Obama's Strategy Shift in Afghanistan

[Richard Hakluyt]

Why not legalise heroin? Open some factories to process the stuff in Kabul, thus providing Afghanistan with money and employment and giving our junkies a more stable and safe supply.

[Syt]

"Hi, we're foreign and have a problem with street heroin. So we're going to offer you the opportunity to plant wheat and drastically reduce your income. Failing that, we'll burn down your crops, and then again give you the opportunity to drastically reduce your income."

Indeed. Unless they have an alternative that either pays better or is significantly less work intensive they have no incentive to change their ways.

[Josquius]

Couldn't you just keep an eye on them then when harvest time comes nab the buyer?
Farmer gets money, person involved in the drug trade and possibly taliban gets arrested, people are put off buying poppies from farmers in the area.
Win-win-win.

[Berkut]

"Hi, we're foreign and have a problem with street heroin. So we're going to offer you the opportunity to plant wheat and drastically reduce your income. Failing that, we'll burn down your crops, and then again give you the opportunity to drastically reduce your income."

Indeed. Unless they have an alternative that either pays better or is significantly less work intensive they have no incentive to change their ways.

But that is the point of burning down the fields - it gives them an incentive to change their ways.

After all, you don't see giant poppy fields in the US, despite the obvious profitability of it. Because there is an incentive not to do so.

I am not arguing that we should burn anyone's fields - but only because I don't know that it would work.
Indeed. Unless they have an alternative that either pays better or is significantly less work intensive they have no incentive to change their ways.

[Warspite]

"Hi, we're foreign and have a problem with street heroin. So we're going to offer you the opportunity to plant wheat and drastically reduce your income. Failing that, we'll burn down your crops, and then again give you the opportunity to drastically reduce your income."

Indeed. Unless they have an alternative that either pays better or is significantly less work intensive they have no incentive to change their ways.

But that is the point of burning down the fields - it gives them an incentive to change their ways.

After all, you don't see giant poppy fields in the US, despite the obvious profitability of it. Because there is an incentive not to do so.

I am not arguing that we should burn anyone's fields - but only because I don't know that it would work.
Indeed. Unless they have an alternative that either pays better or is significantly less work intensive they have no incentive to change their ways.

It certainly does give them an incentive: you are right there. But it is difficult to make it a long-term incentive unless you intend to have a presence monitoring vast areas of rugged geography. And regardless, you will not win the support of the local population by forcing them to grow wheat. As you say the real problem is a lack of viable economic opportunies.

The reason you don't see massive poppy cultivation in the US is down to rule of law. The US is an advanced democracy with well functioning enforcement apparatus. The virtual absence of this is the reason we are in Afghanistan.

[Sheilbh]

What would be the alternative to burning the fields?  Buy up all the harvest?

Legalise Afghan opium for the EU and US pharmaceutical market.  Then we get cheaper prescribed opiates and we can buy their poppies.

I generally think this is good but I saw a really concerning map today.    I can't find it online but this is close to it, it showed Taliban attacks, the darker the red the heavier - and grey is 'light':

The version I saw was bigger and I think there were only 2 grey provinces and about 4-5 pink ones.  So, actually I don't think that focussing on the South would be ideal.  I think have missions like the current French one (they basically have the province from the Khyber pass to Kabul) that try and protect main arteries but I think getting the areas where the Taliban shouldn't succeed due to ethnic and religious differences clear and then moving onto the South would be better.

And I think Iran could, again, be very useful to have helping in Afghanistan.

[saskganesh]

while its a crop quite suitable for dryland farming, wheat probably won't cut it. with a recovering global supply, and volatile prices: $8.55/bu (60 lbs=bu) for number one durum last week down from $16-18 we saw last year at peak, but still up from $5/bu "normal," its hard to see how Afghan farmers can compete in the global market. 

farmgate price for poppy is estimated to $70/kg or  be $2000 for 60 lbs.

dont know about poppy field yields. I think you get 25-30 lbs of poppy an acre. In NA, wheat can yeild about 6k-8k lbs an acre. can afghani's yield half?  this means they can be sometimes comparable in terms of price, especially if food prices go up again,  but I think poppy may be easier to bring to market. buyers also pay cash.

afghanistan ag also urgently needs restored irrigation projects and extensive deforestation to heal the land from 30 years of war.

[saskganesh]

I think they should plant trees and grow organic macademia, almonds, walnuts, and pistachios  for the global confectionary market. like they used to.

[ulmont]

while its a crop quite suitable for dryland farming, wheat probably won't cut it.

"I'd like to start this talk on drought management with a joke.

Dryland farming."

[saskganesh]

[Siege]

Why are people here afraid of burning the poppy fields?

Burning is good. It would ridicalize the situation.
- The people that are growing poppy are already talibani supporters.
- The hit on the taliban income will be sizeable.
- It would clearly separate the people that are working to rebuilt Afghanistan from the ones perpetuating the conflict.
- It would be an step towards restoring the rule of law.

[Syt]

But that is the point of burning down the fields - it gives them an incentive to change their ways.

After all, you don't see giant poppy fields in the US, despite the obvious profitability of it. Because there is an incentive not to do so.

I think the main reason you don't see poppy fields in the U.S. is because the United States are a functioning society with respect for law and order and an executive/judiciary(word?) branch that makes it very likely you'll get caught and pay the price.

This is not the case in Afghanistan, arguably; and I think burning fields would be counterproductive in that it further alienates the populace and reduces their willingness to cooperate. First you'll need stability in the country and rule of law, and the means to uphold them - then you can have lasting success in the fight against drugs. At the moment you'd just step out one flame while another or two spring back up elsewhere.

[Oexmelin]

IIRC there was a plan for turning Afghan poppy cultivation to legal morphine production («Poppy for medecine» or something approaching) for export but that it was fought by the major pharmaceuticals.

[Martinus]

What would be the alternative to burning the fields?  Buy up all the harvest?

Legalize it.

[Berkut]

Legalizing drugs might be a good idea - but not as a response to terrorists being the supplier.