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.
Archive You're reading an older Hightower Lowdown article. Jim's still writing — twice a week on Substack.
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.

Keep reading Jim
Get the free Lowdown
Jim's twice-weekly commentaries delivered free to your inbox. No credit card, no catch.
No credit card. Unsubscribe anytime.
Go deeper
Get everything Jim's got
Live Q&As, the Chat & Chew series, radio archives, and more. Less than a cup of coffee a month.
Subscribe for $40/year
Special rate for original Lowdown readers
Regular price: $50/year
Jim Hightower's Lowdown
The Lowdown moved —
Jim didn't stop writing.

Get Jim's commentaries delivered every Tuesday and Thursday — free, to your inbox. Join 50,000+ readers.

Get the free Lowdown →
or go paid
Subscribe for $40/year
Special rate for original Lowdown readers — regular price $50/yr