Afghanistan-Negative-Third-Week---Samford

Afghanistan-Negative-Third-Week---Samford - Afghanistan...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Afghanistan NEG: 3 rd Week Index *****Disad Links***** Appeasement Links (1/3) (--) Counter-insurgency strategy seen as a critical signal of US resolve in Afghanistan: James Phillips, 2009 (Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs). Success in Afghanistan Requires Firm Presidential Leadership, Not Half-Measures. Accessed July 15, 2010 at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/09/Success-in- Afghanistan-Requires-Firm-Presidential-Leadership-Not-Half-Measures Do Not Undermine Friends and Embolden Enemies President Obama must give his military commanders the best chance for success by meeting their requests for the troops and resources necessary to fully implement the counterinsurgency strategy adopted by his Administration in March.[2] As General McChrystal warned in his October 1 speech: "We must show resolve. Uncertainty disheartens our allies, emboldens our foe." If the Obama Administration chooses to deny its field commander's request for more troops and instead seeks to engage Taliban leaders in negotiations with the vain hope that these militants will break from their al-Qaeda allies, the results would likely be disastrous. Many Afghans that currently support the Kabul government would be tempted to hedge their bets and establish ties with the Taliban, while Afghans sitting on the fence would be much more likely to come down on the Taliban's side. President Obama must take the long view and avoid shortsighted policies that undermine U.S. friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan while encouraging America's enemies. (--) Premature withdrawal from Afghanistan sends a worldwide signal of appeasement: Liam Fox, 2010 (Secretary of State for Defense in the United Kingdom.) July 7, 2010. Afghanistan: Standing Shoulder to Shoulder with the United States. Accessed July 15, 2010 at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Afghanistan-Standing-Shoulder-to-Shoulder-with-the-United-States So the first reason we cannot bring our troops home immediately is that their mission is not yet completed. Were we to leave prematurely, without degrading the insurgency and increasing the capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), we would probably see the return of the destructive forces of transnational terrorism. Not only would we risk the return of civil war in Afghanistan creating a security vacuum, but we would also risk the destabilization of Pakistan with potentially unthinkable regional, and possibly nuclear, consequences. The second reason is that it would be a shot in the arm to jihadists everywhere , re-energizing violent radical and extreme Islamism. It would send the signal that we did not have the moral resolve and political fortitude to see through what we ourselves have described as a national security imperative....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at University of California, Berkeley.

Page1 / 75

Afghanistan-Negative-Third-Week---Samford - Afghanistan...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online