There is a gathering movement among politicians in both Afghanistan and the U.S. for a massive extermination campaign to wipe out the poppy production throughout the nation. For years, the idea of this has been put on the back burner for fear of the devastating political consequences. I understand where the fear comes from; the idea of U.S. warplanes dropping herbicides and pisticides on Afghan farms would surely produce a massive propaganda campaign amongst the Taliban, who have found a new resurgence, while the NATO campaign lags through it's fifth year. However, if the numbers are anywhere close to true, there is no mistaking the fact that Afghanistan's poppy production is responsible for almost all the heroin production throughout the world. The money is not going to the government, obviously, so one can conjecture that the funds are going to fund the insurgency or "terrorism". There is definitely some money in this business, but there was a lot of money in cocaine 25 years ago and our anti-drug campaign there was littered with corruption and fatally flawed by our support of right-wing paramilitaries. After all the seizures, arrests, and poisoning of crops, there are still cocaine addicts today and the supply is still there. There may have been a drop in the supply, but it was not an effect of U.S. policy in Columbia, the drug just kind of went out of style. So, I end with the question of whether a massive poppy extermination campaign would hit the everyday heroin user and cripple a newly robust Taliban? If we know where the heroin is coming from and how the money it generates is used, what's the problem? Politics or no politics are we really that worried about our image in Afghansitan. Is this the American ego at work?
2 comments:
The idea is that by cutting down poppy fields without giving the farmers an alternative crop we push even more neutrals into the arms of the Taliban. Cutting down a man's fields when famring is his only source of income obviously produces a huge amount of resentment among the populace. That, coupled with the fact that pesticides often target the legitimate and illegitimate crops indiscriminately, means that your average farmer has no incentive to not plant poppies. Also, farmers are often forced by Taliban militants to grow poppies, si in effect, farmers take the fall for Talibaners.
But we can't negotiate with terrorists. Even if it means crippling farmers. Right? Isn't that our stance? To resolutely bar discussion and interaction even if it produces new generations of terrorists? I mean, it may sound like pandering to terrorists not to destroy the crops, but at this point are we truly worried about what message we're sending to the everyday afghani? Haven't we officially given them the finger and told them we're not concerned at this point?
Post a Comment