Kill the Opium Poppy Fields

The Boston Globe talks about the growing challenge of dealing with the poppie fields in Afghanistan.  Recent US operations have focused on some of the largest poppy-growing regions, and the Taliban's come out to fight.

An Afghan Army commander said yesterday that US and Afghan forces have taken over the area around the town and that Afghan commanders are holding talks with Musa Qala's tribal leaders to persuade them to expel the Arab, Chechen, and Uzbek foreign fighters who roam its streets alongside the Taliban militants.

US special forces soldiers accompanied by Afghan troops killed about 80 fighters during a six-hour battle outside Musa Qala on Saturday, the latest in a series of increasingly deadly engagements in Helmand Province - the world's largest poppy-growing region and the front line of Afghanistan's bloodiest fighting this year.

There have been at least five major battles in the area since Sept. 1, including Saturday's fighting, and special forces troops have killed more than 250 militants, according to coalition statements.

The Seattle Times has this article that focuses on the outcry by those "poor farmers" who don't have anything else to grow, and who certainly don't want US or Afghani forces to spray their fields with herbicides.

In 2004, U.S.-contracted aircraft secretly sprayed harmless plastic granules over poppy fields in Afghanistan to gauge public reaction to using herbicides to kill the opium poppies that help fund the Taliban and al-Qaida.

The mysterious granules ignited a major outcry from poor farmers, tribal chiefs and government officials up to President Hamid Karzai, who demanded to know if the spraying was part of a poppy-eradication program. At the time, U.S officials up to the level of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad denied knowledge of the program.

U.S. officials declined to identify the agency that oversaw the test spraying, but noted that the State Department oversees U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan. The department's bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement declined to comment. U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the tests remain classified.
-------
Thomas Schweich, the State Department's coordinator for counter-narcotics in Afghanistan, told a House of Representatives committee on Oct. 4 that Afghan eradication teams were able to destroy only about 10 percent of last year's poppy crop by hand and machine.

Moreover, warlords and tribal chiefs prevented the teams from destroying their crops and channeled them toward those grown by less-powerful farmers and sharecroppers who depend on poppy to pay debts and feed their families, he said.

"We do need to eradicate, but it needs to be done differently than it's been done in the past," said Schweich. United Nations experts believe that destroying up to 30 percent of the poppy crop will deter widespread poppy planting next year, he added.

It's hard for me to understand why only 10 percent of the poppy crop is being destroyed. Certainly our intelligence assets must know where the large crops are being grown. If we can't spray them, I have a solution. Let's bring in flamethrowers. Move in with a brigade to lock down the fields, bring in close air cover, and have teams of flamethrower units just burn out the fields. The burned poppies can be fertilizer for legitimate crops. Everyone will be happy, except the Taliban.

Comments

[Grandjester]

"Everyone will be happy, except the Taliban."

Pardon me J., but WTF?!?!?!

I will use the immortal words of the poet, Guido, The Killer Pimp (as played by the incomperable Joey Pants) "In a sluggish economy, never, EVER, fuck with another man's livelihood."

Exactly WHAT are the "less-powerful farmers and sharecroppers who depend on poppy to pay debts and feed their families" supposed to do? We haven't exactly been johnny on the spot with providing alternatives.

[NVH]

My thoughts GJ are such
-Great quote, I caught Risky Business over the weekend as well, wonderful movie about capitalism
-Two options, we burn the fields like J says, the farmers have no option, continue to grow poppies, become Taliban supporters, and we eventually kill all of them along with the Taliban. Then Karzai can grow what he wants, probably heroin. OR being that they are farmers, they could probably figure out how to grow SOMETHING else I imagine, god knows we have enough aid going in there to funnel some money towards that. Agree we aren't johnny on the spot, but this option also requires lot of work from STATE and seeing as how they can't get anyone over there, I'm thinking it's easier and cleaner to go with option one. Plus it might help Bush the war monger to see some death in Afghanistan for Taliban and their supporters to help keep us from doing something stupid in Iran. Two birds, one stone...

[Grandjester]

Uh NVH,

Poppies=Heroin, so what's the difference if Karzai is growing it? What other crop (that will grow in that climate) will even come close to the $$$?

[J.]

I know I am being simplistic here, and the reference to flamethrowers was largely tongue in cheek (they don't like poisons? Fine. Here's some light petrol products). But sooner or later you guys will figure out that THE FARMERS ARE SUPPORTING THE TALIBAN ALREADY every time they ship product out of Afghanistan. Where do you think the money is going and who is spending it?

Unless you get the central govt empowered to knock out the Taliban's source of income and therefore their guns and explosives, or we're never leaving Afghanistan. Sort of like the current condition in Columbia, I guess.

[Grandjester]

"Sort of like the current condition in Columbia, I guess."

Telling comment, we probably spend MORE money on Colombia.

Sorry J. the War on Terra and it's grand-pater, the War on Drugs are both a farce, but sooner or later you'll figure that out.

[Belphagor1527]

Perhaps there's another option. How about the government buying the poppies instead of the Taliban? Eradication efforts are just going to further empower the Taliban/traffickers (less product=higher prices) but if we (and let's face it, the money will come from the West) outbid the Taliban, they'll lose their primary funding source. I don't think many famers are ideologically wed to the Taliban. They want to make money and poppy pays the best.

Eradication also pushes farmers into the hands of the Taliban. Both end up suffering at the hands of the coalition which may lead them to find common cause.

Initially, such a scheme would probably have to pay farmers to grow poppies outright and once the farmers become confident that this plan is intended to last some time, the government could switch to paying farmers to grow other crops. Any subsidies would have to make alternate crops at least as profitable as poppy (and probably more since the Taliban are likely to try to force farmers to grow poppy and we'll want the farmers to take on the risks involved with telling them to go to hell). Those who choose not to take part in such a program can then feel the might of our throwers of flame.

Another problem is that the infrastructure is such crap that it's very difficult to get crops to the marketplace before they spoil. More emphasis here as well would help (even if the DoD buys what it can to feed the 20,000+ coalition troops in country).

I know that politically, this is a non-starter in the West (and particularly in the U.S.) but it's not totally out there. I heard a UN representative advocate make a pretty convincing case for this position earlier this year.

[NVH]

F that, legalize MJ and heroin, we'll take care of all our budget woes, plus we'll be able to spot all the losers who can't handle their habit and declare hunting season on them with rifles, and the best part, cars...oh what a wonderful world..

Yes J, I know they are supporting the Taliban ALREADY, I know the money is funneled to them, all the more reason to LIGHT IT UP ( all puns intended )

[James]

If they are supporting the Taliban, then a portion of any money they receive will end up in the hands of the Taliban. If you pay them to stay home and knit they will still pay taxes to the side they identify with most strongly.

The trick is to convince them to identify with you. Then it doesn't really matter what they grow. If you destroy the poppies, they will support your enemies, whoever they are. Drug producers will always tend to back anti-state forces because the State invariably opposes drug production. The State (in the Third World, at least) rarely does this out of genuine conviction, but because of threats and pressure from foreign patrons. Thus the Karzai government becomes an ally of the Americans against a large segment of its own population. This effort on the behalf of the occupier fundamentally undermines its claim to represent the interests of the Afghan people.

In the end, the people of Afghanistan have done very well out of the heroin industry. How do they benefit from cutting off the trade? It might give political satisfaction to their patron but that doesn't mean very much to the masses. The US might have to choose between fighting the Drug War and fighting the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan. Since the first has always been dependent on the hearts and minds and impulses of Americans themselves, it shouldn't be too hard to choose. No one has ever shown that destroying the civil society of Colombia or Mexico or Afghanistan has ever made the slightest bit of difference in the number of drug users in the West.