A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders, Rasmussen Reports, 6/20/10

When activists (who are not necessarily students) were able to delay construction of a UC Berkeley sports center by living in trees for 21 months, there was no review of what went wrong.

When protesters with torches vandalized UC Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s home, there was no review. But when UC police arrested 46 people demonstrating against higher-education cuts by occupying Wheeler Hall on Nov. 20, there were complaints that police overreacted. And so — with authorities, not anarchists in the sights — a review was born.

Last week, UC Berkeley released the 128-page report. In academic fashion, it notes two forces that converted “an animated but essentially non-violent protest into a raw power struggle between demonstrators and police” — without overtly taking sides.

There were officers, who in a “series of over-reactions by insufficiently supervised police” at moments overreacted, intensifying fears among students. Then there were demonstrators, mostly “young, sincere, and emotionally mobile” students, but also “a smaller group” that “set out to instigate confrontations with police” and provoke them “into high-visibility over-reactions that could be used to inflame the crowd and escalate its aggressiveness.”

The review served a useful purpose in that it details the need for campus police to prepare for the worst and, when it occurs, to communicate with demonstrators and other law enforcement personnel who come to their aid.

There are also some heroes in the review, like Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard, who took the initiative to advise Wheeler Hall occupiers via megaphone that if they wanted to leave peacefully, they should sit down before the police came in. “As it turned out,” the report notes, “all the occupiers followed this wise advice.”

Two aspects of the report stand out for me.

First, there’s this dubious theory on the use of riot gear by officers from UC and other departments called to aid the scene: “If the police had not worn riot gear, there never would have been a need for it.”

While the review purports not to take a side on this theory, the review board continues, “We wonder whether it was wise to have some of the mutual aid squads try to move through the crowd in rigid, formal, militaristic formation.”

I object.

For nearly two years, UC delivered energy bars and water to trespassing tree sitters lest activists get hungry or thirsty and fall from a tree. Do not tell me that the university is supposed to take every precaution coddling activists breaking the law, then risk the safety of men and women dispatched to ensure the peace in dangerous hot spots.

Which leads to the other issue — that student protest is practically a major at Berkeley. UC police arrested a professor for cutting the crime scene tape outside Wheeler Hall. Some students told the review board that they ended up at the Nov. 20 protest simply because they wanted to be part of “the Berkeley experience.”

Unfortunately, this means, the review notes, “many students reportedly do not understand that disobedience of campus rules (even quite ‘civil’ disobedience) can affect their academic standing, that it can jeopardize their ability to continue their education here, permanently mar their record, perhaps even prevent them from receiving a degree whose other requirements have been satisfied.

“Moreover, the rules as written are not enforced consistently.”

Not enforced consistently? Hey, it’s news to learn that the rules are enforced at all. University spokesman Dan Mogulof told me that the Center for Student Conduct adjudicates these cases, but the majority of Nov. 20 “cases are still unresolved.”

Please observe: The academic year is over.

What is the penalty for occupying a building? Associated Students President Noah Stern told me, “It is not clear what the penalties are for a violation.” He added that due-process options slow down the system.

Student advocate Kelly Fabian explained in an e-mail that punishment for student violations could range from a “warning with community service to suspensions of varying lengths.” Alas, that doesn’t tell students much. If there is punishment, it is veiled.

I want to make this clear: I support all students’ rights to protest and exercise their First Amendment rights. But students and activists do not have the right to take over an institution that is supposed to be dedicated not to protest, but to higher learning.

If students want to engage in civil disobedience that trespasses on the university’s vital education function, they should be ready to pay a penalty — like cleaning bathrooms for an afternoon. They’re adults. They should know this. Yet the occupiers of Wheeler Hall included a general amnesty for civil disobedience as one of their “demands.” They must think they have a right to dodge consequences.

Mogulof noted that the school wants to “communicate early and often with students about the time, place and manner rules that govern protest demonstrations and expression, to explain the consequences of violating those rules.”

He’s right, but there is a rub: If there are no consequences or no consequences within a meaningful timeframe, there’s not much to explain, is there?

http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/5453

Even the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) has now objected to the Democrat Party, suing the Democrats and its leadership for “stealing” their party platform and relabeling it as “progressive”.
According to political hotwire and many other sources, CPUSA claims that the entire so-called “new” Democratic agenda is, in fact, the product of a decades-long, painstaking campaign by CPUSA theorists, agitators, and underground subversive cells – which makes it the intellectual property of the Communist Party USA, protected by American copyright laws. “They stole our entire platform, rebranded it ‘progressive’, and claimed it as their own,” declared a CPUSA spokesperson at a press conference in San Francisco. “And we communists say, not so fast! Not in this country anyway, where we still have property rights and the rule of law, thank God! Actually, let me rephrase that…”, which was a comment to undermine God as both the Democrats and Communists have done. The Communist Party representative further explained that government ownership of the auto and financial industries, redistribution of wealth, and free rationed health care have always been among the glorious CPUSA objectives: “We held on to these goals through all the difficult years of factional infighting, purges, denunciations, and heroic espionage on behalf of the Soviet intelligence services.”

According to the article, CPUSA lawyers presented documents to the press showing that the Democratic platform of 2010, almost line-for-line, reiterates the CPUSA platform of 1963. In other words, the Democrats of today are the Communists of yesterday. I recently laid this all out in a commentary called the “Democrat-Communist Manifesto. The socialist takeover of our government is starting to show its vulnerability to reality. We elected Barack Obama as president without looking into his past. The socialist in control of the executive and legislative branches of government have grabbed more government control on the people. Now their push is for control of the courts as Obama appoints judges that carry out his Communist agenda. He has nominated Elena Kagen to become the next lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court, even though she has never served one day as a judge. She is a lesbian, who, as Dean of Harvard Law School, forced military recruiters off campus due to her distaste of the “Don’t ask. Don’t tell” policy of the military. She also once wrote, “Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness.” While the socialist and communist in America try to re-label what they are really doing, they work unified to the same goal – removing capitalism and God and replacing it with control by the government.

Frank Aquila
Manteca
President of the
South San Joaquin Republicans
mantecarepublicans@yahoo.com

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/14388/

Make Mine Freedom (1948)

For years Nebraska has been one of the top teams in college football. So it is no surprise when Nebraska Assistant Coach Ron Brown was recruited by Stanford Univ. in California to be interviewed for the head coach position. He didn’t get very far. He was not discriminated against because he is black. Not at liberal Stanford. Brown’s problem at Stanford is that he is a Christian, apparently with rather firm beliefs on matters such as homosexuality and abortion. Said Alan Glenn, Assistant Athletic Director at Stanford, “Brown’s religion was definitely something that had to be considered. We have a very diverse community with a diverse alumni. Anything that would stand out that much is something that has to be looked at.”

Stanford prides itself in being in the vanguard of institutions which value “diversity” and “inclusion” .In fact it helped crystallize the movement to emphasize these ideas when on Jan. 15 , 1987, everyone, in a massive protest , started chanting “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Culture has got to go”, thereby launching the movement known as “multiculturalism.”

The Western canon, the generally accepted list of the greatest books of the West were now attacked as having been written by biased “dead white males” These books are generally based on universalism, the belief that there are universal truths that are potentially available to everybody. What Stanford now embraced was particularism, which says that what one may know is determined by the circumstances of one’s birth. Race, gender, and class became more important than ideas.

From this beginning there flowed out throughout the universities of America a whole new plague of totalitarian horrors, like “diversity”, “sensitivity training”, “political correctness”, “speech codes”, “dormitory re-education,” “deconstructionism”, and “gender feminism,” all under the general umbrella of “multiculturalism.”

That was 15 years ago. Lets take a look at a how it has all has turned out. Offhand, it looks like Stanford better hire every Christian it can find.

The brief comments that begin each section below are from “The Diversity Myth”, an almost definitive critique of multiculturalism by David Sacks and Peter Thiel, two former graduate students at Stanford University. (Independent Institute, $24.95) The book is especially recommended to students who wish to protect themselves from brainwashing by multiculturalists. Included are some other quotes, notably by Robert Bork, former Supreme Court nominee, along with comments by Mr. Magruder in parentheses, prefaced by LM.

(Sections of this article are reprinted with permission from the book , “The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance on Campus, by David Sacks and Peter Thiel. Copyright 1998. The Independent Institute , 100 Swan Way , Oakland , CA. 94621-1428;info@independent.org; )

Trustees, congressional representatives, alumni, and the general public have begun to perceive that the great multicultural experiment has brought the very opposite of higher learning. It has brought speech restrictions, a new kind of intolerance known as “political correctness” a hysterically anti-Western curriculum, the increasing politicization of student life, and campus polarization along racial and ethnic lines.

“It is impossible to imagine that academic inquiry flourishes where thought police abound. Indeed, the intellectual apparatus of the 60’s radicals now dominating the universities is built for intellectual oppression, not for inquiry” -Robert Bork

“Of the 55 top-ranked universities in the nation, not a single one requires a course in American history, and only 3 require a course in Western Civilization”-The American Council of Trustees and Alumni

Underneath a glossy veneer of open-ended and utopian rhetoric, multiculturalism depends upon very specific values to operate, and at Stanford the values that inform this process happen to be the radical values of the 60’s. Most of the multicultural faculty and administrators were student activists in the late l960’s.

( LM- Professors who were campus radicals in the 60’s love to begin the semester by bragging to students how idealistic they were in their betrayal of the 40 million people of Southeast Asia. The truth is, although they cloaked themselves in an aura of great moral purpose, the war protestors gave aid and comfort to the enemy, marched under the flag of the Viet Cong, allowed Hanoi to dictate their agenda, and turned their backs on the American soldier when they returned. Now they run the universities, teaching students how to betray the West, and to cover up their earlier betrayal they write history books riddled with lies about the Vietnam War and their role in it.).)

When a stray look can lead to a charge of sexual harassment or an ill-timed joke to a charge of a racial slur, careers and lives are needlessly destroyed. Hapless innocents get thrown out of housing, lose their jobs because of “insensitivity.” or spend years fighting frivolous lawsuits. The multiculturalist hunt for nonexistent “oppressors” who can be held responsible for all of America’s ills leads to the vilification of innocents .

“Said Brown University “sensitivity” consultant Donald Kae, “If you are feeling comfortable or normal then you are probably oppressing someone, whether that person is a woman, or a gay or whatever. We probably won’t rid our society of racism until everyone strives to be abnormal.” (LM- What horse—- !).

The speech code never had to be enforced because it had not really been needed, at least not for the stated reason of combating an epidemic of fighting words and similar abuse. In March 1995, the Santa Clara County Superior Court agreed with the students and found Stanford’s speech code unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, Stanford students can now speak as freely as the residents of neighboring Palo Alto.

(LM- Judge returns basic American freedoms to student victims of multiculturalist tyranny. What a hoot ! Free Students Now from Multiculturalist Oppression! Turn on to Truth! Tune out the lies! Drop Out of Multiculturalism !)

In a widely discussed editorial in “The Stanford Daily,” columnist Andrea Park described the ritual clitorectomies performed in some African cultures but stopped short of condemning the barbaric practice. As a feminist Park wished to condemn the custom; but after much “soul-searching”, Park wrote that she realized she could not judge other cultures by her own standards. “Is it relevant that I, an outsider, may find the practice cruel ? As hard as it is for me to admit, the answer is no. To treat the issue as a matter for feminist outrage would be to assume that one society, namely mine, has a privileged position from which to judge the practices of another.”

(LM- How does one live with such hypocrisy ? This is a perfect example of the moral coma brought about by the cultural relativism embraced by multiculturalists.)

“Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come down to us from the 60’s, it certainly deserves its own place in the halls of intellectual barbarism…women’s studies programs and courses are abysmal swamps of irrational dogma and hatred.” Bork

It is worth noting that all of these efforts have not had a positive impact on the level of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions at Stanford, relative to American society at large. More than 100 Stanford women still have unwanted pregnancies each year, of which about 90 percent end in abortion. The resulting abortion rate at Stanford is about twice the national average. And as for AIDS, the rate of death at Stanford is perhaps four to five times that of the relatively “uneducated” society at large .One university residence now even has coed group showers.

(LM- What an inspiring example for American society multiculturalism is setting!)

“It is remarkable how vigorously the modern intellectual defends the descent of popular culture not merely into vulgarity but into obscenity… multiculturalism is barbarism, and it is bringing us to a barbarous epoch.”-Bork

In recent years race relations on campuses have taken a turn for the worse. King’s dream is rarely mentioned and the races remain divided There are even separate commencement ceremonies for Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and African Americans. It is not inconceivable that a minority student, if so inclined, could spend all four years at Stanford without ever eating, living, speaking, or graduating with someone from a different race.

“Multiculturalists have turned Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream into a nightmare. He asked that his children “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” But multiculturalists say, “Judge me by the color of my skin for therein lies my identity and my place in the world.” -Bork

“The result of multiculturalism can only be the fragmentation , resegregation, and tribalization of American life.”- the noted liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

The Western religious tradition seeks to redeem all of humanity, not just select subgroups. The multiculturalists, by contrast, are interested in the rehabilitation only of those of a particular race, gender, class, or sexual preference who happen to share their ideological commitments. Religious Studies 8 , “Religions in America”, devotes whole lectures to Shamanism, the Peyote Cult, and the Kodiak sect, but not one to the Catholic Church.

(LM- Multiculturalism is a massive assault on the Judeo-Christian values of the West at the very time that discoveries in physics and molecular biology are lending new support to natural theology and theism. Leftist academic thugs, however, continue to carry on the spirit of the 60’s by beating up dissenting guest speakers to keep students ignorant of the issues)

“The American university has become a culture of forbidden questions.” Leon Botstein – President of Bard College.

Despite its well-earned reputation as a school with perhaps the most competitive admissions process in the country, classwork at Stanford in many ways no longer demands the intellectual equivalent of sweat. Of all letter grades granted to students, about half are A’s, 39 % are B’s, only 10% are C’s and about 1% are D’s.

(LM- Pay-offs for buying into the multiculturalist agenda. As a college professor on three campuses over l5 years I’d say the true average grade of American students is a C minus. The juxtaposition of inflated grades with declining S.A.T. scores clearly exposes how educators, steeped in the values of the 60’s, are lying to both students and parents.)

“All have won and all must have prizes.” The Dodo Bird in “Alice in Wonderland”.

Western civilization and classical liberal arts education truly are dead, killed off in the same multicultural epidemic that expunged “dead white males” from the reading lists. To be certain, the buildings are well maintained, the lawns are well watered, the football team plays for cheering throngs of fans, the faculty and the staff are well paid, and the students attend classes and receive diplomas. The institution can keep going for a while on autopilot. But the heart of the university’s humanities program – involving the quest for universal truth – has decayed into dust.

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and
Everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

Did we think it only rhetoric when Yeats asked us; “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?” In multiculturalism we approach the logical outcome of the campus values of the 60’s- fascism.

Art after Art goes out, and all is Night
See skulking Truth to her old Cavern fled
Mountains of Casuistry heap’d o’er her head!
Philosophy, that lean’d on Heav’n before
Shrinks to her second cause, and is no more
Lo! Thy dread Empire, Chaos ! is restored
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall;
And Universal Darkness buries all. “Duncaid” -Alexander Pope

Perhaps after the shock of the amazing CGI wore off, you stopped and asked yourself, “what exactly was that poorly acted farce all about, anyway”? Yes, the production values are amazing, but not quite as amazing the propaganda value. Don’t let the expensive special effects fool you: a turd in 500 million dollar wrapper is still a turd. Here is everything you need to know about the movie in about 500 words.

The United States is Evil:  that’s right; apparently we’ve done it again. The main antagonist of this gaudy travesty is “The Company”, a familiar allegory for irrational greed that has become the straw man argument for all capitalist ventures. However, The Company is not simply a cautionary tale warning of humanities’ recklessness;  after all its not the “Earth Corps” that act as the Storm Troopers in this cartoonishly evil plot, it’s the US Marines. What could have been an interesting space opera was instead cast into a clumsily disguised jab at the United States involvement in Iraq. Perhaps if the Na’vi Chieftain was a bearded dictator that was hell bent on sentencing his own people to rape rooms, we could start to draw a parallel. Instead it reads like a chapter out of Das Capital. After all, why would a capitalist society be motivated to do anything other than steal the material wealth of others? Clearly the recent activities of the United States sending over the USMC to do relief work in places like Thailand and Haiti was merely sorted scheme to blow up all their trees and steal their Unobtainium.

Magic is the answer to all our problems: Why didn’t we think of that? Worse than the self righteous condemnation of our technological life style (After all, who needs industry when you can just use the USB cord growing out of your head to hotwire a Space Pterodactyl?) is the lack of any realistic alternative present. The Na’vi way of life is portrayed as morally superior to our own; we the audience are supposed to aspire to emulate them. However, they live in a contrived existence that is completely divorced from the human condition, born instead into an absurd ecosystem where magic and evolution have conspired to create a utopia where trees can return the dead to life.

You’re an Idiot: if you join the military. In the cynical world of James Cameron patriotism and other altruistic motivations for joining the service simply cannot exist. People only join the Service because they are too stupid to do anything else, and we are constantly reminded of this throughout the film. Make sure to remind your family members in the service that they are the half retarded pawns of corporate greed next time they come home.

Guns are evil: guns and the military in general are held with such contempt by the left that we actually see a bizarre sort of wish fulfillment born of ignorance and metaplot in which both the USMC and their weapons are outclassed by the natives. Apparently you can go up against heavily armored, death-dealing gunships with bows and arrows with sufficient amounts of handwavium, a material that is apparently more abundant in this film than certain other mineral deposits.

Character is overrated: especially if you’re the main character. Your country, your brothers in arms, and the planet are all counting on you. Hell, the survival of the human race is dependent on you to get the job done! On second thought, why don’t you just blow it all off for an alien booty call?

C’mon, we’ve all seen the movie by now. Why don’t you let us know at VAF what you think? Give me your best shot!

Harvard’s Warriors
Honoring the Medal of Honor recipients.
BY Jules Crittenden
November 23, 2009, Vol. 15, No. 10

Cambridge, Mass.

It was like a fleeting glimpse of an alternative world: the greatness of the past and what might be in the future, brought together for a moment at Harvard University last week.

It was the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month at Harvard’s Memorial Church, built to commemorate students lost in the First World War. Decorated with eagles, crosses, and the sculpted form of a woman weeping over a fallen crusader, walls inscribed with the names of Harvard’s war dead, the church was filled with martial music, the solemn tramp of a color guard, the echoing notes of “Taps,” and the slow tolling of a bell in honor of 16 dead American heroes–Harvard’s own Medal of Honor recipients, recognized as a group for the first time.

The Reverend Peter Gomes, Harvard’s chaplain, addressed the gathering of generals, admirals, active-duty servicemen, cadets, and grizzled combat veterans, welcoming them to the sanctum of Harvard’s illustrious military tradition. He reminded them that the university’s association with service and sacrifice is older than the nation, dating back more than 350 years.

More: http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/218pyowq.asp

The Making of the West Bank’s ‘Avatar’ Protest

Carl Franzen

(Feb. 12) – The conflict in the Middle East took on an especially cinematic quality Friday, when activists representing a small Palestinian village dressed up like the oppressed aliens from the blockbuster movie “Avatar” before staging a demonstration in front of the Israeli West Bank barrier.

“When people around the world who have watched the film see our demonstration and the conditions that provoked it, they will realize that the situations are identical,” said Mohammed Khatib, one of the leading Palestinian organizers of the protest against the barrier

Source: http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/palestinians-use-avatar-to-protest-west-bank-barrier/19356749

Since the sixties, Noam Chomsky has been calling the United States an imperialist nation and continues to do so, now saying U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are imperialist. The purpose of Mr. Chomsky’s’ philosophy is to destroy the legitimacy of any and all acts of force by an ethical, lawful state. In essence, Mr. Chomsky asserts that such a state is identical to barbarians who use force for self-interest, i.e. dictators and fascists. By doing this, Mr. Chomsky is willing to put heroes such as policemen and soldiers on the same level as villains such as murderers and terrorists.

According to Mr. Chomsky’s twisted reasoning, “…torture has been routine practice from the early days of the conquest of the national territory, and then beyond, as the imperial ventures of the “infant empire” — as George Washington called the new Republic” (The Torture Memos, Chomsky, May 24, 2009). He believes that George Bush was simply following some “secret” mandate from Washington to expand the empire through the use of torture. To buttress his case, he cites the Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis, “Adams as the grand strategist who laid the foundations for the Bush Doctrine: the doctrine that ‘expansion is the path to security’” (The Unipolar Moment and the Culture of Imperialism, Chomsky, December 3, 2009). Yes, John Adams (1735 – 1826) is responsible for the War on Terror, not the 19 terrorists who orchestrated the takeover of four commercial planes on September 11, 2001, killing thousands of innocent people. You can learn a lot at college.

Mr. Chomsky slanders Washington as a vile Machiavellian: “A prince that acquires new territories and removes the natives to give his people room will be remembered as the father of the nation (Machiavelli).’ And George Washington agreed. He wanted to be the father of the nation. His view was that ‘the gradual extension of our settlement will as certainly cause the savage as the wolf to retire, both being beasts of prey, though they differ in shape.” (Modern-Day American Imperialism: Middle East and Beyond, Chomsky, Boston University, April 24, 2008)

Mr. Chomsky bases this statement from Letter to James Duane dated September 7, 1783.  In his letter, Washington was appealing for a non-violent resolution with the Indians and to find peaceful means of living with them on a common land, not advocating war. “As the Country, is large enough to contain us all; and as we are disposed to be kind to them and to partake of their Trade…draw a veil over what is past and establish a boundary line between them and us beyond which we will endeavor to restrain our People from Hunting or Settling.” Washington’s intent to Duane was clear: peaceful means of coexistence.

His thought that directly precedes Mr. Chomsky lifted quote is this, “I am clear in my opinion, … of being upon good terms with the Indians, and the propriety of purchasing their Lands in preference to attempting to drive them by force of arms out of their Country; which as we have already experienced is like driving the Wild Beasts of the Forest…”  In other words, if you make war with the Indians, they will scatter in the country side and return to hunt you down, as they are to be respected as is the wolf.

Mr. Chomsky lacks credibility because he has to rely on fabrication of events in order to support his opinions. Fabrication is part of the leftist anti-War movement which is really the leftist/socialist “Make America Surrender” movement.

The second part is asserting that equal actions (war and terrorism) are equal in ethics.  Everyone agrees that murder is evil, and murder is caused by killing. However, not all killing is evil—certainly, accidents and self-defense stand out as two exceptions.  Chomsky must assert, for his reasoning to be sound, all value judgments can be based on actions alone and not on intentions; he confuses actions and intentions. In contrast, Western ethics are quite clear in saying that a person can commit the very same action with more than one intent. Every child knows that you can step on someone’s toes with or without harmful intent, yet the action is the same.

Here is perfect example of his inability to separate actions and ethics: “…the most elementary principle of just war theory, universality. Those who cannot accept this principle should have the decency to keep silent about matters of right and wrong, or just war”(Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, 2003, pg 202). He follows this assertion with the question, “Have Cuba and Nicaragua been entitled to set off bombs in Washington, New York, and Miami in self-defense against ongoing terrorist attack?”  His point is that any and all states have equal right to the use of force or no one has it, “universality.” This is a complete failure on his part to differentiate between fascist dictators and communist death-squads from those who have no other self-interested motive other than justice.

The greatest danger of Mr. Chomsky’s anti-war ethics and lies is that it fuels the anti-war movement. Moreover, it paves the way for the college student to believe that power exists without justice as a limiting factor. Thus, making it moral to quest for power for power’s own sake, which is foundational to Marxist thought. But all power must be subservient to justice and the law, especially when American national security is at stake.

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.