicalize terrorist groups within the country and increase the likelihood of both the spread of radicalism and large-scale strike against the United States. All Americans concerned with safety in the U.S. and in the Middle East should oppose this plan.