Targeting the Taliban

Targeting the Taliban
By Michael Fowler

The simplest and safest way to thwart an enemy’s ability to conduct war is to destroy their supply lines. This is an old and useful tactic from the time of King Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562) of Babylon. His armies would surround their hapless victims who had taken refuge in forts, cut off all supplies, including water and food, until famine weakened their army, and then attack. This is a brutal but effective military ploy. We have been in Afghanistan for eight years—and neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has effectively utilized this strategy.

The solution to winning the war in Afghanistan is to destroy the Taliban’s ability to make war, causing the decimation of the Taliban war machine. The Taliban’s supply lines are the poppy fields. Eliminating those fields as a source of income would strike a fatal blow to the Taliban.

The Taliban are mafia drug-lords wrapped in Middle-Eastern freedom-fighter apparel. They generate $100 to $150 million annually by imposing “taxes” on opium farmers.Selling and exporting opium raises $700 to $800 million annually for the Taliban. This allows for the purchase of arms for insurgency, terrorism and black-market tyranny. Worldwide, Afghan heroin fuels 93 percent of a $65 billion trade, far surpassing all of Mexico, Southeast Asia and South America combined. The United Nations estimates between 15 to 21 million people use this highly addictive drug. Afghan heroin alone kills over 100,000 people each year, outweighing the U.S. combat losses of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Grenada and Vietnam combined.

Our current policy of agricultural transformation allows the cultivation of opium poppies until economic incentives prompt farmers to take up other crops such as pomegranates and grapes. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2009 Annual Report, opium production has doubled under U.S. occupation and is so bountiful that the Taliban has reportedly stored 12,000 tons of opium, which can supply the entire world for three years. We need a new plan.

If the poppy fields in Afghanistan were eradicated, this would annihilate the Taliban’s primary source of funding. This in turn would eliminate their ability to corrupt the Karzi government, buy arms, cause terror, protect al-Qaeda and buy foreign influence. It is the single, clearest solution and would end the havoc in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan while devastating world heroin trafficking in a matter of weeks. This is a win-win strategy.

Proponents against the eradication of Afghanistan’s poppy fields argue that world demand will only increase production in other areas, making poppy destruction a useless endeavor. “If Afghanistan were suddenly wiped out as a producer of opium—by bad weather or a blight or eradication efforts—other parts of the world would simply emerge as new producers,” said Founding Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance Ethan Nadelmann. This assumption, while based on the law of supply and demand, ignores the difficulties associated with expanding any type of production from clearing and preparing new land and setting up irrigation. Moreover, counter-drug operations performed in the United States and elsewhere use crop eradication as a means. Focused on the drug factor alone, Mr. Nadelmann misses the larger point: Destroying Afghan’s poppy fields would bankrupt the Taliban, preventing them from resupplying arms and killing Americans.

Others believe increased Taliban recruitment is the primary objection to field destruction. U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are both on record saying that destroying the poppy fields would strengthen the Taliban and that every disenfranchised farmer would become a Taliban recruit. That may be the case with the devastation of one or two fields, but it will not be the case with total destruction of any and all poppy fields.

A counterargument to this is that when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan almost three decades ago, opium production increased in response to increased arms expenditures. This shows that the economic needs of the insurgent army drive production. Moreover, eight-years of permissiveness have allowed the Taliban to strengthen their forces to an all-time high. In fact, 2009 was the highest loss of life for U.S. and NATO forces. Permitting opium production did not eliminate or curb the Taliban. Another point is that when seasonal cultivation ends, the Taliban gains strengths as most of the opium farmers become fighters and take up arms after the harvest.

One of the fiercest arguments against the destruction of Afghanistan poppy fields is that if opium production is eliminated it will destroy the Afghanistan economy. First, no one makes that argument for Mexican drug-dealers or marijuana cultivators in California. Second, if the crops were removed the Taliban would collapse, Afghanistan would become safe and foreign investment money would flow into that country. More to the point, Afghan farmer’s gross revenues from opium is about $1 billion dollars according to 2007 U.N. estimates, while our 2007 U.S. Military operations cost taxpayers $35 billion. Therefore, the plan should be: burn the fields, crush the Taliban, send the boys home, send one billion in aid and save $34 billion a year.

The U.S. dominates the air in Afghanistan. Poppy fields grow in full sunlight, and forests do not obscure the poppy fields. Eradication efforts will not be hampered by a lack of discovery. Modern herbicides are quite safe and effective, as well as the use of tractors to plow the fields under. When the Afghan farmer is faced with the choice of taking U.S. assistance to grow legal crops or face total eradication of his crops and imprisonment, he will be far more motivated than he currently is to switch his crops.

In the past, the United States did not have the ability to eradicate those fields. Now, we are the occupier of Afghanistan and have the capacity and the duty to destroy this trade. Every poppy that grows empowers the Taliban with more artillery that will be used to kill American soldiers and Marines. No one has more power than Mr. Obama to dispatch the largest source of heroin export in the world. If he really wants get out of Afghanistan and cares about our troops, he must destroy those fields.

-Michael Fowler is the director of Veterans for Academic Freedom, a former Force Recon Marine, instructor of Christian apologetics, author and talk-radio host.

Related posts:

1. Heroin fix drives Taliban The simplest and safest way to thwart an enemy’s ability...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

11407 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteransforacademicfreedom.org%2F2010%2F01%2Ftargeting-the-taliban%2FTargeting+the+Taliban2010-01-07+06%3A06%3A34adminhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.veteransforacademicfreedom.org%2F%3Fp%3D1140leave a comment

• Leonard Magruder says:

  December 10, 2009

  The DNC knows the power lies have. They know that so long as they tell people what they want to hear, it does not matter. The big problem is getting people to wake to the fact that the media is part of the DNC.

  Reply
• Michael_Fowler says:

  January 25, 2010

  Well first off Gen. Butler's comments are 100 years old. Second, I do see any evidence that the U.S. Oil companies have profited from the Iraq war, as they do not have free access to that oil, Iraq does.

  Second, Gen. Butler was speaking of dirty little wars, not eliminating genocide. Your comments are sounding as if you are trying to use Gen. Butler to promote an anti-American, anti-war agenda, which having read Gen. Butler's book, he was not in either of those camps. Because he believe there are legitimate reasons to go war, but he opposed the way veterans were treated and the profiteering of Big Business in the days of the "Fat Cats" which no-longer exist due to new regulations.

  Lastly, I find your lack of compassion for the over 400,000 people murdered by Saddam appalling. They have every right to be free just as we have.

  read:
  http://www.veteransforacademicfreedom.org/2009/12…

  Reply
  • Kazi Mahmood says:

    February 4, 2010

    I know this is a purely American site. I also notice the concern regarding the strategies in the Afghan war. I feel I have the right to post an opinion too. First of all, the American writers, journalists, blogger are wrong on one very important aspect of Afghanistan: The Taliban does not profit or benefit from drug trade. Nato, UK, US and other Western armies are there to protect opium trade for pro-US drug warlords. Karzai family benefits from this trade, are enriching themselves with it and your 'opinion' masters are lying to the American people on the issue. Such lies will not help the US win such wars.

    On the other hand, I find it incredible that the writer found 400,000 peope killed by Saddam Husein who was murdered thanks to US help to Shi'a elements in Iraq! The US murdered 1 million Iraqis and well how passionate are you about that? More lies will be spured by you and you are giving journalism, blogging and everything that is called writing a real big miss!

    Reply
    • Michael_Fowler says:

      February 4, 2010

      Kazi, thank you for your post, everyone is welcome.

      First, I will ignore your baseless claims and so we can discuss something of substance.
      Explain to me how the U.S. profited from Tailban heroin during Soviet occupation?
      Even, if the U.S. was profiting from the heroin trade my plan for eradication of opium poppies, would put everyone out of the drug
      business, correct?

      Reply
• Twitter Ruby Diana says:

  January 20, 2010

  "Neither the Bush administration nor Obama administration has effectively utilized this strategy."
  Isn't this why we have trained military and Generals? Why blame Bush and Obama? They follow
  the advise of the military. If the military doesn't understand the fundamentals of destroying the supply lines of the Taliban, war will be going on forever there.

  Reply
• Michael_Fowler says:

  January 25, 2010

  Thanks for the comment and the post from General Butler, one of my heroes, as I am a Marine. Gen. Butler is absolutely right that Big Business can and will influence the Washington, D.C and that in turn will lead the military to do its bidding. That is always going to be a constant pressure.

  Yet, that does not answer the question of human rights and modern warfare. No country with the military might of the U.S. should stand by idle and watch genocide occur as did happen in Germany, Russia, Ukraine, China, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. We are compelled to act out of basic human respect for life.

  Before WWII the U.S could sit back and watch Europe fight with itself with little worry that the war would effect us. But, with the advent of modern warfare things have changed greatly and we must be interventionist to the point of preventing large war machines such as the Nazi's or Saddam's from rising up.

  So, we must be on guard against war profiteering, while balancing that with human rights and self-preservation.

  However, we the people must be the rulers of our military might, not generals. I cannot find one good reason not to burn those fields in Afghanistan.

  Reply