If not now, when?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

As I understand it, the U.S. has 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, NATO has another 30,000, and the Afghan army must have at least 30,000 by now. On top of that, they have total air superiority and satellite coverage... yet, 90% of the heroin comes from there. If they can't at least bring that number down under those conditions, when will they ever be able to?

 

[Wolfman]

Well, it ain't quite that simple; keep in mind that a significant portion of those troops you refer to are involved in actions that would preclude the massive sweeps that would be necessary to find/destroy all the fields and facilities where its being grown/produced. On top of that, they'd be fighting armed enemies all the way.

And a lot of the Afghans who do this do it because it is just about the only way they can make money...you are talking about a country whose economic infrastructure has been effectively destroyed by the combination of the Taliban's restrictive laws, and the ongoing war within their country. It is a very justifiable argument that A) removing the only source of employment/income from rural farmers/labourers would only result in increasing the number of terrorists/combatants, and B) developing a stronger economic infrastructure that provides such people with alternative sources of income would be more effective in the long term than simply trying to destroy heroine-producing facilities. The former tactic would inevitably be perceived as attacks, and cause a defensive reaction; whereas the latter would be perceived as an active effort to benefit their country, and individual within it.

And keep in mind, by far the majority of the people involved in growing/producing this are not getting rich from it. It is only a relatively small number of people at the top who get rich. Presenting them with viable, long-term alternatives, and you'd find a much better reaction than simply attacking them.

However, agricultural development does not seem to be a terribly high priority at present.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Well, it ain't quite that simple; keep in mind that a significant portion of those troops you refer to are involved in actions that would preclude the massive sweeps that would be necessary to find/destroy all the fields and facilities where its being grown/produced. On top of that, they'd be fighting armed enemies all the way.

Oh they got no problem finding it. I have seen pictures of troops walking through it, granted, on their way to fight the Taliban. But I thought that this country also had a war on drugs? What better place to fight it than at the source?

And a lot of the Afghans who do this do it because it is just about the only way they can make money...you are talking about a country whose economic infrastructure has been effectively destroyed by the combination of the Taliban's restrictive laws, and the ongoing war within their country. It is a very justifiable argument that A) removing the only source of employment/income from rural farmers/labourers would only result in increasing the number of terrorists/combatants,

Fighting drugs could also be a way of winning friends. The farmers say that growing poppies net them $2,000 a year, while growing crops only get them $200. Why not give them $5,000 to grow crops? That would win a friend, cut off a source of Taliban income, and feed the locals. It can't be that the U.S. and NATO does not have the money, they spend much more to fight it in the streets of their cities.

and B) developing a stronger economic infrastructure that provides such people with alternative sources of income would be more effective in the long term than simply trying to destroy heroine-producing facilities.

Paying farmers to farm would help build a stronger economy.

And keep in mind, by far the majority of the people involved in growing/producing this are not getting rich from it. It is only a relatively small number of people at the top who get rich.

Those at the top would lose their hold on those forced to work for them.

However, agricultural development does not seem to be a terribly high priority at present.

Money at the local level can change that.

 

[Wolfman]

I think you just illustrated the point I was trying to make...that the best solution is not a military solution (as was implied in your first post about how many troops there are over there), but a solution that is based more on economic development. Give the farmers an alternative, rather than treat them as enemies (which only results in creating more recruits for the Taliban and Al-Qaida).

 

[Oliver]

As I understand it, the U.S. has 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, NATO has another 30,000, and the Afghan army must have at least 30,000 by now. On top of that, they have total air superiority and satellite coverage... yet, 90% of the heroin comes from there. If they can't at least bring that number down under those conditions, when will they ever be able to?

Is there an interest in fighting drugs at all?

 

[Z]

The war on drugs is little more than a show to keep voters happy. The truth is, the only actual effort made against drugs is education. Drugs are used more as an excuse to take people to prison when they're suspected of other things, than treated as a crime.

In Afghanistan, there are far greater priorities than heroine to consider.

It's like looking at three houses. On the left, a man is sexually molesting his daughter. On the right, four psychos are loading weapons and shouting anti-police chants, intent on doing some murder and mayhem. In the middle, a man has some poppies and hash growing out back.

Who do you take on first? Who second? Would you even bother with the guy in the middle, considering how many more houses like the left and right you might have to deal with?

 

[Wolfman]

It's like looking at three houses. On the left, a man is sexually molesting his daughter. On the right, four psychos are loading weapons and shouting anti-police chants, intent on doing some murder and mayhem. In the middle, a man has some poppies and hash growing out back.

Who do you take on first? Who second? Would you even bother with the guy in the middle, considering how many more houses like the left and right you might have to deal with?

A very rational, logical argument. Of course, those backing the whole "war on drugs" thing would likely respond by simply saying that the four psychos developed their psychological disorders through drug abuse; and the man is sexually molesting his daughter in order to make kiddie porn that he can sell to the guy with poppies and hash in order to get his next fix.

Thus, obviously, we should attack the middle house first, and the other problems will just disappear!

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Is there an interest in fighting drugs at all?

Sure there is, the "prison program" is a growth industry, employing a lot of people. I can remember when police officers were being layed off, then we got a drug czar by name Bill Bennett, and it began to "snow."

The war on drugs is little more than a show to keep voters happy. The truth is, the only actual effort made against drugs is education. Drugs are used more as an excuse to take people to prison when they're suspected of other things, than treated as a crime.

Amen.

In Afghanistan, there are far greater priorities than heroine to consider.

It's like looking at three houses. On the left, a man is sexually molesting his daughter. On the right, four psychos are loading weapons and shouting anti-police chants, intent on doing some murder and mayhem. In the middle, a man has some poppies and hash growing out back.

The heroin is funding some of the weapons.

Who do you take on first? Who second? Would you even bother with the guy in the middle, considering how many more houses like the left and right you might have to deal with?

I think stop the poppy plant, redirect the money from the "prison program" to help those there, and here.

 

[Tricky]

Completely ignoring the purpose of this thread, let me congratulate lightcreatedlife@hom for breaking away from his homeland over in GSatP to take a look at the other great places on this forum. Regardless of what happens in this thread, that is a very positive step.

Best of luck, LCL.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

I think you just illustrated the point I was trying to make...that the best solution is not a military solution (as was implied in your first post about how many troops there are over there), but a solution that is based more on economic development. Give the farmers an alternative, rather than treat them as enemies (which only results in creating more recruits for the Taliban and Al-Qaida).

I wasn't clear. I mentioned the soldiers to say that the countries most concerned (supposely) have very capable eyes (and hands) on the problem, and still 90% gets through. In Columbia they have no military presence, but spend 5 billion dollars a year to fight the problem, and yet 90% of the cocaine in the world comes from there. How can both situations only stop 10% each?

A very rational, logical argument. Of course, those backing the whole "war on drugs" thing would likely respond by simply saying that the four psychos developed their psychological disorders through drug abuse; and the man is sexually molesting his daughter in order to make kiddie porn that he can sell to the guy with poppies and hash in order to get his next fix.

Thus, obviously, we should attack the middle house first, and the other problems will just disappear!

That is where I would go, but I would not attack. I would offer cash not to grow, and payed monitors to see that the deal is kept. With enough money, maybe the man can afford a woman, and the monitor help watch the child.

Does the production of heroin require the massive amount of chemicals that cocaine does?

 

[Z]

A very rational, logical argument. Of course, those backing the whole "war on drugs" thing would likely respond by simply saying that the four psychos developed their psychological disorders through drug abuse; and the man is sexually molesting his daughter in order to make kiddie porn that he can sell to the guy with poppies and hash in order to get his next fix.

Thus, obviously, we should attack the middle house first, and the other problems will just disappear!

<snip>
The heroin is funding some of the weapons.

I think stop the poppy plant, redirect the money from the "prison program" to help those there, and here.

You called it, Wolfman.

 

[Z]

That is where I would go, but I would not attack. I would offer cash not to grow, and payed monitors to see that the deal is kept. With enough money, maybe the man can afford a woman, and the monitor help watch the child.

Does the production of heroin require the massive amount of chemicals that cocaine does?

See, apparently you live in laa-laa land, where you have time to solve problems through long term rational behavior. So while you're arguing with the poppy/hash grower, the one neighbor has raped his six-year-old daughter, maybe even killed her, while the other neightbors have burst out and gunned down your fellow cops, taken your own daughter hostage, and driven a mini-van into the wall of the local Quik-E-Mart, causing its total collapse at near-free-fall speeds into its own footprint (which is about 20% larger than the building's diameter); in turn spawning further CT discussion at JREF, and driving skeptics to buy more heroine, thus increasing the demand for poppies.

In the real world, the daughter would have to be protected first, then the terrorists disarmed and disabled; the guy growing the poppies would definitely come last, if at all.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

See, apparently you live in laa-laa land, where you have time to solve problems through long term rational behavior. So while you're arguing with the poppy/hash grower, the one neighbor has raped his six-year-old daughter, maybe even killed her, while the other neightbors have burst out and gunned down your fellow cops, taken your own daughter hostage, and driven a mini-van into the wall of the local Quik-E-Mart, causing its total collapse at near-free-fall speeds into its own footprint (which is about 20% larger than the building's diameter); in turn spawning further CT discussion at JREF, and driving skeptics to buy more heroine, thus increasing the demand for poppies.

Wow, apparently I am not the only resident of laa-laa land.

In the real world, the daughter would have to be protected first, then the terrorists disarmed and disabled; the guy growing the poppies would definitely come last, if at all.

Which real world is that? You seem to be talking about what should be, instead of what is. Those soldiers are mandated to fight terror, that is why they were sent. And while it may be a good idea, an invasion to stop child abuse doesn't have the same backing. Stopping the poppy can be added to the mandate because the Taliban is using it to fund their weapons. I don't know how to pencil child abuse into that mandate, do you?

 

[Z]

I was talking about right here at home.

But basic human decency demands stopping child abuse, wherever it was found.

And in my example, I didn't mention the Taliban, or who funded what, or whatever. Only the three houses I mentioned, and what you'd do about it.

Apparently, you're ok with rape and immediate terrorism, just as long as you can undermine a tiny source of potential funding from future terrorists.

Politician.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

But basic human decency demands stopping child abuse, wherever it was found.

Of course it does, but the post was about the war on drugs. Just because I didn't mention it here, does not mean that I am for killing whales, tigers, children, etc. One subject at a time.

And in my example, I didn't mention the Taliban, or who funded what, or whatever. Only the three houses I mentioned, and what you'd do about it.

I was speaking in reference to the actual situation, not what I would like.

Apparently, you're ok with rape and immediate terrorism, just as long as you can undermine a tiny source of potential funding from future terrorists.

Now I said nothing like that. You gave me 3 choices, I made mine. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted. Forget the funding for terrorists, taking out the poppy there would reduce 90% of its impact on the world. And I am just guessing, but some of that impact is rape and child abuse. Addicted parents spend less on food, and it can certainly be tied to spouse abuse.

Politician.

 

[Cheesejoff]

Never. We don't want to get rid of drug production in Afghanistan, in fact we helped create it.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Never. We don't want to get rid of drug production in Afghanistan, in fact we helped create it.

I didn't want to say that. The Taliban had stopped poppy production, though I don't approve of how. The Northern Alliance that helped the U.S. beat the Taliban, were drug dealers. I find myself wondering if poppy production was part of the deal?

 

[casebro]

However, agricultural development does not seem to be a terribly high priority at present.

Yup, "It's the Economy, Stupid!"

We've won the war, now we have to win the peace. The best way would be to establish an economy. Persian rugs won't do it anymore, too labor intensive for the market. But can't the same weavers make wire harnesses for cars? Or sumthin?

Give these people jobs, and hope, maybe they will go to work instead of committing suicide bombings. Make an economy that will support farmers through food stuffs, and the farmers won't grow poppies.

Maybe they need a system like in America? It's all based on tax & spend, with half of our people being in the government's employ. But how do you get it started? Jobs, to tax, so we can hire more tax collectors, so we can spend those tax dollars by hiring...

 

[Solus]

It's not just a black and white issue the way the popular media makes it out to be. If the money wasted on the "drug war" was put into rehabilitation and education much could be accomplished. Furthermore it's my opinion that current illegal drugs should be legalized and sold by the government. That would be the end of large scale organized crime around the world. The US government could use the money on the drug program rehabilitation program as well. Many of America's problems with drugs and violence would be solved if such simple steps were taken.

 

[Zep]

Just as a sidebar, doesn't a large amount of opium poppy production happen in Thailand and Myanmar, in the Golden Triangle?