Obama’s troop surge will not stop the powerful opium trade that is so prevalent in Afghanistan. In fact, in 2007 97% of the world’s opium was produced within the Afghan borders (United Nations). The opium trade in Afghanistan benefits and funds such terrorists groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. So much opium is made in Afghanistan that if it was to be dismantled without another industry taking its place the Afghani economy would undoubtedly crumble and many of its people would be unemployed or without income. A more appropriate solution would be to provide subsidies to Afghan farmers to grow other crops, such as food crops or other crops that are prevalent in the region. Wheat is the largest food crop in Afghanistan and cultivation of the crop has risen greatly in past years. “Improving food security is essential in Afghanistan, where decades of war have driven poorer farmers from the land or forced them to switch to growing opium poppies”, according to aid workers working in the country said (McCombs). Such a plan would give incentives to start new or expand food industries while promoting an Afghanistan void of an opium trade that fuels global terror and insecurity.           

     Any troop surge under General Chrystal’s plan in Afghanistan and the counter-insurgency strategy, used in the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, would not effectively combat rampant corruption in the Afghani government. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with the Obama administration, does not have a plan that addresses corruption.  A troop surge under this plan would not dissolve the dangerous relationship that has existed between the Afghan government and the Taliban since this oppressive group ruled Afghanistan when the Soviet Union was in a similar predicament as the United States.  Where Obama’s strength lies is in diplomacy, which is something that is needed to deal with terrorists and corrupt leaders. One thing that Obama has done a good job of doing is using diplomacy to bring in other countries into Afghanistan and using his diplomatic powers to influence the U.S. image globally. In 2003 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) declared war on the terrorists behind 9/11, such as the U.S. had done in 2001, when the organization’s article that “an attack against one is an attack against all,” was tested and used for the first time in the group’s history (NATO).          

     Obama has recently brought up Pakistan as a major goal in Afghanistan. Pakistan has been an al-Qaeda hotspot for years and currently houses terrorist groups. What I have failed to understand is how Obama’s plan will combat Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and bring stability to border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? What will become of Pakistani terrorists already in Afghanistan threatening Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?Lastly, Obama’s plan fails to properly expand the local army and police forces in Afghanistan that are vital for a successful exit of the war. “We – the international community – must remain true to our commitments. We must vigorously work to strengthen the Afghan security system – the army and not least and in particular the police. A realistic exit strategy hinges on the capacity of Afghans to safeguard the security of Afghans,” says Jonas Gahr, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway at the International Conference on Afghanistan. General McChrystal proposed that the Afghan army be increased from 95,000 now to 240,000 troops, and the police from 92,000 to 160,000. Obama’s figure for the army increase is an increase to only 134,000 (James Corum). Focusing on the expansion of Afghani forces is essential to maintain security in Afghanistan; otherwise the eight year global effort costing nearly $240 billion will be in vain.