More troops to be moved from Afghanistan-- as COs predict Taliban offensive

The 'surge or escalation' battle of words is a pointless one, given the larger context of the "war on terror" and the fact that the public and the military are against it by any name. Tony Snow said yesterday that Fearless Leader would be using his speech to explain that context, but we already know the answer-- Al Qaeda and their allies the Taliban were in Afghanistan. BushCo let the former escape, and the latter are poised to take control of the country.

NATO's 30,000 troops in Afghanistan are supposed to have taken responsibility for security operations across the country. But Taliban attacks have risen sharply, and senior U.S. officers here describe the NATO operation as weak, hobbled by a shortage of manpower and equipment and by restrictions put on the troops by their home capitals.

The accelerating war here and the critical need for troops vastly complicate the crumbling security picture across the region - from Afghanistan, where the United States chose to strike back after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, to Iraq, where American troops have been unable in almost four years of fighting to establish basic security and quell a bloody sectarian war. (. . .)

Already, a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq.

According to Army Brig. Gen. Anthony J. Tata and other senior U.S. commanders here, that will happen just as the Taliban is expected to unleash a major campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar. The official said the Taliban intend to seize Kandahar, Afghanistan's second-largest city and the place where the group was organized in the 1990s.

Surge, escalation-- whatever you call it, it amounts to nothing more than another worst possible decision from the Republican party.