Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Afghanistan's killing fields

by The3rdColumn Sun Feb 10th, 2008 at 06:29:28 PM EST

One of the latest cartoon commentaries by Peter Brookes of The Times illustrates what goes on in the 'killing fields' of Afghanistan ...

A friend-member of NATO-ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) who's just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan is adamant and says it's a myth that Afghans want to grow poppy... He says it's not your ordinary Afghan farmer who wants poppy fields in Afghanistan. He insists the Afghan farmer would prefer to plant other crops because he's convinced that he could make more money planting another crop; however, even if poppy harvests don't bring him enough income to feed his family, he has no other recourse but to plant poppy because if he doesn't plant the blasted poppy, your ordinary Taleban warrior or terrorist comes and shoots him.

In other words, the Afghan farmer is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Diary rescue by Migeru


[editor's note, by Migeru] Fold inserted
In November 2006, a senior European parliamentarian had already reported that NATO's mission in Afghanistan could end in failure unless member states honoured commitments they had already made to ensure its success.

The said European parliamentarian also reported that Afghanistan's poppy harvest in 2006 alone had reached a staggering 92 percent of the total world supply destined for opium conversion to some 2.9 million users. (I have not read a more recent report todate.) The European parliamentarian vigourously upped the ante insisting that the Alliance can and must succeed. "If we do not, we would seriously fail the people of Afghanistan and undermine our unity of purpose," he warned.

There is no doubt that in order to achieve that, there is a need to do more in the areas of of irrigation, roads and energy supplies. The nations are spending huge amounts on military forces and operations and using the military to build roads, schools, health care centers, etc.

Unfortunately, we do know that all these efforts do not not translate, in the eyes of the Afghani people, into nation building. Why efforts are failing is not only due to the miscomprehension by most Afghans in many areas in the country as to why there is a strong foreign military presence in their midst (to fight the Talebans who also happen to be the scourge of your ordinary Afghans) but also because they do not see progress in economic terms in their daily lives. And difficult to blame them!

Frankly, if I were an Afghan and I assessed the last 5 years I would only see the presence of NATO troops as just another foreign occupation of my country. I would not see enough progress on the alternative economy to give me confidence that this mess of international soldiers that was fighting in my country really had my interests at heart. My history and culture would make me seriously consider whether we would not be better off on our own.

There is a need to put much more emphasis on the non-military issues. It needs to be 10:1 non-military to military. In my book, as well as building infrastructure, which will make any commercial enterprise easier, including poppy growing, we need to consider creating a genuine alternative agricultural market to give the peasant/farmer population a realistic alternative to growing poppies.

We need to invest heavily in GIVING them the wherewithal to maintain their standard of living without the poppy. Simply put, this means we must consider giving them the seed, trees or other plants to produce suitable alternatives to the poppy; give them the tools and fertilisers to ensure these crops grow; guarantee a price for their produce at least for a certain time (and I mean several years). If we do not, they will continue to grow the easy plant because like it or not, there is an easy market for their poppies.

I know many NGOs in situ are trying to achieve this, but it is not enough and it is too slow. The pace needs to speed up dramatically, and this means a lot more investment aid from nations. Somehow this aid must be seen to be coming from Afghan authorities in order to rally or reinforce people's support for their own government. The question is, how far can we trust the current members of the Afghan government?

Sadly, these sorts of issues are not being put on the table. What is apparent is there's a lot of talk about mission failure but hardly any input on how to make that mission succeed.

Display:
Seems Britain's relations with Afghan government is hitting an all time low.

From The Daily Telegraph: Afghan fury over British training for ex-Taliban by By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor Last Updated: 1:40pm GMT 04/02/2008

Britain's troubled relations with Afghanistan's government has hit new turbulence as it emerged that London secretly planned to build training camps for ex-Taliban fighters.

The Afghan authorities denied any knowledge of the scheme to rehabilitate gunmen who defect from the Taliban in Helmand province. Officials claimed this was another example of Britain undermining President Hamid Karzai's authority.

Two diplomats, one working for the United Nations and the other serving the European Union, were asked to leave Afghanistan in December after they allegedly held direct talks with Taliban commanders without Mr Karzai's official permission.

Afghan officials said the two men, Mervyn Patterson, a Briton, and Michael Semple, an Irishman, were found in possession of documents laying out a British plan for dealing with fighters who defect from the Taliban.

A key element of this scheme was building a camp for perhaps 2,000 former foot soldiers of the militant Islamist movement. Here, they would have been given new skills to aid their rehabilitation.

(...)

From the face of it, Mr Karzai hasn't grown out of the warlord psyche. Good to show 'independence' and even to want it but instead of crying foul every time something constructive is put forward to him on the table, he should grow up and examine the merits of the proposals.

by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 4th, 2008 at 08:59:58 AM EST
Thanks for that, I was unaware that poppy growing wasn't as profitable as has been suggested.

But the truth is that, just as in Iraq, we intervened without any real plan of what we going to do when we got there. Indeed, I remember when the invasion of Afghanistan was first discussed the idea was that we weren't going to invovle the warlords because they were bad people with pretty backward views on women etc who would descend into faction fighting and resist democratic change.

then suddenly the yanks got cold feet about actually sending troops in who might, horror of horrors, actually get shot and die; so the warlords were back in the game. Course we bombed the shit out of he country, ruining thousandos of years old irrigation system, wrecking the agriculture across swathes of the country.

And we won, but so did the very people who were wrecking the ocuntry before the russian takeover. Who's only policy difference with the taliban was who got to be top dog, not about the rules.

But we blunder in, Great Game Colonials all and stick our big dicks in someone else's pool and well, ooh look, it's got piss in it. How do we fix this ? Ummm, we don't. We admit we screwed up and leave. Promising any and all help and money to fix infrastructure for decades into the future.

Not that that's gonna happen cos we never ever ever give money without strings attached that brings the money back to us. {sigh}

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 12:51:00 PM EST
Hi Helen, Thanks.

Just a bit of clarification:

1) Poppy IS profitable for the Taleban/warlords all the way, i.e., after converting them into illegal drugs, money is used to finance Taleban/Al Qaeda terrorist wars. But it is acknowledged that it is NOT profitable to your ordinary Afghan farming family.

2) Intervention in Iraq: military point of view, there was an invasion plan, one that involved attacking and dismantling Iraq, punitive actions on the people of Iraq, causing havoc on the nerve centers of the Iraqi institutions, etc. but nothing by way of post invasion or post warring and that's the reason the unholy alliance led by Bush and Blair failed and still failing miserably today. Frankly, when all is said and done, Genghis Khan would have done a better job of planning.

3) Re "involving Afghan warlords": From the outset, I think there was no question that warlords were not going to be involved. They were going to be involved! We must face it -- Afghanistan, is mostly about Taleban and warlords; that's Afghan culture -- the UN had to and must deal with warlords to make headway, get them on side, away from violent extremist Taleban-Al Qaeda factions. Did you know that Northern Alliance, the alliance that the West initially backed against Russian occupation was an alliance of warlords? What the UN basically is trying to do today is to dismantle the Taleban-warlord apparatus in Afghanistan Difficult, long journey for all.

3) Re: "then suddenly the yanks got cold feet about actually sending troops in who might, horror of horrors, actually get shot and die;"

If you actually look closely, the Yanks didn't get "cold feet", they just got so distracted when they decided to commit the bulk of their troops to another war, i.e., Iraq. That was of course the decision of US commander in chief Bush.

4) Re: "... so the warlords were back in the game. Course we bombed the shit out of he country, ruining thousandos of years old irrigation system, wrecking the agriculture across swathes of the country."

Realistically, not UN-ISAF that ruinined thousands of years old irrigation system, etc. but that started to happen way back during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. 5) Re: "But we blunder in, Great Game Colonials all and stick our big dicks in someone else's pool and well, ooh look, it's got piss in it."

True, we were in 3 wars that involved Britain and Afghanistan but the Great Game Colonials that you speak of was about the balance of power in the Caucuses region that pitted British v Russian empires.

6) Today there are 37 nations involved in the UN-mandated ISAF operations all over the world. (NATO has 26 member nations only). It's not about building or shoring up empires this time of the 18th/19th century types but about saving a failed state. We may not like the way the US, one of the major member os NATO, approached military operations in Afghanistan through their Enduring Freedom Operations (not under NATO-ISAF operations) but on the whole, ISAF troops involved in the country are doing what they've been mandated to do, security operations and in aid of nation building.

Bluntly put, UN backed ISAF operations in Afghanistan, from military and political viewpoints, are not similar to those being carried on by US in Iraq. The US-UK invasion of and war on Iraq was based on lies, manufactured evidence, fabricated intel, etc., To me, there was no rhyme or reason to the invasion of and war on Iraq and on the Iraqis.

Realistically, if we leave Afghanistan because we believe that it is fundamentally a "failed state", there is no guarantee that we will not find ourselves with the kind of Darfour debacle in our hands once again. Pakistan had borne the brunt of the Russian wars there that produced more Talebans, more extremists, more violence, etc. In the long run, the only way out of that kind of total and utter fiasco is to try to bring progress to the ordinary people of Afghanistan, education, health services, infrastructure, etc.

Of course, there is a way out of Afghanistan (and leave the Afghans to their fate)..., if people truly think that their respective nations should not be involved in ISAF in Afghanistan, I guess one thing that may be done is to petition their respective governments to withdraw their support for the UN backing there. But is that the judicious thing to do?

by The3rdColumn on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 12:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The3rdColumn:
Realistically, not UN-ISAF that ruinined thousands of years old irrigation system, etc. but that started to happen way back during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

a vast majority of the Irrigation system was actually destroyed many hundreds of years earlier as whichever Khan's men moved over the land, as they considered settled agriculture to be an impediment to the movement of horses. The country has never properly recovered since.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right you are ceebs! Yep, didn't delve as far back... but absolutely true.
by The3rdColumn on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 12:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Today there are 37 nations involved in the UN-mandated ISAF operations all over the world.

ISAF operates only in Afghanistan, not "all over the world".
by Gag Halfrunt on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 04:38:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right and thanks -- getting it all mixed up here with UN peacekeeping forces all over the world.
by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cocaine Import Agency
NATO- feel completely free to tell Bill and Condi to go pound sand, it is not NATO's mission to assume the role of world police.

And I have to assume Paul Bremer's order 81 in Iraq would also apply to Afghanistan and the scam is that the native farmers can't use the seeds they saved from last year but have to buy the genetically engineered crap from Monsanto.

Sources far more credible then Faux News tell us here in the US the world bank wanted illicit drug trade returned and the Taliban in their religious fervor forbid the growing of poppies.

In reality we here in the US don't actually know because info-tainment/propaganda dominates as "media".

by Lasthorseman on Sun Feb 10th, 2008 at 10:05:38 PM EST
Re: "Taliban in their religious fervor forbid the growing of poppies." I think in theory that is so, but how does one delineate drug warlords in Afghanistan from the pure Koranic wielding Taleban?
by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 11:39:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most likely it doesn't matter to them.  They just want the drug trade back to finance covert operations.
by Lasthorseman on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 02:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure that this...

There is a need to put much more emphasis on the non-military issues. It needs to be 10:1 non-military to military. In my book, as well as building infrastructure, which will make any commercial enterprise easier, including poppy growing, we need to consider creating a genuine alternative agricultural market to give the peasant/farmer population a realistic alternative to growing poppies.

We need to invest heavily in GIVING them the wherewithal to maintain their standard of living without the poppy. Simply put, this means we must consider giving them the seed, trees or other plants to produce suitable alternatives to the poppy; give them the tools and fertilisers to ensure these crops grow; guarantee a price for their produce at least for a certain time (and I mean several years). If we do not, they will continue to grow the easy plant because like it or not, there is an easy market for their poppies.

...really follows from the starting point of the diary.

If ISAF can't stop the Taleban kill squad when they come for the farmer, then the farmer will be growing poppy and selling the resulting opium to the Taleban and that's the end of the story. All the civil aid programmes would do is provide infrastructure for the insurgents to blow up, tasty bits of kit for them to steal and useful foreigners for them to kidnap.

This is basic stuff; counter-insurgency 101 - "The people are the key base to be secured and defended".

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 10:37:05 AM EST
That's how complex the Afghan problem is.
by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 11:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fighting forces are concentrated East. I can understand where Gates is coming from -- there is a need to extend fighting forces all throughout Afghanistan if the purpose is to weed out the Talebans.

The problem in my view is the Afghan government in place. The Afghan president MUST lead his own people; there is corruption in government. It is within the call of the president and his cabinet members to help out in putting order in their own country. This is actually what's actually irritating me!

by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 11:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The fighting forces are concentrated East. I can understand where Gates is coming from

I seem to remember that the Talebans main areas were the South West of the country. The noreth was Northern Alliance warlords, and the south east was indirectly under the control of ISI through local tribes.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: "then the farmer will be growing poppy and selling the resulting opium to the Taleban and that's the end of the story."

From what I hear, the ordinary Afghan farmer has no choice. Warlords control the Afghan farmers -- they are forced to plant poppy and are expected to mee a quota.

The current Afghan govt should step up the policing of its own ranks because it seems that there's widespread collusion between some authorities and warlords over poppy culture. Like many, I would like to know what is being done from the end of NATO-ISAF, foreign NGO to get rid of this. I believe NATO's top bosses owe it to the citizens of NATO member nations an explanation.

by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 09:17:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the ordinary Afghan farmer has no choice. Warlords control the Afghan farmers -- they are forced to plant poppy and are expected to mee a quota.

Yes, that's what I was driving at with my earlier post. Offering the farmers an alternative to poppy (whether it be seeds, methods, purchasor) isn't going to be effective if taking the alternative means that they get shot by the local warlord.

Thus it seems to me that you have to cut deals with the warlords whilst you work at transforming the conditions which give rise to warlordism.

Sadly this pragmatic strategy gets hit from the right (too much nation building, not enough anti-terror sweeps) and from the left (too many mini-tyrants, not enough women's groups), which means it's probably not politically sustainable for the length of time needed to effect the desired societal transformation.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 11:42:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The damn if you do, damn if you don't kind... I think one way out is to set a serious time frame with benchmarks to meet on "authorities" involved, eg, Kaisar's govt, NATO-ISAF, NGOs, etc. Difficult though with US' efforts publicly undermining NATO and allies.
by The3rdColumn on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I really just don't get it. The worlds most powerful military alliance, supported by tens if not hundreds of super advanced spy satellites that can reportedly read the time on a man's watch 2000 km above earth... and these guys can't identify the Afghan poppy fields and send across a couple of Bombardiers to spray them to death? I don't buy it.

Afghanistan is the world's major opium producing country. The US military is there. Kosovo is Europe's major heroin distribution platform. The US military is there too. Colombia is the world's major Cocaine producer. The US military is there too. Now that looks like a freaky sort of coincidence to me. How much is the world drug trade worth?

by vladimir on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 10:45:01 AM EST
That won't be a judicious thing to do. There will be dire consequences on civilians.

Unfotunately, the West or at least Western European nations, have to abide by certain democratic procedures even in terms of military operations -- thus "send(ing) across a couple of Bombardiers to spray them to death?" may not be acceptable given the great probability of wiping out every living being within the perimeter.

This is where the govt in place should cooperate to the fullest. NATO must be bold and demand of the Afghan govt their full cooperation.

Sometimes I wonder if the opium cartel is not more powerful in military terms than the all of the western military combined!

by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see how dropping herbicide on poppy crops will wipe out anything except the crops. And after all, how many times did we hear that combating the drug trade was one of NATOs raisons d'être in Afghanistan. And with each passing year, the exact opposite happens: poppy & heroin production increases in Afghanistan.

So either the NATO force is a complete farce or NATO is intentionally not doing anything to hamper poppy production.

by vladimir on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 02:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you propose should be done?
by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 04:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see how dropping herbicide on poppy crops will wipe out anything except the crops.

Two words: Agent Orange.

'Sides, you'll have to provide the farmer with something else to grow - and prevent the local warlords from killing him when he stops growing poppy - otherwise he'll just re-plant his field next year. Or starve to death. Or get killed by goons for not delivering his quota of poppy. That is not how you win hearts and minds.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 06:45:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Spot on JakeS!
by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 07:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah... You beat me to it !

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 05:52:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So NATO should help the farmers and warlords to cultivate and distribute crops in order to win hearts and minds on the ground. OK.

Now I understand why the US military is present in every major drug center on earth.

by vladimir on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 06:24:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This sort of help is needed...

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Tue Feb 12th, 2008 at 06:32:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you want to go back to the 70's then the majority of the Worlds Heroin came from Thailand, which coincidentally was a place where the US military was. And if you want to add another coincidental detail

Aotearoa IMC: Mexico,CIA,Guantanamo Rendition Plane, Cocaine, Homeland 'Security'

n April,2006 it was revealed that a plane owned by Skyway Communications of Lakeland,Florida and Royal Sons holding company using Huffman Aviation(where Mohamed Atta trained before 9/11),as its address and paradoxically rented by the Howard Dean's Democrat presidential campaign of 2004 had been busted by the Mexican army at the Ciudad Del Carmen,Campeche airport on the Yucatan Peninsula with over 5.5 tons of cocaine on board.
Now yet another plane,(a Gulfstream II),that crashed in the Yucatan on Sept 24th this year with 4 tons of cocaine on board has connections to the Skyway Communications DC-9,(confiscated by the Mexican army and now used by the Mexican Attorney General's office),as well as to Guantanamo 'rendition' flights that may have taken place from or through Europe.Skyway Communications,a penny stock 'pump and dump' is,according to Daniel Hopsicker of madcowprod and SEC filings,connected to Titan Corporation(torturors at Abu Ghraibe,etc.)


Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 11:51:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exellent! Hahah!
by The3rdColumn on Mon Feb 11th, 2008 at 11:52:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]