January Topic Overview

Introduction and Background

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

Unlike other forms of debate, Public Forum has the ability to be incredibly topical. Lincoln Douglas must focus on values, and the Cross-Examination topic lasts for an entire year.  Since the Public Forum topic changes each month it can focus on the timeliest issues facing the United States.   This topic, more so than any topic of the year, illustrates this point. 

This resolution is fairly clear-cut and does not favor one side over the other.  There are only a few tricky phrases in the topic.  One major point of contention will be what "Obama's plan" entails.  Make sure you define Obama's plan in a way that you can defend in its entirety when you are on the affirmative.  Make your cases flexible so you are able to adjust when the other team argues for a different definition of the Obama plan. You will need to have the ability to change cards, change positions, and if Obama makes major announcements about Afghanistan, you may need to completely change your case.  This means you will need to stay very up-to-date on the issues by reading the newspaper and watching the news.

Currently, the basic framework of Obama's plan calls for a 30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan in addition to more troops from U.S. allies.  Obama's goal is to provide more support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban and secure the region.  He also supports a framework for withdrawal.  Obviously many details are still unformed such as the timeline for the withdrawal, where the troops will be stationed, and how to get the additional troops from our allies, to mention a few. 

Because of the relative fluidity of the plan in its current state, you are presented with several options.

First, if the affirmative chooses to defend the entire plan, the negative can choose to negate the plan in its entirety, or negate only part of the plan. For instance, they could support the troop increase, but object to the proposed timeline for withdrawal, support the increase but not the request for more troops from our allies, or argue that even more than 30,000 troops are needed.

Second, if the affirmative only defends the troop increase (under the logic that the rest of the plan is undecided), the negative may argue for more or less than the 30,000 troops proposed (or none at all). Or, the negative can argue that the affirmative can't or shouldn't support the troop increase without the rest of the plan.

It will be key to define the Obama plan early in the round because it will determine the positions of both teams throughout the round.

Affirmative

First, the affirmative can argue that more troops are needed in Afghanistan to secure the area. In a leaked report to Obama, General Stanley McChrystal said, "Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure."

In the past year, the Taliban in Afghanistan has become more organized and sophisticated. Affirmatives can argue that the group is becoming a larger problem than the troops currently stationed in the region can feasibly handle. The difficult election this year made the problem worse. McChrystal makes it clear that if more troops are not granted, we may well lose the fight in Afghanistan.

Second, affirmatives can argue that the drug trade within Afghanistan is intensifying and threatening the stability of the country. The New York Times reports, "The Afghan opium harvest is feeding a $65 billion global trade in heroin each year, which now kills many more people in NATO countries in a year than the number of NATO soldiers who have died on the battlefield in Afghanistan since 2001."

Afghanistan is the single largest contributor of opium in the world today. This fact is troubling considering the massive efforts by United States and NATO forces to rid Afghanistan of its poppy fields. Affirmatives can argue that troops in Afghanistan would enable the military to extend the scope of our combat against drugs in Afghanistan and guard the boarders of Afghanistan more securely in hopes that drugs do not leave the region. [i]

Third, more troops are needed to prepare Afghanistan to continue the battle on their own. In his speech announcing more troops, Obama said, "And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. ... In short, the status quo is not sustainable." And furthered, the additional U.S. forces "will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight."

The Chicago Tribune reports that, "The additional force of 30,000 will include two or three combat brigades and one brigade-sized group dedicated to the training of Afghan forces."[ii] Clearly, one of Obama's chief concerns is having enough troops to train Afghan forces so that they can take over. This is in the best interest of the United States because it allows us to get out of the region while still being confident that the country will be secure.

Fourth, the affirmative can argue that 30,000 is the largest number of troops possible to send without political backlash. Democrats in Congress would not support any more.  In fact, if Obama requested more there is a good chance that Congress would have turned him down entirely and delayed the process for getting more troops. Obama's numbers have already dropped significantly; any further announcement may have meant political suicide.  Affirmatives can argue that if he loses any more political capital he will not be able to pass more important legislation.   

Further, Gordon Brown has already promised 10,000 troops, so our troop numbers will increase overall by 40,000, only 5,000 short of the minimum number McChrystal asked for.  [iii]

Fifth, the affirmative can have numerous arguments in favor of Obama's plan for withdrawal.  First, Obama never set a concrete timeline. He has made conditions on the ground the most important consideration and left open the possibility that the strategy might not be going as planned and that troops may need to stick around longer. But, affirmatives can argue that the United States cannot stick around forever. Eventually, the United States will have to leave due to lack of resources. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress: "If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla [earthly paradise] over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience, and money." [iv] 

Negative

There are many arguments available to negatives on this topic.  First, the cost of sending troops into battle is overwhelmingly expensive. Setting up the infrastructure to house them, setting up supply lines, training them, transporting them, and feeding them all costs money. In his speech, Obama estimated that the war could cost $30 billion.  Deploying more troops in a limited amount of time is likely to boost the cost. 

Because the surge will need to happen within a short amount of time, the United States will likely employ private contractor as we did during the Iraq surge.  Private companies, while speedy, are much more expensive. "In Iraq, contracting costs soared because it was all about, 'We need it today. We need it tomorrow. We don't care what it costs,' Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, told defense secretary Robert Gates during a hearing."[v]

Soaring costs will increase the deficit and may crowd out other domestic priorities.  Negatives can define what these priorities are and argue that they are more important than Afghanistan. 

Second, this increase in troops may result in a troop shortage. The Washington Independent reports that, "If President Obama orders an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, he will be deploying practically every available U.S. Army brigade to war, leaving few units in reserve in case of an unforeseen emergency and further stressing a force that has seen repeated combat deployments since 2002."  Further, "The shortage of available combat brigades means that an escalation of between 30,000 and 40,000 troops is ‘not realistic,' said Lawrence Korb, a former senior Pentagon official in the Reagan administration who now studies defense issues for the liberal Center for American Progress. To send practically all available soldiers into one of the two wars would leave the U.S. with ‘no reserve in case you had a problem in Korea.'" [vi]

Right now, the United States is having problems in North Korea and Iran, both countries might give us military difficulty within the next few years.  Having such few troops on reserve would leave us vulnerable. The negative could argue that because of this, Obama's plan is not in the United States' best interest.

Third, the negative can argue that Obama has a limited amount of political capital in Washington and that he should not waste it on Afghanistan. Right now, Obama is in a heated battle over health care legislation and he needs all of the political capital available to him to pass the legislation. Negatives can frame this as an "either or" type of situation. We either get Afghanistan, or we get health care. It will then be up to the negative to prove that health care is in our best interest.

Fourth, the negative can offer a counterplan to send more troops arguing that 30,000 troops is simply not enough to get the job done. The Huffington Post says, "If it is truly a classic counterinsurgency against a movement with the level of popular support held by the Taliban, then 30,000 additional troops is far too little even within the guidelines of the U.S. military's own field manual for counterinsurgency authored by Gen. David Petraeus." [vii] 

Fifth, Obama's plan for withdrawal is one detail of his plan is extremely controversial, and may be the bullet needed for the negative to win almost every round. Negative can argue that Obama's timetable for withdrawal will result in a failed effort in Afghanistan. A McClatchy article states, "The Taliban, al Qaida, their allies and their patrons in Pakistan and the Middle East, as well as America's partners, may think that Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing troops by July 2011 signals a lack of U.S. staying power and dilutes any incentives for insurgents to switch sides or negotiate a political accord. Instead, the extremists may persevere in their fight, thinking they can run out the clock and further erode support for the war in the United States as congressional elections loom in 2010, while pumping up their own ranks. Some members of the U.S.-led international force already have announced their intention to leave." [viii]

Senator Orrin Hatch, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said in an interview with MSNBC that, "The real problem here is that, what do we do in just 18 months? It took us 8 years to develop just 80,000 Afghan troops and the estimate is that it will take four times that number to bring stabilization to Afghanistan. Can we do that within 18 months?"

Negatives can also argue against Obama's plan to ask NATO allies for a troop increase. 

[i] MacFarquar, Neil. "Report Shows Afghan Drugs Reach Deep in the West," October 22, 2009, New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/world/23nations.html

[ii] Silva, Mark. "Obama orders 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan but says pullout to start in mid-2011," December 1, 2009, The Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-obama-afghan,0,5184599.story?track=rss

[iii] "Afghanistan: Gordon Brown announces number of British troops to pass 10,000," UK Telegraph, November 30, 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6693875/Afghanistan-Gordon-Brown-announces-number-of-British-troops-to-pass-10000.html

[iv] Editorial Board, "Obama's missing timetable for Afghanistan," January 30, 2009, Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2009/0130/p08s01-comv.html

[v]  Youssef, Nancy. "The military will strain to get more troops to Afghanistan quickly," McClatchy, December 2, 2009. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/79953.html

[vi] Ackerman, Spencer. "Army Data Show Constraints on Troop Increase Potential," November 18, 2009, The Washington Independent. http://washingtonindependent.com/68174/army-data-shows-contraints-on-troop-increase-potential

[vii] Sennott, CM. "Commentary: Not Enough Troops For Afghanistan Counterinsurgency," December 2, 2009, Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/commentary-not-enough-tro_n_376963.html

[viii] Landay, Jonathan S. "Analysis: Focus on withdrawal could jeopardize Afghan mission," December 1, 2009, McClatchy. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/79879.html