THE FAILURE IN SECONDARY EDUCATION
Teaching Reds coming to a town near you: A look at progressive schools
THE FAILURE OF MULTICULTURALISM
Who you calling a Liberal?
Noam Chomsky and anti-war ethics
One Tribe At A Time #4: The Full Document at last!
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.
15 Commentsleave a comment
Leave a Reply
You need to log in to vote
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
This is a really great idea! But, if we really want something to be done we need to take action by contacting representatives in the government, and we need to spread the word so that more people can do the same.
I agree. It is imperative that we start to put pressure on the Obama Administration and the Legislature, to take this plan of action unless they can provide us with a overwhelming clear reason not to.
Obama will not do anything about this–he is reluctant to piss off his saudi masters who are in bed with the Taliban in Pakistan
Well arn't you a kick in the pants. Yes, it is true our leaderships is going to do little or nothing about this issue. However, we the people must force the government, our government, to do our will and not theirs. This means political activism on our part. The more people we can get to call on the Obama Admin. to destroy the fields the better. We cannot stand by idle. Pressure, Pressure, and more Pressure.
"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.
The commentary on this article is right on the mark and as Mr. Fowler states himself "Pressure, Pressure, and more Pressure" is what is needed to get the govt working for the people. But if we are in agreement that our Presidents or Military leaders are unwilling to act it begs the question why?
I believe the following statement from the experience of a Major General with 34 years of service in the Marines and awarded 16 medals states the position of our current and past leadership clearly: (His statement is long so I had to break it up into multiple posts)
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.(cont)
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...
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!
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?
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. (cont)
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. (cont)
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.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. "
~ Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
General Butler's warnings is not so much that Big Business can or will influence DC. He is saying that they are the ones that control DC and have time & again led us to war under false pretense's.
He states "I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."
At no time does he ever say he did anything on behalf of the American people or the citizens of the countries he invaded. On the contrary, he says ALL of it was to benefit Big Business.
Why are you so certain that Afghanistan is any different? Does the civilian death toll in Iraq not convince you that we were not there to free them from Saddam? Do you think that Big Oil may not have been the true driving force?