Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Fragony:
It has kinda been there for a while you know, the golden triangle.
NewyorkerIt has kinda been there for a while you know, the golden triangle.
The Taliban instituted a strict Islamist policy against the opium trade during the final years of their regime, and by the time of their overthrow they had virtually eliminated it. But now, Lieutenant General Mohammad Daud-Daud, Afghanistan’s deputy minister of the interior for counter-narcotics, told me, “there has been a coalition between the Taliban and the opium smugglers. This year, they have set up a commission to tax the harvest.” In return, he said, the Taliban had offered opium farmers protection from the government’s eradication efforts. The switch in strategy has an obvious logic: it provides opium money for the Taliban to sustain itself and helps it to win over the farming communities.
From a pro-opioid site:
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST
U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.
A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.
...
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.
A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.
...
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.
Source: Los Angeles Times, 5 October 2003
Afghanistan regained its position as the largest opium country last year, producing 3,750 tons, and this year, production is expected to be as high, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Seventy-five percent of the world's heroin, obtained from opium poppies, comes from Afghanistan.
...
Early in the era of the Taliban, the radical Islamic regime that allowed the al-Qaida terror network to flourish in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was permitted. But in July 2000, more than a year before the United States knocked it out of power, the Taliban banned the crop and introduced the death penalty for opium crimes, leading to a sharp decline in production.
Now, the regions outside Kabul are under the control of warlords, many of whom benefit from the trade. Last year's production was nine times higher than during the final year of Taliban rule.
...
Early in the era of the Taliban, the radical Islamic regime that allowed the al-Qaida terror network to flourish in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was permitted. But in July 2000, more than a year before the United States knocked it out of power, the Taliban banned the crop and introduced the death penalty for opium crimes, leading to a sharp decline in production.
Now, the regions outside Kabul are under the control of warlords, many of whom benefit from the trade. Last year's production was nine times higher than during the final year of Taliban rule.
has it ever occurred to anyone that some nationalities (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) do best under absolute dictatorships like the Taliban had?
maybe not best in terms of terror inflicted on the populace, but im pretty sure more have died while trying to create democracies than under the dictatorships.
now, im not saying taking out Saddam or the taliban wasnt a good idea, but definitely the strategy has to be rethought.
maybe not best in terms of terror inflicted on the populace, but im pretty sure more have died while trying to create democracies than under the dictatorships.
now, im not saying taking out Saddam or the taliban wasnt a good idea, but definitely the strategy has to be rethought.
Originally Posted by Hooahguy:
has it ever occurred to anyone that some nationalities (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) do best under absolute dictatorships like the Taliban had?
maybe not best in terms of terror inflicted on the populace, but im pretty sure more have died while trying to create democracies than under the dictatorships.
now, im not saying taking out Saddam or the taliban wasnt a good idea, but definitely the strategy has to be rethought.
Didn't we learn anything from the elections in Iran. has it ever occurred to anyone that some nationalities (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan) do best under absolute dictatorships like the Taliban had?
maybe not best in terms of terror inflicted on the populace, but im pretty sure more have died while trying to create democracies than under the dictatorships.
now, im not saying taking out Saddam or the taliban wasnt a good idea, but definitely the strategy has to be rethought.
There is nothing in the culture of the middle east that is for dictatorship or against democracy. Instead of falling back on the scapegoat of arabism lets recognize that there are sometimes deeper causes such as economic factors and what not. Not to say that democracy is spread best by force. Go ahead and make the argument against spreading freedom with bombs all you want, I'll agree with you. But the region is not beyond redemption.Originally Posted by Lord Winter:
Didn't we learn anything from the elections in Iran. There is nothing in the culture of the middle east that is for dictatorship or against democracy. Instead of falling back on the scapegoat of arabism lets recognize that there are sometimes deeper causes such as economic factors and what not. Not to say that democracy is spread best by force. Go ahead and make the argument against spreading freedom with bombs all you want, I'll agree with you. But the region is not beyond redemption.
i think tribalism plays a huge part in whether it fails or not. Afghanistan is probably one of the best places to see tribalism in action.Didn't we learn anything from the elections in Iran.
There is nothing in the culture of the middle east that is for dictatorship or against democracy. Instead of falling back on the scapegoat of arabism lets recognize that there are sometimes deeper causes such as economic factors and what not. Not to say that democracy is spread best by force. Go ahead and make the argument against spreading freedom with bombs all you want, I'll agree with you. But the region is not beyond redemption.Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Newyorker
From a pro-opioid site:
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST
Source: Los Angeles Times, 5 October 2003
One link would do to slap me aroundNewyorker
The Taliban instituted a strict Islamist policy against the opium trade during the final years of their regime, and by the time of their overthrow they had virtually eliminated it. But now, Lieutenant General Mohammad Daud-Daud, Afghanistan’s deputy minister of the interior for counter-narcotics, told me, “there has been a coalition between the Taliban and the opium smugglers. This year, they have set up a commission to tax the harvest.” In return, he said, the Taliban had offered opium farmers protection from the government’s eradication efforts. The switch in strategy has an obvious logic: it provides opium money for the Taliban to sustain itself and helps it to win over the farming communities.
From a pro-opioid site:
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST
U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.
A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.
...
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.
A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.
...
Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.
Source: Los Angeles Times, 5 October 2003
Afghanistan regained its position as the largest opium country last year, producing 3,750 tons, and this year, production is expected to be as high, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Seventy-five percent of the world's heroin, obtained from opium poppies, comes from Afghanistan.
...
Early in the era of the Taliban, the radical Islamic regime that allowed the al-Qaida terror network to flourish in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was permitted. But in July 2000, more than a year before the United States knocked it out of power, the Taliban banned the crop and introduced the death penalty for opium crimes, leading to a sharp decline in production.
Now, the regions outside Kabul are under the control of warlords, many of whom benefit from the trade. Last year's production was nine times higher than during the final year of Taliban rule.
...
Early in the era of the Taliban, the radical Islamic regime that allowed the al-Qaida terror network to flourish in Afghanistan, opium cultivation was permitted. But in July 2000, more than a year before the United States knocked it out of power, the Taliban banned the crop and introduced the death penalty for opium crimes, leading to a sharp decline in production.
Now, the regions outside Kabul are under the control of warlords, many of whom benefit from the trade. Last year's production was nine times higher than during the final year of Taliban rule.
Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?
CBR
CBR
Originally Posted by CBR:
Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?
CBR
Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?
CBR
Originally Posted by CBR:
Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?
Indeed. It's practically a paradise. Listen to the mountains? Maybe the mountains of dead Taliban. We are beating them to a bloody pulp, clearing out Helmand province for the elections later this year while training the Afghan army so they can do the job themselves in a few years time. And yet we should leave before the job is done because everything down there is not entirely Kosher?
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah:
Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.
Perhaps because it's not a video game and the bodies are not those of computer sprites? I've lost comrades in war, but wars with a purpose. I fume (freaking out is not something one tends to) at the loss of any soldier for no point.Exactly what's on my mind. I honestly don't know why people are freaking out over a war with such a low casualty rate.
I'm ready to be convinced by a clear mission statement, a battle plan and measurable milestones for this nation-building operation. So far, in the face of contrary evidence, all I've seen is ad hominems and vague platitudes that all will be well.
Pannonian is doing his usual good job of focussing us on the realpolitik. There is a problem, in that Afghanistan is not a nation in any sense that we understand it, and the Taleban is also somewhat borderless. The Taleban utilise the one unifying factor in that region, militant Islam. This is not a weapon available to NATO. Pakistan is indeed the key to that strand.
Warlordism and tribalism characterises much of the region and the "power" structure of the Taleban - and has done for hundreds of years. It is not a single enemy. This is the point the article was trying to make. Developing a centralised government structure based from Kabul is doomed to failure without imperial levels of troops - and probably not even then (the Russians tried this and came unstuck).
Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?
Dispute this assertion by all means. But please persuade me with timetables, troop numbers and specific measurable outcomes. Seven years is a long time of dying - how many more and to what end?
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Indeed. It's practically a paradise.
If you want a warzone and newly built democracy to be a paradise then I can understand your disappointment.Indeed. It's practically a paradise.
The main reason why so little has happened for 7 years is that a certain US president thought a two front war was twice as good as a one front war.
Now that USA finally has the troops we see NATO is moving forward.
Currently both the army as well as police forces are expanding and being trained. It is of course a big project that will take time and effort.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us...tary.html?_r=1
I know Danish police officers are participating in the police training and part of that consists of basic stuff like teaching them not to take bribes and acting to help the population instead of just being abusive brutes. In other words a change in culture that will not happen in a few months.
So I really doubt any can provide you with specific time tables except that it looks like a few more years. That of course does not mean losses will stay as high as they have been the last few weeks. Removing the Taliban power base in Afghanistan should go a long way.
CBR
The goal is to build up an Afghan government that is not anti-western and wich is eventually capable of sustaining itself without our help. If we leave now it will turn into a second Somalia; a country in anarchy that will be periodically bombed and invaded by other powers to prevent their trouble from crossing the borders. With that in mind I support my country's involvement in Afghanistan.
Originally Posted by CBR:
If you want a warzone and newly built democracy to be a paradise then I can understand your disappointment.
The main reason why so little has happened for 7 years is that a certain US president thought a two front war was twice as good as a one front war.
Now that USA finally has the troops we see NATO is moving forward.
Currently both the army as well as police forces are expanding and being trained. It is of course a big project that will take time and effort.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us...tary.html?_r=1
I know Danish police officers are participating in the police training and part of that consists of basic stuff like teaching them not to take bribes and acting to help the population instead of just being abusive brutes. In other words a change in culture that will not happen in a few months.
So I really doubt any can provide you with specific time tables except that it looks like a few more years. That of course does not mean losses will stay as high as they have been the last few weeks. Removing the Taliban power base in Afghanistan should go a long way.
CBR
The issue here is that enforcing democracy from the top down won't work. Instead, you need to set the foundations and build up. To have a democracy you need to have a stable economy with strong and numerous middle class and educated population and Afghanistan has neither. Lack of infrastructure and centralised authority makes achieving that even more difficult. Giving their police and army training and modern equipment won't solve those issues. If you want a warzone and newly built democracy to be a paradise then I can understand your disappointment.
The main reason why so little has happened for 7 years is that a certain US president thought a two front war was twice as good as a one front war.
Now that USA finally has the troops we see NATO is moving forward.
Currently both the army as well as police forces are expanding and being trained. It is of course a big project that will take time and effort.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us...tary.html?_r=1
I know Danish police officers are participating in the police training and part of that consists of basic stuff like teaching them not to take bribes and acting to help the population instead of just being abusive brutes. In other words a change in culture that will not happen in a few months.
So I really doubt any can provide you with specific time tables except that it looks like a few more years. That of course does not mean losses will stay as high as they have been the last few weeks. Removing the Taliban power base in Afghanistan should go a long way.
CBR
Talibans are not the issue in Afghanistan. They are simply the manifestation. Even if you remove them completely, some other Talibans will take their place. What Afghanistan needs will take concentrated and systematic effort for decades. Sustainable economy, educated population, centralised authority, proper infrastructure... That can't be achieved with guns and can't be achieved in short time. Leaving before that means simply handing Afghanistan over to some other Talibans.
Problem, of course, is that after many years there hasn't been significant progress in those areas. There are still people who think you can beat an idea with a gun.
Aims of the war:
Methods:
So, as can be seen, we are not aiming to return to a previous state, but trying to build one. We have no clear idea of how to do this and don't have enough men to achieve it - if we knew what "it" was.
I realise the cost in human life is compared to most wars is low. However, the ratio of injured to killed is probably higher than ever.
But lives are being lost in a country with no strategic value as is a vast amount of money. Fanatics all over the world are having a causus belli.
If the vast resources (or even a fraction thereof) which are being squandered were used for containment we'd be just as safe. There are still nutters with plans to blow up parts of the UK, so the war isn't stopping this.
Another war that the UK in very different times went into with the phrase "We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!"
To update: "we've not the ships, we've not the men and no money too!"
The UK needs to emulate countries such as Australia who are used to not being a big fish, and structure our ambitions and armed forces accordingly.
Our "special relationship" started in WW2 when America bankrupted us. Apparently to continue it we need to continue to throw money and lives at whatever moronic war they embark on.
- To fix a country which has been "broken" for over 500 years, possibly never functioned.
- To get those that caused 9/11... and avoid Saudi Arabia and that most were Saudis.
- To increase safety and try to forget that 7/7 was mainly due to protests about the wars.
- Get Bin Laden as if this will suddenly "win" the conflict
Methods:
- Boots on the ground! Not as many as the commanders want, but surely quality overcomes quantity?
- Not enough helicopters - we'll borrow them when needed
- Inadequate vehicles. We're getting new ones that have thicker armour. Fingers crossed they'll not build bigger bombs...
- Winning hearts and minds by building infrastructure, and
- ... by spraying crops, drone attacks and apologies for killing civilians
- An American led, mainly Christian white leaning force in a Middle Eastern / Islamic state - but NOT a Crusade, OK?
- Capture, hold, build, media take pictures with smiling locals, leave, Taliban bomb. Repeat until budget runs out.
So, as can be seen, we are not aiming to return to a previous state, but trying to build one. We have no clear idea of how to do this and don't have enough men to achieve it - if we knew what "it" was.
I realise the cost in human life is compared to most wars is low. However, the ratio of injured to killed is probably higher than ever.
But lives are being lost in a country with no strategic value as is a vast amount of money. Fanatics all over the world are having a causus belli.
If the vast resources (or even a fraction thereof) which are being squandered were used for containment we'd be just as safe. There are still nutters with plans to blow up parts of the UK, so the war isn't stopping this.
Another war that the UK in very different times went into with the phrase "We've got the ships, we've got the men, and got the money too!"
To update: "we've not the ships, we've not the men and no money too!"
The UK needs to emulate countries such as Australia who are used to not being a big fish, and structure our ambitions and armed forces accordingly.
Our "special relationship" started in WW2 when America bankrupted us. Apparently to continue it we need to continue to throw money and lives at whatever moronic war they embark on.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO