Afghanistan's Drug Problem

[tequila]

Sorry friend but you need to up the intellectual level of your argument.

Destroying a crop is not the equivalent of destroying the farmland itself. Taking out a key piece of the irrigation system does not mean that the whole irrigation system gets to be destroyed... just placed beyond use (if necessary) until they play ball.

So, rather than permanently despoiling the land, we will simply remove part of the irrigation system, destroy planted opium, and ensure that no one repairs said irrigation system or replants the opium.

I am not sure how doing so changes any of what I said before, except that this solution will be more costly in terms of manpower requirements and technical expertise.

Can you address how doing so will at least assist in defeating the insurgency or significantly degrading opium supply to the point where the benefits involved would outweigh the costs?

[JMA]

So, rather than permanently despoiling the land, we will simply remove part of the irrigation system, destroy planted opium, and ensure that no one repairs said irrigation system or replants the opium.

I am not sure how doing so changes any of what I said before, except that this solution will be more costly in terms of manpower requirements and technical expertise.

Can you address how doing so will at least assist in defeating the insurgency or significantly degrading opium supply to the point where the benefits involved would outweigh the costs?

I believe you understand exactly what I mean.

Look it is really simple... in a war it helps to know who your enemy is.

It just so happens that your friendly Afghan poppy growers are killing more US kids (90% of 2,000 annual heroin deaths in the US) than Taliban bombs and bullets. That this simple fact has been missed is rather ... strange, I'm sure you will agree. That the US diplomatic/military contingents in-country continue to use the troops on the ground to protect the source of supply is strange to the point of bizarre. (Worth investigation I suggest)

So where are the Taliban getting their money from?

* From (US allies) in the Gulf

* From taking a cut from the opium trade

* From taking a cut from the billions of US tax-payers $ supposedly to be used for aid and development.

Read here and weep!

Funding the Enemy: How U.S. Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban

[Dayuhan]

your friendly Afghan poppy growers are killing more US kids (90% of 2,000 annual heroin deaths in the US) than Taliban bombs and bullets.

Guess we ought to be serving warrants on the major distillers for those 75k deaths caused annually by alcohol.

Poppy growing is an issue and a problem, but to blame the growers for the deaths at the other end of the supply chain seems to overlook a whole lot of involvement by people who are at least as culpable, or more so. Blowing that out of proportion is not a way to arrive at effective policy.

[JMA]

Guess we ought to be serving warrants on the major distillers for those 75k deaths caused annually by alcohol.

Poppy growing is an issue and a problem, but to blame the growers for the deaths at the other end of the supply chain seems to overlook a whole lot of involvement by people who are at least as culpable, or more so. Blowing that out of proportion is not a way to arrive at effective policy.

Oh boy...

... forget it

[marct]

Guess we ought to be serving warrants on the major distillers for those 75k deaths caused annually by alcohol.

Poppy growing is an issue and a problem, but to blame the growers for the deaths at the other end of the supply chain seems to overlook a whole lot of involvement by people who are at least as culpable, or more so. Blowing that out of proportion is not a way to arrive at effective policy.

Oh boy...

... forget it

Why forget it? You are making a claim that is, basically, indefensible unless you are willing to extend it to other "causes" of death in the US. Would you make the same claim against the use of force in securing oil fields even though there are 40,000+ deaths per year due to car accidents in the US?

Let's go back to another component of your argument that you made earlier:

My position is that it is not with the restrictions placed on the US and Brit armies in Afghanistan. Rules of engagement and (horrifyingly) increasingly attitudes of officers (some displayed around here) which are more suited to work with the Peacecorps than with an army at war.

Then inexplicably the US have appeared to forgotten the simple lesson they learned in Vietnam - where a segment of their Viet Cong enemy were 'farmers by day, soldiers by night'. (If they have not forgotten then they have no #*!# idea how to deal with that)

This comes back to the need - IMHO - to use proxies who can fight by the same lack of rules as the Taliban. Use of such tactics or methods would not be possible for use by US or Brit forces. (Nor would - most likely - the US Congress allow such proxies to kill in the name of the US)

.

First off, the socio-technical context of Afghanistan is quite different from that of Vietnam. I truly doubt that the "lessons" have been forgotten. Instead, I would argue that the "solutions" have been rendered impossible - and don't forget that the US lost Vietnam. Even if we draw on the lessons of Malasia, which could be argued as a limited "win", those solutions are still impossible in the current socio-technical regime.

Two points here:

1. Force levels
2. International law

ISAF does not, and is unlikely ever to have, sufficient force levels to actually monitor down to the village level. That was why this silliness with VSO was created. Second, international law precludes using overt proxies to commit actions that are chargable as war crimes. Look at the Canadian experience with handing over detainees to the Afghan government and where that left the CF.

Cheers,

Marc

[JMA]

Why forget it? You are making a claim that is, basically, indefensible unless you are willing to extend it to other "causes" of death in the US. Would you make the same claim against the use of force in securing oil fields even though there are 40,000+ deaths per year due to car accidents in the US?

No, that's no better than a high school level argument. So I need to be careful because I don't know how old you are.

For those with a greater grasp of the situation it would be clear that while the incidence of road traffic accident deaths/alcohol related deaths/deaths from smoking are (or should be) a major cause for concern back in the US the US and Brit politicians and their military general staff have the ability and the means to take action to significantly reduce the 90% of the heroin production in the world coming out of Afghanistan. Not to do so is criminal negligence.

The simple question must be asked why the US government (under both Bush and Obama) have chosen to cosy up to an obviously corrupt and democratically illegitimate regime ... together with scum of the earth druglords and warlords who infest the country.

I appreciate there is no simple answer to this question so the standard response is either silence or the cute (but somewhat childish) stuff I am dealing with now.

First off, the socio-technical context of Afghanistan is quite different from that of Vietnam. I truly doubt that the "lessons" have been forgotten. Instead, I would argue that the "solutions" have been rendered impossible - and don't forget that the US lost Vietnam. Even if we draw on the lessons of Malasia, which could be argued as a limited "win", those solutions are still impossible in the current socio-technical regime.

Two points here:

1. Force levels
2. International law

ISAF does not, and is unlikely ever to have, sufficient force levels to actually monitor down to the village level. That was why this silliness with VSO was created. Second, international law precludes using overt proxies to commit actions that are chargable as war crimes. Look at the Canadian experience with handing over detainees to the Afghan government and where that left the CF.

Cheers,

Marc

You see this is what happens when civilians make the leap of arrogance in deluding themselves that they understand all about wars and how best to approach specific problems.

First off, I repeat, the error was made to turn the rout of the Taliban into a nation building exercise. George Bush has a lot to answer for in this regard.

Now while troops are there they should at least attempt to the job they are there for (if they know what it is, that is). It is not a simple case of troop numbers it is more how the troops are used. (Hint: go read up how the Romans managed to 'control' an empire with relatively few troops)

If the problem with the Taliban was that they harboured AQ and then refused to hand OBL and others over to the US (thus providing a much needed pretext - and target - for the the US to strike out post 9/11) then on the positive side were their attempts to curb poppy production in Afghanistan.

Yes one understands that if the US were to go after the druglords and poppy production (in addition to the Taliban) it would mean that they would be at war with just about everyone in Afghanistan with their only (temporary) friends being those with pockets full from the indiscriminate and poorly controlled distribution of US aid money.

The balance of your comment is quite silly.

First I challenge you or anyone to establish how much currently serving officers and NCOs actually understand about the 'lessons' from Vietnam or other insurgencies. Just as if you did the same with Brits about the 'lessons' out of Malaysia and Kenya I suggest it will be sure to be an eye opener.

My alternative was that they (given the self imposed RoE) they have no idea how to deal with the Taliban.

You need to define how you see 'win' in this circumstance. Of course you seem to believe you have already considered that all the solutions have been rendered impossible. Now if you had qualified that with the words: "politically and legally acceptable to the US and European countries" you may be onto something. This is an important point.

Those of us who have actually fought a counterinsurgency war quickly come to realise that our inability to descend to the levels of depraved barbarity against the civilian population that the insurgents invariably do means effectively our best hope is for a negotiated settlement.

This applies to those who had some human restraint and in the absence of laws some conscience.

This does not of course apply to the likes of Robert Mugabe and his North Korean trained 5th Brigade who through butchering civilians in quantities of tens of thousands effectively poisoned the water (the people) in which the Ndebele 'dissidents' (the fish) moved (swam). That solution worked - and I did say (go read what I wrote) using proxies would be problematic in any circumstances but obviously impossible if a 'gukurahundi' solution was considered.

Then move onto Sri Lanka. After years of pussy-footing around with the Tamil Tigers finally figured it out (with a little help from the Chinese).

Now look at Syria.

So yes there is international law for those who bother with it. The Russians, Chinese and those nations under their tutelage don't give a damn.

In fact the Taliban have become so adept at exploiting the weaknesses in ISAF military capacity that they taken themselves out of the iron-age to giant killer status as they give ISAF the run around.

The problem is that the more clueless 'academics' start to voice uninformed opinion on matters of warfare the greater the chances are that the politicians may just listen to them with further catastrophic consequences.

More people should read Edward Luttwak as a balance to the current nonsense been peddled around.

[davidbfpo]

Post 183 onwards to here have been relocated here from a long running thread on Human Terrain Teams (HTT), some may appear out of context so have a peek at their former place:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...t=4093&page=41

[marct]

No, that's no better than a high school level argument. So I need to be careful because I don't know how old you are.

Try logic instead of ad hominen attacks.

For those with a greater grasp of the situation it would be clear that while the incidence of road traffic accident deaths/alcohol related deaths/deaths from smoking are (or should be) a major cause for concern back in the US the US and Brit politicians and their military general staff have the ability and the means to take action to significantly reduce the 90% of the heroin production in the world coming out of Afghanistan. Not to do so is criminal negligence.

No, it is not "criminal negligence" as you state. It may be irresponsible, but it is not criminal, and it just highlights why your claim is ridiculous. Would you argue that since US and Brit politicians have the ability and means to reduce deaths by car accident, and they do, that they are criminally negligent in not doing so? If you would, then I have to wonder what criminal code you are referring to.

You see this is what happens when civilians make the leap of arrogance in deluding themselves that they understand all about wars and how best to approach specific problems.

First off, I repeat, the error was made to turn the rout of the Taliban into a nation building exercise. George Bush has a lot to answer for in this regard.

Well, I never said that it wasn't an error .

Now while troops are there they should at least attempt to the job they are there for (if they know what it is, that is). It is not a simple case of troop numbers it is more how the troops are used. (Hint: go read up how the Romans managed to 'control' an empire with relatively few troops)

I am quite familiar with how the Romans managed their empire both militarily and politically. I am also well aware that it is not a simple matter of numbers; although there are minimum numbers necessary to do what you suggested, and those numbers where not available in Afghanistan.

If the problem with the Taliban was that they harboured AQ and then refused to hand OBL and others over to the US (thus providing a much needed pretext - and target - for the the US to strike out post 9/11) then on the positive side were their attempts to curb poppy production in Afghanistan.

Yes one understands that if the US were to go after the druglords and poppy production (in addition to the Taliban) it would mean that they would be at war with just about everyone in Afghanistan with their only (temporary) friends being those with pockets full from the indiscriminate and poorly controlled distribution of US aid money.

The balance of your comment is quite silly.

I will certainly grant you that the US rationale for being in Afghanistan has changed over the years. Also, since the US has adopted the somewhat irrational goal of stating that their strategic rationale is to deny facilities to AQ etc. as their current rationale, there are some quite serious problems, many of which are exacerbated by US domestic politics.

And why do you say that the balance of my comment is silly? Is it because you know what you know and facts have nothing to do with it?

First I challenge you or anyone to establish how much currently serving officers and NCOs actually understand about the 'lessons' from Vietnam or other insurgencies. Just as if you did the same with Brits about the 'lessons' out of Malaysia and Kenya I suggest it will be sure to be an eye opener.

My alternative was that they (given the self imposed RoE) they have no idea how to deal with the Taliban.

Try reading something about logic and look up the Rule of the Excluded Third. I have probably read more AARs, from the Brits, Americans and Canadians than most people, and it is quite obvious that the actual amount of lessons learned from Vietnam, etc., is fairly low. That said, that same apparent ignorance needs to be put into a domestic political context where 'strategies" are often defined and imposed by politicians who have no concept of military operations and don't care about anything beyond the next election. Who do you think imposes the RoE's on the troops?

You need to define how you see 'win' in this circumstance. Of course you seem to believe you have already considered that all the solutions have been rendered impossible. Now if you had qualified that with the words: "politically and legally acceptable to the US and European countries" you may be onto something. This is an important point.

That was implied, but I probably should have spelled it out.

Those of us who have actually fought a counterinsurgency war quickly come to realise that our inability to descend to the levels of depraved barbarity against the civilian population that the insurgents invariably do means effectively our best hope is for a negotiated settlement.

This applies to those who had some human restraint and in the absence of laws some conscience.

Again, go study some basic logic and ask yourself what effect such actions would have on the general population once they were demobbed.

This does not of course apply to the likes of Robert Mugabe and his North Korean trained 5th Brigade who through butchering civilians in quantities of tens of thousands effectively poisoned the water (the people) in which the Ndebele 'dissidents' (the fish) moved (swam). That solution worked - and I did say (go read what I wrote) using proxies would be problematic in any circumstances but obviously impossible if a 'gukurahundi' solution was considered.

Mugabe is a psychotic and, in this instance, a red herring.

Then move onto Sri Lanka. After years of pussy-footing around with the Tamil Tigers finally figured it out (with a little help from the Chinese).

Now look at Syria.

The Tamil Tigers are an interesting example but, I have to wonder, how appropriate to a discussion of Afghanistan. Are we likely to the the ANA pushing the Taliban into a pocket and annihilating them? Probably not, and ISAF forces are not likely to do so either since a) they are not the government and b) they can't get access to FATA. The Tigers, you'll note, didn't have a safe haven, while the Taliban do.

As far as Syria is concerned, it appears to be turning into a multi-sided proxy fight. There are potential analogs with Afghanistan, but I would be very careful about them.

So yes there is international law for those who bother with it. The Russians, Chinese and those nations under their tutelage don't give a damn.

So what? The US and the Brits do. Deal with what is rather than what you might wish to be.

In fact the Taliban have become so adept at exploiting the weaknesses in ISAF military capacity that they taken themselves out of the iron-age to giant killer status as they give ISAF the run around.

Sigh. Of course, the Soviets were nothing but Bronze Age barbarians. I have many problems with how ISAF has handled their campaign, but the ability to exploit Western weaknesses has been know for a long time, so I wouldn't give the Taliban more than their due.

The problem is that the more clueless 'academics' start to voice uninformed opinion on matters of warfare the greater the chances are that the politicians may just listen to them with further catastrophic consequences.

Politicians listen only to themselves and their political advisers. Their choice to "adopt" the views of academics or military people people is undertaken solely on whether or not those people's ideas match the politicians preconceptions. Any competent student of practical politics knows this.

More people should read Edward Luttwak as a balance to the current nonsense been peddled around.

And anyone who knows Byzantine history will agree that his "thoughts" on that are singularly uninformed.