There has been some research based on a Purdue University study that examined hemp growth for industrial purposes. Some groups have been looking at that as a way to curb the opium and marijuana production by building an industrial infrastructure around hemp grown for that purpose.
Any concerted anti-poppy campaign would significantly increase the level of violence in the country, particularly in the northern and western parts of the country that the uninformed believe are 'success' stories. They are quiescent at best, largely due to the ineffectiveness of government and Afghan forces in those regions.
Also to be considered is the fact that poppy is especially suited to the current conditions in Afghanistan. Until the irrigation system is rebuilt, along with an infrastructure that allows for transportation, storage, and refrigeration, the choice of crops will remain sharply circumscribed for the average farmer.
OK and what is the market for hemp? Kenya once was the hemp production point for the British Empire but as the use of hemp ropes and lines died at sea so did the production of hemp.Originally Posted by Darksaga
The Brits have tried potatoes in Afganistan as a crop replacement and other staples have been tested. The bottom line is they--like coffee for Juan Valdez in Colombia--do not come close to paying as well.
What Eden said is worth repeating:
Clearly COIN is currently taking precedence, but the reason why that is is complicated.
At ISAF headquarters, the long-term threat of narcotics was (and still is, I assume - I left there last year) clearly recognized. However, the increased violence and decreased Afghan support for NATO pursuant to a serious CN effort had to be avoided. Why? Because the coalition in Afghanistan was barely being held together. Several major contributors were very leery about allowing 'their' region to become more violent. They feared that NATO involvement in CN would lead to their troops becoming targets. Many had caveats specifically exempting them from CN. Therefore, any CN effort had to be Afghan-led and executed, and the Afghans were both unable and unwilling to mount anything more than photo-op missions.
On the other hand, for political reasons and domestic consumption, no one could say that they were going to ignore narcotic trafficking. So you would have statements to the effect that it simply couldn't be tackled until the security situation improved (only partially true in some areas), and the trumpeting of a few 'replacement livelihood' programs that were desperately underfunded and of dubious effectiveness.
The truth is that NATO is unwilling to tackle CN and that some nations are more interested in being seen to participate than they are in actually improving conditions in Afghanistan. The more dedicated NATO members recognize they can only ask so much of their less willing partners if they are to sustain any sort of effort at all. It is not, I believe, the first time that politicians and generals have preferred short-term benefits to long-term gains. These are truths that are unspeakable, of course, which is why you have been unable to get a satisfactory answer to your question.
As Ken says, welcome to South Asia.
Yes, I agree too. I was quite dumbfounded that anyone with even a faint understanding of either the politics or geostrategic stakes thought this was remotely possible:
Get tougher? Maybe. Probably. Withdraw all US support?Inform President Karzai that he must stop protecting drug lords and narco-farmers or he will lose U.S. support.
I'm sure he's a great guy and a competent
law enforcement type, he's obviously smart and aggressive. And he's an American. I think that latter fact gets in the way of the former attributes. We like to get things done, believe that wrongs must be righted and are generally pretty up-front in our dealings. Not popular attitudes in much of the world and we always have difficulty accepting that fact. Egos again...
I also think his experience with Colombia probably clouded the issue. Afghans are NOT Colombians
Here is the link to the Purdue report.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html
Good report and interesting. Seems to me though that the proposed industry assumes a benign security environment, a functioning commercial structure, and an accepted, practiced, and functional government to support such an endeavor. None of those assumptions apply to Afghanistan and are not likely to in the next decade.
Tom
Bookmarks