SURGING IN AFGHANISTAN

The surge is on in Afghanistan! Unfortunately, the surge that appears to be most effective is not the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that President Obama has now poured into this hellacious war, but a wholly-unexpected surge by the enemy.

You're currently reading an archived version of Jim Hightower's work.

The latest (and greatest?) observations from Jim Hightower are only now available at our Substack website. Join us there!

Jim Hightower's Radio Lowdown
Jim Hightower's Radio Lowdown
SURGING IN AFGHANISTAN
Loading
/

The surge is on in Afghanistan! Unfortunately, the surge that appears to be most effective is not the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that President Obama has now poured into this hellacious war, but a wholly-unexpected surge by the enemy.

Gen. David Patraeus’ surge strategy was to concentrate our soldiers in the Afghan south and east, attacking the Taliban where they are strongest. The gleaming gemstone of this plan was to be the taking of Kandahar, Afghanistan’s second largest city and the birthplace of the Taliban. This goal was supposed to have been achieved months ago, but… well, stuff happens. Or in this case doesn’t happen.

Enjoying Hightower's work? Join us over at our new home on Substack:

The assault on Kandahar is finally underway – but meanwhile the Taliban has slipped away and is surging throughout the country, including in provinces that were previously Taliban-free. Indeed, four years ago, the enemy had strongholds in only four of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. Now they’re in 33 of them, and practically every independent observer of the war says that Afghanistan has become more dangerous than at any time since our 2001 invasion.

It is so dangerous that election officials simply shut down hundreds of polling places in 25 provinces for September’s parliamentary elections, and international observers could not even go into the rural areas, where most Afghans live. This gave a free hand to warlords and political power brokers to commit a massive level of voting fraud that delegitimizes the national election.

Even America’s hawkish foreign policy establishment has begun arguing that this war is neither winnable nor worth the enormous cost we’re paying in lives, money and reputation. As one establishmentarian now flatly says: “A U.S. military victory over the Taliban is simply not necessary to protect U.S. interests.”

Bingo!

“Afghan Security Growing Worse, Aid Groups Say,” The New York Times, September 12, 2010.

“As Time Passes, the Goals Shrink,” The New York Times, September 12, 2010.

“High-level doubts on Afghanistan,” www.latimes.com, September 12, 2010.

“Doves Propose Phased Withdrawal as 2012 Looms,” www.tomhayden.com, September 9, 2010.

I’m making moves!

We’re pleased to announce that we’ve started a Substack newsletter for all of our content. You’ll still find our older, archived materials here at hightowerlowdown.org, but the latest (and greatest?) observations from Jim Hightower are only now available at our new Substack website.

Check out jimhightower.substack.com »

Send this to a friend