For their second event this semester, the Political Union and Review at New York University wrangled over the resolution: A US troop surge in Afghanistan is the best action to ensure US security. It was a lopsided debate at best. When it came to a show of hands, the surge lost 10 – 4 despite one “ironic” vote and one vote from a guy who arrived five minutes from the end.

Views on Afghanistan were articulated by Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and a man simply representing the Left. Republicans argued in favor of a troop surge, Democrats against it mostly because of finite resources, and the Libertarians and the Left agreed that any US presence in Afghanistan is detrimental to national security to begin with.

The most compelling argument for the surge was made by Nicholas Brennan, who said that the Bush administration neglected Afghanistan, which is why US forces could not wipe out the Taliban in the last eight years. Now that Obama is in charge, he can outline a clear mission for the military (focus that it previously lacked, apparently) and provide it with adequate resources to achieve its aims.

Sean W., a Libertarian, argued that the US did have two obvious goals in invading Afghanistan: find Bin Laden and stop Al Qaeda from recruiting more terrorists. Bin Laden is still at large, while, according to Sean, terrorist recruitment has grown in popularity as a result of US presence in Afghanistan. Alex Arnest, of the Left, made a similar argument about US involvement in the region actually increasing the threat to US security, rather an scaling it down. Unlike military wars between nations, terrorists are not associated with a country per se. The US can say it will invade Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda, but Al Qaeda may not necessarily stay there to fight. Terrorist leaders use the US occupation of Afghanistan as an example of its imperialism and threat to Islam. It is easy propaganda.

Chris Kennedy, who spoke from the crowd, highlighted the important distinction between domestic terrorism committed by the Taliban commit and terrorism perpetrated by Al Qaeda. The Taliban didn’t so much attack the US on 9/11 as much as they allowed that attack to be planned on their soil, under their rule. Kennedy referred to a book by Louise Richardson titled, “What Terrorists Want,” that claims terrorists aspire for revenge, renown and reaction — all of which are satisfied by a surge in US troops.

In the same spirit as Chris’s comment on domestic terrorism, Sean characterized Afghanistan as an ethnically diverse country of many competing tribes that are now only united in their aversion for America. If US presence was no longer a burden on the daily life of Afghans, they would more likely return to fighting amongst themselves than planning attacks on US soil.

Josh Schneier for the Democrats argued against the surge based on limited resources. Apparently for every $30 spent on Afghanistan by the US government, $1 was spent on Pakistan. But with an increase in drone attacks that target Pakistan’s controversial border and mountain region under the Bush administration, it seems Obama is already redirecting resources to Pakistan.

Both the Libertarians and Arnest noted that even if the US “wins” the war in Afghanistan, there is no way Russia or China would allow the US to establish itself as a regional hegemonic power. However, Libertarians argued that the US would do well to take a cue from China and develop an interest in Afghanistan’s infrastructure instead of pumping more money into deploying troops.

In his closing remarks for the Republicans, Spyridon Mitsotakis said, “you guys perpetuate a myth that Afghanistan was stable or more stable under Taliban.” I’m not sure there is (or ever was) any sign of stability in Afghanistan, but as a Democrat rightly asked out, is the $50 billion a year to wage that war really worth it?

Sean brought up Afghanistan’s legacy of being the “graveyard of empires.” In the 1980s, Afghanistan was to the Soviet Union what in the early 1970s Vietnam was to the US. Citing Einstein’s definition, he said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome.”

Photo by Flickr user KarlMarx used under a Creative Commons license.