Enochs Debate's List: January PF Evidence NEG

Nor is it a wise policy. The president's speech emphasized "the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in Pakistan."

Well, yes. But it's not at all clear we've helped stabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan by driving hordes of militants across the border.

Meanwhile, per Gen. Jones, the "maximum estimate" of al Qaeda operatives remaining in Afghanistan is "less than 100." Yet when the Afghan surge comes on line, we'll have more than 100,000 troops in theater, risking their lives for the quixotic task of bringing functional governance to a land that seems dead set against it.

He has a formidable sales job ahead to accomplish that: 52 percent of respondents in this poll see the war in Afghanistan as not worth its costs, and nearly as many trust the Republicans in Congress to deal with the war as trust Obama. 

 Ratings of the president's handling of Afghanistan have plummeted since the summer, turning what had been one of his most favorably regarded issues into another nearly even split: 45 percent approve of how he is dealing with it, while 48 percent disapprove. Of particular concern for the White House is approval among independents, which has slipped to 39 percent, a new low. 

While the withdrawal is set to begin July 2011, Kerry said the United States will maintain "engagement" with the region and talks with Afghanistan's neighbor, Pakistan. And Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday said that the country will need help financing their own military and police forces for the next 10 to 15 years.

Worried about billions of dollars in costs and the longevity of the commitment to Afghanistan, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, asked Petraeus to explain whether 15 years would be necessary and how much money it could cost.

If Afghanistan attained the "aspirational" goal of 400,000 army and police members, it could cost about $10 billion a year to support, Petraeus said.