quote:

---

Two Canadian soldiers have been seriously injured in one of the biggest battles since coalition troops arrived in Afghanistan, involving hundreds of Taliban militants...

The soldiers had been taking part in one of the largest gunbattles since international troops arrived in Afghanistan in 2002, said CBC correspondent David Common, who is in Kandahar.

The operation, which was taking place in the Panjwai region west of Kandahar, started Sunday night after coalition forces learned that up to 800 Taliban fighters were gathering in a village. Troops from the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were involved.

Reports from the battle suggest members of the Taliban hid behind the village's mud walls and trenches to attack troops.

---

These treacherous Taliban will stop at nothing, and they keep reproducing and multiplying. Is there a chemical equivalent of napalm which will disintegrate all the mud walls in Afghanistan? Time to press science into the war effort.

I propose WMD - Walls of Mud Destruction.

[ 12 June 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 12 June 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
[QB]we are looking at a kind of "mopping up" operation where the enemy is kind enough to assemble in one area for quick destruction.

---

I agonize about this. I call myself a Christian and a follower of Christ and I started a very productive thread on military self defence and Christianity, and learned in the end that my faith is weaker than I thought. I cannot reconcile my wish to follow Christ and my feeling that I am completely morally within my rights to resist someone trying to harm innocent others.

Indeed, I feel it as a duty to protect those needing protection, even if violence is necessary. And someone astutely observed that evil is often seen as a matter of necessity and duty by those who perpetuate it. So I don't take this discussion lightly and I increasingly frequently pray for wisdom and guidance on this topic.

quote:

---

This may be where the rubber hits the road for this debate - the Taliban are giving it all they've got, counting on an upswelling of support from the average Afghan. If this support is not forthcoming, and there if some evidence that it is not, then we are looking at a kind of "mopping up" operation where the enemy is kind enough to assemble in one area for quick destruction.

---

If we're still fighting "hundreds" of "Taliban" or "Al-Qaeda" forces in single battles, that suggests to me that their numbers are growing, and that perhaps we're dealing with a domestic Afghan insurgency with broad popular support, in addition to (or instead of) Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

[ 12 June 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

Attacks like these have happen before, that in fact happen about 4 times a year, and have happen since about 2003. Several Afghan Border Police outposts have been wiped out by large company and battalion size “Taliban or al’Qaida” forces in this manner. These attacks usually occur in the spring and fall months due to weather conditions.

However this is the only time were two 300 and 800 man groups have attack the same area in a month since the beginning of the war. This maybe attempted to establish new tactics or see what the strength of the Canadian military is, in either case these attacks have resulted in large number of dead and wounded for the “Taliban or al’Qaida”.

Note: As someone in another thread said earlier “You can not always believe what the MSM is reporting” this maybe the case here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

Note: I doubt that al'Qaida had anything to do with this attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
In Kandahar, I think public opinion is about 60/40 against ISAF.

---

Plus or minus 3.2%, 19 times out of 20?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You sound like a bloodthirsty murderer to me. Just thought I would share with you the feeling that your ice-cold words invoke.

---

It was a tactical error for these insurgents to gather like this, this is a second time in a month a large numbers of insurgents have been destroyed by air and artillery fire.

The first time could be a mistake on their leader’s part, a second time amounts to foolishness on their leadership.

If their leadership is making mistakes like this at this stage, one must wonder how combat effective the insurgence is in this part of Afghanistan? Poor leadership has cost some great warriors their lives for little results to their cause.

[ 12 June 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Let's not call each other bloodthirsty murderers, okay? Miss Manners would be horrified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Let's not call each other bloodthirsty murderers, okay? Miss Manners would be horrified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Do you have any suggested vocabulary that might be suitable to describe someone who is in favour of killing masses of people in a faraway land on the basis of his own delusional fantasies about what they believe?

---

quote:

---

webgear:
It was a tactical error for these insurgents to gather like this, this is a second time in a month a large numbers of insurgents have been destroyed by air and artillery fire.

The first time could be a mistake on their leader’s part, a second time amounts to foolishness on their leadership.

---

Maybe they were testing the water. It could be too soon to assume that it was a mistake.

quote:

---

Brett Mann
a: what we are doing in Afghanistan is not only justifiable but certifiably noble;

---

Or on the other hand just certifiable.

quote:

---

....al Qaeda et al declared war on us, not the reverse.

---

Who is us?

quote:

---

.... there's an organized bunch of people out there who wish us harm.

---

Who is us again? And why do they wish us harm? And is war going to solve the problem or make it worse?

quote:

---

....the ideology of the Taliban et al is not defensible on any known grounds of human decency.

---

Neither is that of the wealthy class of the Western nations, but what does that have to do with anything? Are you advocating war against people and countries based on their ideologies? Struggles over ideology are much more effectively fought with ideas rather than bombs and bullets.

quote:

---

....Wahabist Islam and its derivatives represent a fundamental attack on everything most of us would recognize as basic human rights.

---

So what? That is not a cause for slaughtering thousands of people and wasting the lives of Canadian troops. People in this country who oppose collective solutions to healthcare, education and other social necessities, and pass laws allowing people to be locked up for years without knowing the charges or having all of the evidence presented in open court also represent a fundamental attack on what most of us in this society recognize as basic human rights.

quote:

---

In Kandahar, I think public opinion is about 60/40 against ISAF. I think a Canadian-led ISAF force can turn this around.

---

The average income of a poppy farmer is estimated to be $684/year.

The opium trade in Afghanistan is valued at 2.5 billion while the benefit to the farmer is only 600 million of that.

It would be more cost effective to pay the poppy farmers to grow alternative crops and develop markets for those crops than to continue subjecting them to persecution from both sides.

quote:

---

Jester:
It would be more cost effective to pay the poppy farmers to grow alternative crops and develop markets for those crops than to continue subjecting them to persecution from both sides.

---

More effective for who? Like any other program that devours huge amounts of cash look to who profits and who pays for the war in Afghanistan.

Since there is no serious threat to Canada posed by Afghanistan this is a war of convenience where buckets of cash are transferred from taxpayers to defense contractors and others who stand to benefit either economically or politically or both from it.

There are better, non-military, ways to solve the issues that Afghanistan presents, but the money spent on them would mostly benefit Afghans directly and all of us only indirectly. Not much profit for the defense industry in that, though.

Image of Canadian Soldiers after engaging in "close (almost loving) combat" with German troops at Dieppe in 1942. American aircraft and British gunboats provided long range artillery support.

[ 13 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 13 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
It's worth noting that sometimes when Canadian soldiers are killed in Afghanistan, it is likely because they engaged in close combat with the enemy rather than calling in massive US airpower with its attendant innocent casualties.

---

Does it mean the Canadian troops are acting in a humane manner by engaging the so-called "enemy" in close combat, whatever that means?

A great deal of the difference flows from the amount of individual decision-making ability that filters down to the grunts on the ground. In the American, highly-computerized, highly-systematized approach, command decisions are made a long ways away, or beforehand. Take a look at some of the British SAS training programs on tv these days for a taste of the individual excellence and judgement bred into Canadian soldiers.

My present understanding of rules of engagement in Afghanistan is that if ISAF forces are fired upon, or detect a group of armed men who clearly are not government soldiers, ISAF tries to kill them. What they are not doing is random house-to-house searches harrassing and killing everybody in sight. If there is one benefit to the Canadian left in this Afghanistan debate, perhaps is that many people are becoming more educated on the professionalism and capacities of the Canadian Forces.

But there's an undeniable fly in the ointment - I am very concerned that as our military "integrates" more with the US that we will become infected with their filthy mass-murdering disease. These are the kind of issues we should be raising on the left - not buying into some shallow anti-military rhetoric which is justly ignored by the majority of Canadians, and always will be.

quote:

---

More effective for who? Like any other program that devours huge amounts of cash look to who profits and who pays for the war in Afghanistan.

---

More effective to achieve the purported aim of assisting Afghanistan recover from 20 years of war.

If the estimated cost of the coalition military effort is 15-18 billion per year,spending 600 million to purchase the poppy crop and then destroy it is only 3-4% of the military budget.

quote:

---

Since there is no serious threat to Canada posed by Afghanistan this is a war of convenience where buckets of cash are transferred from taxpayers to defense contractors and others who stand to benefit either economically or politically or both from it.

---

Yeah...I've posted on the Canadian military-industrial complex. No-one cares to discuss it.Dreary stuff compared to squealing in high dudgeon about bloody murder etc.No pro-Taliban propaganda to be gleaned from boring lists of bullets and MREs

The usual suspects occur when a perusal of Public Works purchases under 25k is made.SNC Lavalin supplies ammunition to the CF.Go figger!I thought SNC Lavalin was an engineering firm but I suppose no dribble of gravy is too insignificant to the friends of government.

There is a trend in Canada to source purchases domestically whereby a Canadian company purchases the required items and then resells the item to the Canadian government at a lucrative markup.

Canadian content or just another Adscam for the incrowd?

quote:

---

There are better, non-military, ways to solve the issues that Afghanistan presents, but the money spent on them would mostly benefit Afghans directly and all of us only indirectly. Not much profit for the defense industry in that, though.

---

I'm positively giddy to discover I'm not alone in a sea of emotional reactionarys who's main source of support appears to be the Manitoba Communist Party.

This is precisely the the argument that needs to be made.The international community pays lip service to the reconstruction of civil infrastructure via the Afghan Compact and does nothing. Later another very important meeting is held where the international community re-affirms its committment to the last reaffirming of committment, ad nauseum,while nothing is done.

Meanwhile,the military buildup and its attendant spending lines the pockets of the in-crowd.Governments may change but the profits always end up in the same pockets.

quote:

---

Afghan journalists living with fear
Photographers and reporters endure government threats, assaults, abductions

GEOFFREY YORK

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

KABUL — As a cameraman in the Afghan parliament, Omid Yakmanish thought he had a routine job, until he was attacked and threatened with death.

It began when he filmed a parliamentary brawl and an attempted attack on a female MP last month. His footage was an embarrassment to many politicians, and the reaction was swift and violent.

First he was confronted and slapped by an MP who had once been a senior Taliban official. A day later came the death threat. "Slaughtering a sheep is difficult for me, but killing you would be easy," the MP told him.

Then came another threat, this time from an anonymous caller on his cellphone.

"We know where you live," the caller said. "We could do anything against you."

For the next 10 days, Mr. Yakmanish went into hiding. He became one of the growing number of Afghan journalists who have faced severe pressure from the Afghan authorities, including threats, intimidation, even imprisonment and murder....

Last fall, two journalists were kidnapped while they were covering a candidate in the parliamentary election. Two other journalists were beaten and detained by security agents for "illegally taking photos of prohibited places" while covering Afghan President Hamid Karzai at an event for International Literacy Day. And the editor of a women's-rights magazine was sentenced to two years in jail for "blasphemy" because of an article discussing whether Muslim women can leave Islam.

"Threats against journalists in Afghanistan have become alarmingly routine," said Ann Cooper, executive director of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, in a statement last year. "Journalists should not face harassment or threats for simply doing their jobs, holding officials accountable for their actions and investigating alleged corruption."

For the fledgling Afghan media, some of the hardest cases to cover are the suspected war crimes of political leaders who remain influential today. The warlords have never been prosecuted, and many journalists are afraid to report on their wartime activities.

"If we try to report about war criminals, we are told that we are damaging national unity," said Masood Qiam, host of an investigative-news program on Tolo TV. "It's a very hot and sensitive subject. Some issues are too dangerous to report."

Globe & Mail article

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
These are the kinds of issues the left should be raising, but are not, having sunk into a comfortable anti-imperialism posture.

---

quote:

---

These are the kinds of issues the left should be raising, but are not, having sunk into a comfortable anti-imperialism posture.

---

Actually this kind of activity is part of the imperialist package. The same interests that drive the imperialit agenda are the ones most likely to profit from it.

Cleaning up the pork barrelling would be counter productive to reason that we got into Afghanistan to begin with.

quote:

---

More effective to achieve the purported aim of assisting Afghanistan recover from 20 years of war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Would you mind sharing your phone list?

---

Would you mind sharing your phone list? I'd like to claim one of the multi-million $ rewards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes funny how we always end up in the cannon fodder role.

---

Never volunteer.Canada did-maybe Mountbatten finessed them into it but volunteer we did.

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:
Well, if they're shot -- they're "Taliban".

---

Enablers such as aircraft and artillery are employed by all when feasible and based on the tactical situation.

For one such a program cuts into the established interests of the defense industry.

For two it cuts into the established interests of the illicit drug industry.

Since some of the players in the defense industry no doubt also have an interest in illicit drugs, and since the western banking system does very well off of the drug trade and drug money makes its way indirectly into the coffers of the politicians that make the rules, we probably won't see this boat getting rocked too much.

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan police chief doesn't realize his voice is being taped. So pardon him if he brags about his life as a drug trafficker.

quote:

---

A shake-up of Afghanistan's top police chiefs has dealt a blow to the entire force's reform and reintroduced poorly qualified and corrupt officials to senior posts, western officials say.

ADVERTISEMENT




Hamid Karzai, the president, approved a list of 86 senior police officers earlier this week but sidestepped the recommendations of a police reform committee and ignored the results of an examination designed to rank officers according to merit.

"I don't think it is beneficial to the professionalisation of the police," said Tom Koenigs, the special representative of the secretary general of the United Nations in Afghanistan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
It is becoming clear to me that the opium trade is central to the entire economy...

---

So you are saying that you have been supportive a war/peackeeping effort in Afghanistan for the last 6 years, without even an inkling of what is going on Afghanistan. Is that what you are saying?

You mean you actually thought that the real underlying causes of the struggle in Afghanistan was a strugle between backward religious orthodoxy and terrorism on one side, and liberal minded civiliazation on the other, and not a struggle between competing drug lords? So essentially why is it that you supported this effort if you have no clue, about what is going on?

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

So you are saying that you have been supportive a war/peackeeping effort in Afghanistan for the last 6 years, without even an inkling of what is going on Afghanistan. Is that what you are saying?

---

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
My present understanding of rules of engagement in Afghanistan is that if ISAF forces are fired upon, or detect a group of armed men who clearly are not government soldiers, ISAF tries to kill them.

---

quote:

---

I am very concerned that as our military "integrates" more with the US that we will become infected with their filthy mass-murdering disease.

---

quote:

---

Pakistan is in illegal occupation of territories belonging to Afghanistan under false pretenses.To maintain its territorial integrity,it is in Pakistan's interest to have a weak and destabilised government in Afghanistan so there is no one to challenge the authenticity of the Durand Line Agreement.

Therefore,Pakistani Intelligence Agencies have provided shelter for members of Al-Qaeda and Taliban who are committing acts of terrorism within Afghanistan to destabilise the democratically elected government of President Hamid Karzai

---

According to the source ,the Durand Line's legitimacy is in dispute and Pakistan is illegally occupying areas of Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Buying up all of the opium, though logical, has too much going against it.

For one such a program cuts into the established interests of the defense industry.

For two it cuts into the established interests of the illicit drug industry.

Since some of the players in the defense industry no doubt also have an interest in illicit drugs, and since the western banking system does very well off of the drug trade and drug money makes its way indirectly into the coffers of the politicians that make the rules, we probably won't see this boat getting rocked too much.

A Failing System Hooked On Drugs

---

Good article,Jerry. I realise that the notion of buying the dope crop and destroying it is simplistic but if this was to occur,it would be a much better use of resources to at least neutralise rural Afghans if not get them onside.

quote:

---

Jester:
I realise that the notion of buying the dope crop and destroying it is simplistic but if this was to occur,it would be a much better use of resources to at least neutralise rural Afghans if not get them onside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

I don't disagree, I just think that it isn't very likely to ever happen for the stated reasons.

---

It's even less likely to happen if no-one suggests it.

I understand and sympathize with your cynicism but I also felt grumpy after you said the same thing in response to a similar suggestion in another thread.

In fact, in the Andes, there is increasing debate about the effectiveness of erradication programs, which many see as counterproductive. And I'm not talking about marginalized lefties here, nor just of Evo Morales. I'm talking about stuff I read in El Espectador and El Tiempo -- mainstream media in Colombia.

The 2003 National Human Development Report produced by the United Nations Development Program in Colombia makes interesting reading (you can download it in English or Spanish from here. It makes a very clear call for demilitarizing the anti-drug campaign and dedicating a lot more resources to helping peasants.

It also contains this interesting quote which explains why strong anti-drug campaigns actually decrease national security (emphasis mine, and probably unnecessary):

quote:

---

When a recognized government exercises dominion over the whole of a country, the effectiveness of legislation against illegal crop-growing is very high. But then this dominion is not complete, there is greater probability that crops will prosper, since they require a territory not under the control of recognized authorities. A proof of this is the fact that 95% of opium production takes place in countries suffering from (or which have suffered from) civil wars. In those lawless territories, protected by wars, the production and distribution of drugs becomes more and more likely. Drug production persists even after conflicts are over, because civil war has created a territory outside government control, and because during and after a civil war, conventional economic opportunities are very restricted. Anti-drug policies permanently generate a demand for territories outside government control, a demand that is satisfied in countries that suffer from (or have suffered from) a civil war.

---

The source of that quote is a paper produced by the well-known pinko front, the World Bank.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
NATO,under ISAF is to take control of the south area from OEF in July but one of the problems with ISAF is that differing national military restrictions and strategies dealing with the poppy crop make it difficult for the ISAF commander to develop a consistent policy.

---

I believe it is only the Americans, in some areas using private "security" forces, who have been destroying poppy crops. The British tried paying farmers to grow other crops but failed to deliver the money. Some farmers were persuaded to grow food crops but received a pittance for them in the local market.

Buying the opium crop is not pie in the sky idealism. Opium is needed in the European medical system for morphine, among other products. If "we" want to buy the crop we need to outbid the warlords for it. Perhaps hold our noses and let the warlords take a cut. Afghanistan could, eventually, provide legal opium for much of the world's needs in the future under regulation. The Canadian diplomat who was killed was working on such a scheme.

There are some interesting comments from Afghans regarding the civil aid that actually appears.One comment was about a USAid program that utilises American contractors.The Afghans said Afghan contractors could do the same job for 1/20 th of the price USAid was paying but Afghans were excluded.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

According to the source ,the Durand Line's legitimacy is in dispute and Pakistan is illegally occupying areas of Afghanistan.

It appears that the Pashtun peoples of Pakistan are actually Afghans who live on the other side of the Durand Line.

---

Golly gee, you don't say?

You mean you have be a feverent supporter of this war, and actively promoting the idea that other peoples sons and daughters go and kill and die in a country that might not even really exist, and that just now you have discovered a whole swath of underlying complexities, which might severly undermine the possible succesful conclusion of the military project itself?

And you just went ahead boldy pronouncing that this "intervention" would be a good thing, basicly because it "felt like the right thing," to "go kick some butt," after 9/11?

PS: Have you ever wondered why the Ukraine is still in possession of Galicia?

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Golly gee, you don't say?

You mean you have be a feverent supporter of this war, and actively promoting the idea that other peoples sons and daughters go and kill and die in a country that might not even really exist,

---

You really should check your facts before diving into the shallow end of the pool.

Perhaps you can burrow for posts of mine where I support this mission? I am on the record from the get-go that this mission cannot succeed when the coalition is hunting and killing the relatives of those they purport to help.

Any quote will do...happy hunting.

What I am not a fervent supporter of is the squealing defeatism of some who advocate unilateral withdrawl.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
I'm more interested in pro-people than anti-drug.

---

quote:

---

jester:

There are some interesting comments from Afghans regarding the civil aid that actually appears.One comment was about a USAid program that utilises American contractors...

---

I suppose that USAid is "civil", but it is not by any means an NGO; it's part of the US government. I don't think it's representative of "civil aid". Not that the NGO community is without its faults, but we do try.

In the world as a whole, there is a lot less tied aid than there used to be, and a lot of the reason for that has been a lot of campaigning from NGOs. The US, and to a lesser extent Canada, have not freed up their donations as much as many European countries. ("Tied aid" is money given on the condition that it be used to purchase goods and services from the donor country, such as the USAid grants which hire American rather than local contractors.)

quote:

---

jester:
Jerry's cynicism is well founded.It is not just the defense contractors but the aid contractors as well as the drug profiteers conspiring to maintain the status quo to the detriment of ordinary Afghans.

---

quote:

---

Me, too. Wasn't I making myself clear?

---

Yes you were clear. I agree that cynicism is a dead end but many here do not want any successes to mar the ongoing quagmire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

What I am not a fervent supporter of is the squealing defeatism of some who advocate unilateral withdrawl.

---

quote:

---

rici:
Me, too. Wasn't I making myself clear?

---

I don't disagree with the points that you made, but really didn't see the connection to the point that I was making, so I guess the answer in that regard is not to me.

quote:

---

Sure, the prospects are not great. But unless more people talk about alternatives to slash-and-burn military-style erradication programs, nothing will get better. Cynicism is a dead end. I was actually applauding your intervention, in case it wasn't obvious.

---

First let it be clear that I am not endorsing erradication programs.

Second I agree with you but also think that we should be considering alternatives that have a chance of actually getting off of the ground. In the present environment using tax dollars to buy and dump opium isn't an idea that will probably get very far. On one hand it will look like the paying protection money or ransom, and on the other it will reduce the flow of income to a lot of powerful interests in our society. Those are stiff odds to overcome.

Of course, given the nature of the problem there may be no alternatives that have a chance of being accepted without a sea change in political and economic structures in the major industrial countries.

quote:

---

siren:
Buying the opium crop is not pie in the sky idealism. Opium is needed in the European medical system for morphine, among other products. If "we" want to buy the crop we need to outbid the warlords for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

So you are saying that you have been supportive a war/peackeeping effort in Afghanistan for the last 6 years, without even an inkling of what is going on Afghanistan. Is that what you are saying?

You mean you actually thought that the real underlying causes of the struggle in Afghanistan was a strugle between backward religious orthodoxy and terrorism on one side, and liberal minded civiliazation on the other, and not a struggle between competing drug lords? So essentially why is it that you supported this effort if you have no clue, about what is going on?

[ 14 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Not quite Cueball - a few folks seemed to have skipped over this part of my post -

"This is obviously not hot-off-the-press news. But what I'm now seeing is not that opium is a huge part of the Afghan economy, but that it pretty well is the whole Afghan economy."

I think we are largely in agreement; the issue is probably just one of style.

It is certainly true that we need to focus on plausible solutions. At the same time, any plausible solution is going to require a considerable change in "political and economic structures in the major industrial countries", as you say, so we should also be considering the best way to promote such a change.

The UNDP report on Colombia is an interesting starting point; I highly recommend it -- I think you will find that much of it is useful in an analysis of Afghanistan as well. It is a well-researched and realistic appraisal, although I think it fails to take into account the degree to which the economies of the "industrial world" are influenced by the illegal drug trade. (I'll return to this point in a moment.)

The quote from the World Bank discussion paper is, in my opinion, important, and not because it comes from the World Bank. The reasoning is obvious yet rarely acknowledged:

1) Cultivation of crops used to produce illegal drugs (coca leaf and opium poppies, for example) primarily takes place in regions in which government control is non-existent or weak, during or after wars ("civil" or "uncivil" )

2) After a war, the national government needs to re-establish control of its territory.

3) If a community in an area not controlled by the government derives most of its economic livelihood from the cultivation of "illicit" crops, and it is clear that government control will be prejudicial to this activity, then that community will resist government control.

In such a scenario, the national government cannot pursue a rigid anti-drug policy because such a policy will be opposed by the communities in the territories it wishes to recover. These communities may, in theory, prefer a stable state and the various benefits it offers, but they have an immediate incentive to oppose the intrusion of that state. That doesn't necessarily mean they will join "violent insurrections", but it motivates them to support insurrectionists and/or sabotage government institutions.

In short, a rigid anti-drug policy by a nascent state creates a tactical alliance between warlord and druglord which will receive support from peasant populations.

Any realistic solution must take this into account, by making it clearly beneficial to communities to submit to government control. Rhetoric is not going to be good enough; they will need actual resources of one form or another.

That may mean that the government needs to tolerate a certain level of illicit cultivation within its territory, just as consumer nations need to tolerate a certain level of illicit drug consumption within their territory. In both cases, a pragmatic policy needs to minimize the social cost of the undesired behaviour.

Erradication policies tend to give lip service to the above; they are often described as "carrot and stick" policies. The problem is that the sticks tend to be made of lead and wielded with accuracy, while the carrots are small, rubbery, and unappealing. It would be more accurate to describe the policies as "bludgeon and crumbs".

The UNDP report makes some useful suggestions:

1) Compensation for erradication should be much higher. Peasants should be paid to erradicate their own crops, and in addition should be compensated for the lost income.

2) Crop replacement programs have not enjoyed much success for a variety of reasons, including lack of marketing infrastructure; increased cost of production (eg. fertilizers or irrigation); and the inability of the soil to support intensive production of alternative crops. Alternatives need to be considered, such as voluntary relocation with compensation (more feasible in Colombia than Afghanistan, I would think, but it's a possibility); creation of ecological reserves in which peasants are paid to maintain the ecology; infrastructural investment; and permanent agricultural subsidies.

The UNDP does not recommend legalization of consumption, on the grounds that the puritan climate (their words) in the US and Europe make it unlikely that such a policy would be accepted by the public. (This is the point at which I think it would be useful to add the influence of the drug trade on the economies of these countries.)

Others have recommended legalization of consumption; El Espectador ran an essentially pro-legalization campaign earlier this year (it's a liberal newspaper, but far from radical), and it came up a few times during the Colombian election campaign. Some right-wing economists have written in favour of legalization. It's certainly a policy worth debating.

Legalization of production, at least by small producers, is much more clearly on the Andean agenda. As with opium, there is a legal market for a proportion of the coca leaf crop, and this provides an opening for the creation of a legal production economy. It's clear that the legal demand is less than the supply, but many -- such as Evo Morales -- suggest that the solution is to promote the legal demand (by finding and promoting alternative uses of the crops) while trying to restrict expansion of the supply. The major opponent of this realistic strategy continues to be the United States.

I am personally unsatisfied with an analysis which simply blames the US opposition on puritanism, although it is certainly an element. It seems to me likely that there are powerful economic interests at work as well; it is hypocritical for the US to label South American and South Asian countries as narcostates. ("Takes one to know one," as we used to say on the schoolground.) At the same time, it is unlikely that US (Canadian/European) citizens would explicitly support narcotization of their governments. In the most optimistic scenario, increased awareness could lead to the same sort of revulsion as is currently occuring against (some) corporate corruption and influence-peddling.

My pragmatic view is that we should, for now, concentrate on the least controversial aspects. The argument outlined in the beginning of this unfortunately long post -- that militarized and rigid erradication programs are counter-productive because they act to create opposition to nation-building -- seems clear enough that it could make it onto the Canadian political agenda (that is, it is possible that Jack Layton or even Bob Rae would feel comfortable making that argument.)

Reframing the discussion of Afghanistan (or Colombia) in terms of the understandable behaviour of peasants whose only plausible income comes from illicit cultivation, rather than in terms of a murky threat about international terrorism, leads to a fairly compelling argument against military intervention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Oh so its all about manhood, and not being defeated. Nice!

---

Meadow Muffins.Its all about enabling positive solutions rather than pessimistic whining.

Perhaps if you spent less time baiting and flaming and more time researching your spurious claims before spouting off, you will not make such errors in future.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper has introduced a bill to contribute $15 million in new funding to help rebuild rural irrigation systems damaged by years of conflict and neglect in Afghanistan."

Rici

We have talked about this in other threads. I am glad that this course of action is starting to take place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
...I agree with you but also think that we should be considering alternatives that have a chance of actually getting off of the ground. In the present environment using tax dollars to buy and dump opium isn't an idea that will probably get very far....

Actually, if we want to discuss alternative solutions a better way to address the issue would be for the world to legalize the use of opiates and remove all of the constraining factors that make it so lucrative. Control the sale price and tax it.

---

Jerry, I am completely onside with legalizing and taxing drugs like marijuana. However, I am under the impression that heroin is highly addictive and perhaps dangerous to "normalize". Could be just my ignorance of this drug though.

rici, thanks for that informative post.

[ 15 June 2006: Message edited by: siren ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Harper announces $15M Afghan irrigation project

---

Good politics for Harper: I hope it will be good news for some in Afghanistan. The money is being distributed by the Asian Development Bank; will they hire locals to do the work?

BTW -- whose writing Harper's speeches? They're getting very good:

quote:

---

Canada's development work in Afghanistan is important for three reasons, Harper said.

"First, because our national security is at stake. North Americans learned on Sept 11, 2001, that terrorism is a menace to us all. It's a global phenomenon and must be confronted wherever we find it, at home and abroad."

"Secondly, we are doing this because we are determined to demonstrate Canadian leadership on the world stage and show we will pull our weight in the United Nations."

"And thirdly because the government and the people of Afghanistan have asked us to help them, and it is in the nature of Canadians to share the peace and prosperity we have achieved, with countries torn by war, poverty and natural disasters," Harper said.

---

Two interesting points from this article.

1. Canada could reduce its troop levels in Afghanistan after 2009, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer suggested Thursday, saying that other alliance countries could "step up" and "take over."

quote:

---

rici:
I think we are largely in agreement;....

---

True

quote:

---

M. Spector:
You really think that has a better "chance of actually getting off the ground" than the buying-and-dumping-opium idea?

---

No, probably not even as good a chance, kind of like one in a trillion instead of one in 999 billion. But, if we are going to discuss improbable solutions I think that it would be a better one that growing crops to burn.

Just paying them not to grow crops might be more acceptable than either, but not growing and growing to burn still leave us with demand for a high priced item, and that demand will be met so at best we tread water if we don't make things worse.

Rici's post is quite good in fleshing out parts of this problem. What we don't have is a solution that fits with the economic and political system that dominates the industrial world. If there were such a solution it would already be in place.

One of my points is that if there are solutions that will work, and I think that legalization and alternative crops together would, and the system can't accept them, then energy is better spent on trying to change the system rather than on solutions that will either not be acceptable or not implemented in a way that they will succeed.

Three things need to happen. Profit must be reduced so that the drug trade is not as lucrative and aquiring drugs not expensive to the point that the need for them drives crime. Risk must be reduced so that violence inherent in the trade is removed. And, producers need to have fair compensation for switching to other crops.

Fair compenstation will probably not come through market forces, so the current system built on market economics must be replaced with one where economic policies and models are designed to meet social needs directly rather than depending on the market to sort it out.

If we only have compensation program and keep drug use illegal as it is, then not only will the trade still flourish, the cost of compensation for growing something else will have to match the price one could have gotten for raising opium, and as people switch to other crops the price of opium will go up creating a need for higher compensation payments ad infinitum.

Of course a lot of this can be solved in the short run with shear brutality, shoot users, dealers and growers on sight, but this isn't Malaysia.

quote:

---

siren:
I am under the impression that heroin is highly addictive and perhaps dangerous to "normalize".

---

There is no doubt that opiates are highly addictive, but so is nicotine. However, unlike Crack and crystal meth and some other substances of choice for the mentally impaired they are narcotics, the principal property of which is to induce sleepiness and reduce pain. The biggest threat to society from narcotics is the crime that comes with them because they are illegal and very expensive.

quote:

---

1. Canada could reduce its troop levels in Afghanistan after 2009, ....

---

An article in one of the CanWest papers in BC today said that Canada's forces overseas will have to be reduced because they will be needed in BC during the 2010 Olympics.

As for Harper's speech:

quote:

---

"First, because our national security is at stake. North Americans learned on Sept 11, 2001, that terrorism is a menace to us all. It's a global phenomenon and must be confronted wherever we find it, at home and abroad."

---

Translates to our relationship with the current US Government is at stake, we want to suck up to them. The reference to 9-11 is just fluff thrown in to pander to the testosterone crowd.

quote:

---

"Secondly, we are doing this because we are determined to demonstrate Canadian leadership on the world stage and show we will pull our weight in the United Nations."

---

Actually we are doing it to A: placate the US, and B: because there is a lot of opportunity for profit in this war and the so called war on terror to be made by Canadian business interests.

quote:

---

"And thirdly because the government and the people of Afghanistan have asked us to help them,...."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Actually we are doing it to A: placate the US, and B: because there is a lot of opportunity for profit in this war and the so called war on terror to be made by Canadian business interests.

---

Nnnoooooo. No WAAAAY!!! Jerry, are you saying that someone could be making a killing off the war on terror in Afghanistan and whatever reason they are still in Iraq?. And that the two old line parties are just being shills for those who war-fiteer?. And I thought occupying Iraq was about "WMD" and killing all those people in order to get to one evil man, but I think team Dubya has moved the goal posts so often I've forgotten.

quote:

---

What isn't said is that that government is a creature of the US so really it is the US asking.

---

NO WAY!!! Jerry, are you saying our guys in Ottawa are just lap dogs to Uncle Sam, riding around in his back trousers like so much pocket lint ?. Come on now.

Jerry, how many billions of dollars did U.S. taxpayers have to cough up for the Vietnam war ?. You don't think ... I mean, you're not saying that this ... Oh man!

[ 15 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Fair compensation will probably not come through market forces, so the current system built on market economics must be replaced with one where economic policies and models are designed to meet social needs directly rather than depending on the market to sort it out.

---

I agree up to the comma; in fact, I would drop the word "probably".

But I challenge you to point to a country in the "industrialized world" where agricultural production is built on market economics. In fact, the dominant model of agricultural production in the North is socialist state interventionism; the "free market" does not dominate the farm economy,

Looking at agricultural economies in the US, Canada and Europe, what one sees is, in every case, some combination of the following:

• commodity price support programs, such as quotas


• subsidization of infrastructure


• government purchase for non-market distribution (such as foreign aid)


• "ecological" payments, such as payment for uncultivated land


• diversification support subsidies for "non-traditional" crops


• export support programs, including legal defense against charges of dumping


• direct subsidies to agricultural producers

I might have forgotten a few, but you get the idea.

In another thread (some years ago), I suggested that since there is no market which better meets the textbook definition of a free market than agricultural production (that is, large number of producers with interchangeable products), and since no "industrialized country" has managed to make the free market work in agriculture, that it is surprising that anyone has any faith in the free market model. But I digress.

The curious feature of international trade negotiations has been watching populist/socialist/left-wing governments of the South demand that the neoliberal North abandon its state-interventionist agricultural policies. Puts a whole new light on the Washington consensus.

quote:

---

rici:
But I challenge you to point to a country in the "industrialized world" where agricultural production is built on market economics. In fact, the dominant model of agricultural production in the North is socialist state interventionism; the "free market" does not dominate the farm economy,....

---

I agree, however

quote:

---

The North has been notoriously reluctant to impose its own ideology on itself.

---

Which is true, but does not mean that it doesn't want to impose it on others (Canadian softwood being but one example), so as long as the free market fairytale is allowed to dominate economic thinking, whether the US applies it equally or not, that thinking will probably get in the way if and when the current thinking tries to impose a crop substitution program on poppy farmers.

It needs to be stated and accepted as the dominant economic thought that so called free markets are a failure when it comes to delivering a socially just distribution of resources.

Jerry that is an interesting point, can you provide a link if possible?

At this time I do not what units and troop numbers are slated for Afghanistan however I am not sure if the 2010 Olympics will require that many soldiers to be involved and I doubt that the Olympics will effect troop rotations for overseas missions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
There is no doubt that opiates are highly addictive, but so is nicotine. However, unlike Crack and crystal meth and some other substances of choice for the mentally impaired they are narcotics, the principal property of which is to induce sleepiness and reduce pain. The biggest threat to society from narcotics is the crime that comes with them because they are illegal and very expensive.

---

Fair enough. Still potential for the danger of users falling asleep at the wheel while driving.

BTW I didn't mean to imply that Harper's speech was "good" in an approving sense. Just that it was effective politicking in addressing a spectrum of political thought.

quote:

---

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — In the aftermath of the bloodiest attack on civilians that Kandahar city has endured since the renewed insurgency this year, victims' relatives voiced anger at the Taliban but vented even more fury at the Canadian soldiers and other foreigners who promised to improve their lives.

"For 30 years, we've had this problem: Foreign troops come here and start fights," said Abdul Zahir, 49, gesturing at three of his young relatives as they sweated and moaned in a crowded hospital ward.

---

Mr. Zahir's quote encapsulates better than I can what is wrong with this whole Afghan Mission. War-making under the guise of 'nation-building' is a recipe for making new enemies at a more rapid rate than you make new friends.

quote:

---

John K: In the aftermath of the bloodiest attack on civilians that Kandahar city has endured since the renewed insurgency this year, victims' relatives voiced anger at the Taliban but vented even more fury at the Canadian soldiers and other foreigners who promised to improve their lives.

---

This sounds remarkable like what the Afghan Women's organization, RAWA, had to say about the Taliban versus the Russian-backed regime. The following slogan appeared on a banner marking the events of April 28, 1992:

quote:

---

28TH APRIL (the day fundamentalists took power) MORE ODIOUS THAN 27TH APRIL (the day Russian puppets took power)!"

---

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: sgm ]

Here is the link, it turns out to be on CBC

quote:

---

Originally posted by rici:
The North has been notoriously reluctant to impose its own ideology on itself. To date, nobody has suggested that instead it should simply accept that agriculture requires state intervention and that the South could use some help, both financial and even technical, in implementing effective agricultural support programs. Well, I've suggested it. But I don't really count on the world stage.

---

Yes, and the world-wide experiment in free market water works is another failed experiment. North America has subsidized drinking water supplies for several decades. And yet Washington consensus is telling the poorest nations on earth that they must privatize water distribution. And very few private water companies wants to handle sewage, the other half of water works essential to civilized society. With privatized water in Buenos Aires, children were making an average of 13 visits to doctor's offices with water-borne infections.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
Yesterday's Globe story about the newly intensified Operation Mountain Thrust

---