Why not start an agricultural support program in Afghanistan that buys opium poppies at a price significantly above what farmers now get? I understand there’s a huge markup between farmer and final sale, so we could probably afford this. We could structure the program so that the price declines annually, giving farmers time to shift into other crops. In doing so we would
- remove a major funding source for the Taliban
- decrease the supply of opiates on the market and thus reduce drug abuse
- make friends in the Afghan countryside

Doesn’t this make sense?

Our goal is to place beyond use the command and control elements of Al Qaeda. This punishes the people who attacked us, prevents them from attacking us again, and deters others from attacking us.

Afghanistan is just the random territory from which Al Qaeda chose to operate. It could as easily have been Somalia or the forested Andes or anywhere else that a friendly central government does not have power.

We have absolutely no responsibility to the people of the country that hosts Al Qaeda; indeed, one could more easily argue that they are legitimate targets. Why should we provide more aid to a nation that did us harm than to a place such as Congo, that is poor and has done nothing to us? We should focus on going after our targets and then get out of the country, husbanding our resources to be prepared to counterattack anywhere in the world.

http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/06/depart-i-say/

Why MUST we secure Afghanistan but not Somalia?

I am noting that you consider Afghani institutions and law as barriers to economic development. I do not sense — although it may be there — a desire to work within an Afghani cultural framework. Rather I sense the idea that they should have economic development the American way. As an American, it seems to me that bankruptcy laws would be a good thing. But I know from history that they are not necessary for economic development. Cultural change is a delicate matter. Fiddling with institutions is iffy; there are almost always unintended consequences. Changing material culture, while that also may have unintended consequences, is less intrusive. For instance, you mention poor roads as a problem. If our response was to send in the CBs or the Corps of Engineers, that would be relatively simple and efficient, and it would work within the Afghani framework. However, if our response is to change Afghani law and institutions to attract foreign investors to come in and build toll roads (which they might decide to do), that foreign investment, whatever the benefits of the roads, would be a drain on the Afghani economy for years to come. Or foreign investors might not decide to build the roads in the first place, because it would not make good business sense for them, even though good roads would help the economy. Now, we may debate the merits of foreign investment in Afghanistan. However, there is plenty that the U. S. can do to foster economic development there without requiring them to change their institutions to be more like ours.

“And if you are suggesting that these features are undesirable because they characterize something that is highly undesirable about western societies, and that Afghanistan is getting along perfectly well without them, well, that’s just confused.”

That is not what I am suggesting. If the Afghan people wish to adopt certain aspects of American society or legal system, that is up to them. It is not up to us.

“In the long run, people will only be better off if their economy grows, and grows very significantly.”

I am not arguing against economic development. I am questioning a Western ethnocentric view of economic development.

I have read that the world has a large annual SHORTAGE of pain control medicines based on poppy derivatives.

See http://www.poppyformedicine.net/
and reports by Senlis Council http://www.icosgroup.net/
and others

Wouldn’t it make sense to support the legal regulated purchase and manufacture of Afgan grown poppy based pain killers as a step towards both economic revival for that war wracked country and a large step towards global control of illegal heroine supplies.

And if you are suggesting that these features are undesirable because they characterize something that is highly undesirable about western societies, and that Afghanistan is getting along perfectly well without them, well, that’s just confused.

In the long run, people will only be better off if their economy grows, and grows very significantly. That will only happen if these institutions are in place. People who are not in favour of hunger, disease, high infant mortality rates and lives without options favour economic growth.

1) As Hitchens says, this would be a transition program. So it is not incompatible with growing Saffron.
2) Turkey is also an Islamic country.
3) No one here is suggesting illicit drugs. We’re suggesting that we use the opium, as we already do, to manufacture painkillers. As a sufferer of kidney stones, I can assure you that I do not use opiates to get high, but to treat incredible pain. How are kidney stones treated in Islamic countries?

Bottom line, the treatment of serious pain could be much better in this country, as well as a number of others.

On no occasion has the president seen fit to spell out candidly the justification, the premises, and the risks attached to Afghan gambit. A decent respect for his fellow Americans, and to posterity, should command that he do so. Fear of the elusive enemy that we have named ‘international terrorism’ since 9/11 is still the driving force. Obama has pronounced its destruction the top priority of his administration, albeit toning down some of his predecessor’s overheated rhetoric. He has not qualified the inflated importance it has been given. Our massive commitment in this cause is accepted by Americans for only one reason: the lingering dread that it could happen again. The connections between any plausible, concrete threat and our sweeping actions remain as obscure as ever. The possibility that our actions may actually increase the danger is ignored. Blind trust and faith join with fear as substitutes for the prudent deliberations of a mature democracy.

The underlying illusions are that a world built according to our design and managed by us is both attainable and in everyone’s interest; that the future of NATO will be decided amidst the poppy fields of Helmand Province, and perhaps the fate of the West itself in the high valleys of the Hindu Kush.
All this faith and audacity against the backdrop of the Iraq debacle.

Games of make-believe are for kids – not great powers.

This is a plea for honesty. If indeed there is a convincing case to be made that it is a vital national interest to pursue the ‘war on terror’ around the globe, and to infringe on our freedoms at home, let that case be made clearly and dispassionately. Let there be a genuine public debate. Let us make the elementary distinction between aspiring to everything we want to be and everything we can be. We owe ourselves nothing less. If the conclusion favors going forward, let us do so with eyes wide open. Instead, we are embarking on another magic mystery tour – with goals as elusive as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Cheers,
Michael BRENNER

Both make a lot of sense to me.

In an effort to eradicate opium production, the Afghan government, international aid groups and private businesses are distributing saffron crocus bulbs to farmers in this region along the Iran border. The farmers say their new crop is better suited to their religious beliefs (Islam prohibits the use and sale of illicit drugs) and, ultimately, is more profitable.

Worldwide demand for Afghan saffron is rising, and the price has doubled in the past year to an average of $1,360 per pound – or roughly 38 times what poppy farmers in the southern part of the country earn.

http://www.slate.com/id/2201622/

“Surely a smarter strategy would be, in the long term, to invest a great deal in reforestation and especially in the replanting of vines. While in the short term, hard-pressed Afghan farmers should be allowed to sell their opium to the government rather than only to the many criminal elements that continue to infest it or to the Taliban. We don’t have to smoke the stuff once we have purchased it: It can be burned or thrown away or perhaps more profitably used to manufacture the painkillers of which the United States currently suffers a shortage.( NB DON ) (As it is, we allow Turkey to cultivate opium poppy fields for precisely this purpose.) Why not give Afghanistan the contract instead? At one stroke, we help fill its coffers and empty the main war chest of our foes while altering the “hearts-and-minds” balance that has been tipping away from us. I happen to know that this option has been discussed at quite high levels in Afghanistan itself, and I leave you to guess at the sort of political constraints that prevent it from being discussed intelligently in public in the United States. But if we ever have to have the melancholy inquest on how we “lost” a country we had once liberated, this will be one of the places where the conversation will have to start.”

Of course, I’ve had 11 Kidney Stones, so I know the value of painkillers. Notwithstanding the example of famous people like Michael Jackson, the drug and pain policy in the US is very poor. We could use the drugs, as could other countries. If you don’t believe me, try a kidney stone on for size.