Anybody remember Afghanistan?

In It's all about the politics, I included this quote from Bush's January 10, 2007, speech: "America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan--and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq." I then noted briefly that this quote was ironic given that the Taliban was becoming resurgent in Afghanistan and that Bush ordered that one of the additional combat brigades going to Baghdad be taken away from Afghanistan.

I'll explain this in the context of what Bush said...By taking away resources from Afghanistan, Bush is creating a possibility that Al Qadea could re-establish its safe haven in Afghanistan.

This is so typical of the Bush administration. Let's review. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. Al Qaeda was being sponsored, protected, equipped, etc. by the government of Afghanistan, which was the Taliban. We invaded Afghanistan damn near immediately after 9-11 and opened up many cases of whup-ass on both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Then, instead of truly finishing the job in Afghanistan, we invaded Iraq and sent almost all our resources there. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda (as opposed to Afghanistan and Iran). Iraq had no WMD. So, by diverting our attention and resources from the country that was directly responsible for 9-11 to a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, we have allowed the people responsible for 9-11 to still have a chance to make a comeback.

And just to prove a point, let's take a look at recent reports regarding Afghanistan. From a December 17, 2006, Washington Post article:

This year Taliban forces, flush with trainees, materiel, and bomb designs and tactics learned from al-Qaeda in Iraq, surged into nearby regions -- the southwest, heart of the illegal opium trade; the center-east, which includes Kabul; and the warlord-ridden northwest. Today 64 percent of Afghans report some Taliban activity in their own area. While 58 percent still call security better now than before the Taliban's ouster in 2001, this figure has fallen by 17 points since last year.

The Taliban's reappearance is cause for grave concern -- and not only to Americans. Afghans overwhelmingly prefer Karzai's government to the Taliban, 88 percent to 3 percent. But 57 percent call the Taliban the biggest danger facing the country -- up sharply from 41 percent last year. Its growing presence is broadly unwanted.

From a January 2, 2007, Reuters report:

The Taliban will step up attacks on foreign troops in Afghanistan this year and kill anyone who negotiates with the government, a top rebel commander said on Tuesday.

Taliban fighters staged a surprise comeback last year with the bloodiest violence since U.S.-led troops forced them from power in 2001. More than 4,000 people were killed on both sides in 2006 including nearly 170 foreign troops.

Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah said the new year would see more attacks on NATO and U.S. forces.

From a January 16, 2007, Reuters report:

Violence in Afghanistan surged last year to its worst since 2001. While fighting has tailed off since winter set in, big clashes have been taking place in the south and east and U.S. and NATO forces expect a fresh Taliban offensive in the spring.

*******

Bomb attacks in Afghanistan jumped from 783 in 2005 to 1,677 last year and suicide attacks surged from 27 to 139, according to U.S. figures.

And finally, here are some uplifting excerpts from a January 18, 2007, New York Times article:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that American and NATO military commanders in Afghanistan, worried about a resurgent Taliban insurgency, had asked for additional troops and that he was sympathetic to the request.

*******

American officials have said in recent days that Taliban fighters are mounting increasingly brazen cross-border attacks from Pakistan and are preparing to intensify attacks in the spring.

"There’s no reason to sit back and let the Taliban regroup," Mr. Gates said. "I think it’s very important that we not let this success in Afghanistan slip away from us."

Yeah, right. That's why we are taking troops away from Afghanistan--where they are needed--and sending them to Baghdad for a mission not likely to succeed. Brilliant.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking...The effort in Afghanistan is now under NATO command, so more troops can come from NATO. Guess again after reading another excerpt from the January 18 NYT article:

Mr. Gates met with Gen. David J. Richards of Britain, the NATO commander in Afghanistan, who has complained that unmet pledges of troops and equipment from NATO countries have left him 10 to 15 percent short of the forces he needs.

So pulling our troops away from Afghanistan represents a decrease in forces in contravention to what our own commanders say is needed and constitutes a loss that will not be replenished through NATO.

Brilliant.