Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
Recall that it was only now, after more than 50 years, that FARC was disarmed in Colombia, and the vacuum in its place was filled by other criminal organizations (which arose over time alongside FARC) immediately as well as by the transfer of former FARC to those ranks. The Colombian government has not been capable of eliminating either cartels or insurgencies, even with American assistance - but at least Colombia has generally had enough power and popular support to maintain itself without foreign intervention.
What exactly are you talking about? From what I can see, the biggest issue in Colombia is inequality, the lack of a proper social security net and the lack of trust among the population due to corruption and other issues. Like in many Latin American countries it's almost as though you have a strange mix of economic ideologies from Ayn Rand style capitalism, probably supported by the US Monroe doctrine and related influences such as the upper class being mostly the offspring of greedy Spanish conquistadors who just came for the gold and riches.

The drug problems there have gone down significantly though, or rather, were outsourced to Mexico and the country overall is becoming safer. So I'm not sure why you would say the FARC are getting replaced by other groups. There are still plenty of bad groups left, including far right militia who hunt and kill homeless children at night, but I don't think any of them take over the entire FARC territory.

Not to forget that capitalist theory says supply exists as long as there is a demand, so the drug and cartel problems are not just the fault of the drug-producing countries, but also partially the fault of those first world countries that suppress local production and yet create an enormous demand for these drugs despite high prices. If you're a coke-snorting banker in Miami and you make fun of Mexico's inability to cope with the drug cartels, I got news for you because you're the cause of their problems.

That's also partially applicable to Afghanistan it seems, given that drugs make up a large part of their exports: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/front...t_-survey.html

Opium production in Afghanistan rose by 43 per cent to 4,800 metric tons in 2016 compared with 2015 levels, according to the latest Afghanistan Opium Survey figures released today by the Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics and the UNODC. The area under opium poppy cultivation also increased to 201,000 hectares (ha) in 2016, a rise of 10 per cent compared with 183,000 ha in 2015.
And just like some of the Colombian NGO factions (FARC etc.), the Taliban are partially financed through this drug production: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andersc.../#55176f9457d3

Targeting opium production in Afghanistan is timely, and important for two reasons: opium does harm to opiate abusers worldwide, and as an illicit economy, it incentivizes corruption and criminality, and is being used to fund terrorism.
Note: I'm not sure whether I agree with Forbes on attempting to fight the supply side as said above, as capitalists they should know that demand always creates a supply from somewhere so it is usually better to curb demand, I'm sure all the people who oppose the EU incandescent light bulb ban will agree. (yes, completely different product and circumstances, but I mean ideologically)