The original point was that with the enormous funds generated by the drug cartels they would have the financial capability to run damn fine militaries.
Is there any doubt that the Taliban's military capability is greatly increased through their drug related income?
Yes agreed but the issue here was that a near bottomless supply of money can buy the drug cartels the means to run damn fine militaries.They certainly finance themselves (in part, certainly not in whole) from parasitic and symbiotic drug financing. Most insurgencies engage in illegal and extra-legal fundraising/extortion/smuggling/etc. to some degree.
[QUOTE] However, the Taliban's tactical competence (such as it is, and I think the picture is rather mixed) would remain near its current level even if the drug money dried up. Equally, I suspect that the Afghan war would still be a tough fight even if everyone in Afghanistan grew carrots.[QUOTE]
Not sure about that I suspect that had the US not funded the supply of weapons and equipment to Afghanistan they would still be using Lee-Enfield 303s.
The operative word was capability... as in possible/potential/ability.The original suggestion, you'll remember, was this:
It is rapidly becoming apparent that the drug cartels have the financial capability to run damn fine militaries.
Then of course there is the political and the military and in the absence of one the other will fail. (I really thought that would be known)The Taliban are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "a damn fine military." Then again, I would be the first to admit that one doesn't need a "damn fine military" to win wars, or that having one means that you'll emerge victorious--something you'll know well from your Rhodesian experience.
It appears increasingly obvious that like in Rhodesia the best that can be hoped for (by the US and NATO) is for a political solution.
Bookmarks