Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123816198413457041.html)
QuoteWASHINGTON – President Barack Obama unveiled a new Afghanistan strategy that calls for devoting significant new resources to counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan and economic development in Pakistan, according to senior U.S. officials.
QuoteUnder one facet of the plan, U.S. or Afghan troops will first offer Afghan farmers free wheat seed to replace their crops that produce opium. If the farmers refuse, U.S. or Afghan personnel will burn their fields, and then again offer them free replacement seeds. A senior U.S. military official described the approach as a "carrot, stick, carrot" effort.
This is interesting. I'm actually in total agreement with Obama's approach here, it's more than obvious at this point that Europe isn't going to ever have the stomach to commit a meaningful amount of actual soldiers to southern Afghanistan.
As far as burning the fields of Afghani farmers, that's a can of worms. I think it is a can of worms worth opening as denying the Taliban opium income would severely hurt their overall situation. It's hard to fight a war when you can't buy weapons. At the same time though, on the local level, no one likes the United States coming in and burning your fields. The farmers, the families of the farmers, the communities that rely on these fields will most likely be more entrenched ideologically as Taliban supporters after this.
Offering them wheat seed is all well and good, except the Taliban will most likely brutally murder any farmers that accept that offer and while I'm not farmer or drug dealer I am willing to bet you make more money per acre growing poppy plants than you do wheat. I still think it is the right thing to do, I just wonder if people have the stomach for it.
Greetings, Otto. :)
He's finally posted more than just about gamersgate. :)
The field burning idea would be a disaster.
I support Pres Obama over all in his plans to put more efforts into Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Maybe he can take this on, try to bring it to a better situation, after the Bush admin kind of left it in limbo. I just hope he's serious enough to stick it out when the going gets tough and the detractors clamor more loudly for us to leave.
lol if you burn the fields of farmers you will make them your eternal enemy. It is much cheaper to just give the keys to the Taliban and go home.
What would be the alternative to burning the fields? Buy up all the harvest?
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 12:20:45 PM
What would be the alternative to burning the fields? Buy up all the harvest?
I don't think that would encourage them to stop planting poppy.
US Rep: Hey, we need you to quit growing poppy.
Afghani farmer: Oh really? And what if I don't
US Dude: We will buy it from you!
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 12:25:17 PM
I don't think that would encourage them to stop planting poppy.
US Rep: Hey, we need you to quit growing poppy.
Afghani farmer: Oh really? And what if I don't
US Dude: We will buy it from you!
Well we could compensate them for it. But yeah I do not really see another option besides buring fields or letting them sell the poppy.
Hey, hey, BHO, how many kids did you kill today? :menace:
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 12:20:45 PM
What would be the alternative to burning the fields? Buy up all the harvest?
Heroin is a much bigger problem in Europe than it is in the US. Let them come up with a solution.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 12:27:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 12:25:17 PM
I don't think that would encourage them to stop planting poppy.
US Rep: Hey, we need you to quit growing poppy.
Afghani farmer: Oh really? And what if I don't
US Dude: We will buy it from you!
Well we could compensate them for it. But yeah I do not really see another option besides buring fields or letting them sell the poppy.
Buy the poppy. Sell what we need for medical purposes, and burn the rest?
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 12:20:45 PM
What would be the alternative to burning the fields? Buy up all the harvest?
You already do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2009, 11:10:21 AM
The field burning idea would be a disaster.
Yes.
"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."
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.
Quote from: Warspite on March 27, 2009, 12:44:26 PM
"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.
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.
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2009, 12:50:39 PM
Quote from: Warspite on March 27, 2009, 12:44:26 PM
"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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2009, 12:50:39 PM
Quote from: Warspite on March 27, 2009, 12:44:26 PM
"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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 12:20:45 PM
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':
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepeoplesvoice.org%2FTPV3%2Fmedia%2Fblogs%2Fblog%2F5%2Fkabul_3_taliban_pres_map.gif&hash=c8c9ca348178f1a7e11d7c507ca3cbd6ee9d8158)
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.
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.
I think they should plant trees and grow organic macademia, almonds, walnuts, and pistachios for the global confectionary market. like they used to.
Quote from: saskganesh on March 27, 2009, 02:14:42 PM
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."
:)
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.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 12:52:47 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 12:20:45 PM
What would be the alternative to burning the fields? Buy up all the harvest?
Legalize it.
Legalizing drugs might be a good idea - but not as a response to terrorists being the supplier.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 27, 2009, 03:05:45 PM
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.
Is there enough demand demand for morphine for the quantity in question?
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 03:12:20 PM
Legalizing drugs might be a good idea - but not as a response to terrorists being the supplier.
Well, we need to identify what the problem here is - whether we don't want Afghanis to grow poppy because we don't like drugs, or whether we don't want them to do it because it enriches the terrorists.
If it is the latter, then just buy it from them and sell, legalized, eliminating the terrorist middleman (and similarly, other criminal middlemen).
If however it is done in the name of the unreasonable "war on drugs", then don't expect to be able to come up with a sensible solution to something that is, ultimately, a nonsense. GIGO.
Quote from: Siege on March 27, 2009, 02:37:30 PM
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.
Whenever I read your posts, I need to fight down a sudden urge to start supporting anyone trying to push Israel back into the sea. People like you are the reason why this region is a fucking mess. Shut up.
Something to keep in mind is the situation in which opium cultivation accounts for something like 35% of the Afghan economy and the lion's share of its agriculture is most likely not sustainable. There is speculation that the only reason the price of the product has remained so high is the criminal elements that buy the rare goods and eventually make heroin with it have been stockpiling the opium as a hedge against price fluctuations and in order to restrict supply and keep the market price high.
Burning the fields is actually more problematic when you factor in that many of the warlords who rule Afghanistan are our allies; it isn't only the Taliban that are making billions off of the opium trade, so are some of the warlords who we consider to be our allies. If I had to guess, if opium is grown in "your" territory you are the one who buys it from the farmer and are the one who takes care of the smuggling (or you have it taken care of through some sort of intermediary criminal enterprise.) My understanding is only about 20% of the actual proceeds go to the farmers, the rest is primarily eaten up by the warlords who don't actually grow the crop but totally control the trade in their spheres of power.
The alternative to field burning would be to legalize Afghan opium for pharmaceutical use. This would instantly destroy the black market and the profits of everyone involved from the farmer up through the warlord. The assumption being the price will rapidly decrease to a more realistic level if it was a legal commodity. Even then we'd be looking at the public relations problem of being responsible for crushing the Afghan economy and destroying the profits of all of the Afghans tied up in the opium business (estimated to be 10% of their population.)
Incidentally, exactly the same problem applies to the coca leaves plantations in South America, including how keeping it illegal fills the pockets of the criminal warlords there (and pushes the locals into their open arms).
It's amazing to which lengths the West is willing to adopt an economically moronic policy that destroys local economies and makes locals our enemies just to accommodate the all-powerful tobacco and liquor industries.
You think the reason for US drug policy is because of Budweiser and Phillip Morris?
Siegey, im not sure your opinion can be counted on to take the welfare of the afghanis themselves into account. The things you said are true, but it is a disaster for the farmers/people of afghanistan, and this is not 'winning hearts and minds'.
What you are suggesting may seem more viable as an israeli who sees every muslim by default as an enemy, but that is not necissarily the case- until we start attacking the common man's livelihood.
I tend to agree with those who say the opium should be legalised.
for the record, I know one poppy farm in canada. http://www.izmirpoppy.com/
vancouver also has a number of backyards where poppy is more or less openly grown.
all for "ornamentals" of course.
Poppy must be legal somewhere. Else how do they make lemon poppy seed cake?
imports of seeds are legal, usually turkey or tasmanian sources.
tip: the seeds may or not be sterilised, so poppy from your spice rack, if fresh, may actually grow into plants.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 03:12:20 PM
Legalizing drugs might be a good idea - but not as a response to terrorists being the supplier.
What about when it's your warlord allies who are the suppliers?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2009, 12:34:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 12:20:45 PM
What would be the alternative to burning the fields? Buy up all the harvest?
Heroin is a much bigger problem in Europe than it is in the US. Let them come up with a solution.
Is it? I did know a heroine addict back in the day. He died before turning 18. OD, of course. But that was during the 90s and he was a pariah who had ran from home when he was just 13 yo.
I've met dozens of drug users since, none has used heroine. It's all about designer drugs and cocaine.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 27, 2009, 05:21:49 PM
Is it? I did know a heroine addict back in the day. He died before turning 18. OD, of course. But that was during the 90s and he was a pariah who had ran from home when he was just 13 yo.
I've met dozens of drug users, none since has used heroine. It's all about designer drugs and cocaine.
I think I read a while back that the number of heroin users in Europe is several orders of magnitude higher than in the US.
Interesting.
I guess I could see some of that happening in gypsy settlements and similar marginal areas. I know they had a big heroine problem back in the day.
Maybe it's more of a Northern Yuropean thing? Anecdotally there's (was?) shooters' parks in Switzerland and elsewhere, plus movie references from a number of countries.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 03:12:49 PM
Is there enough demand demand for morphine for the quantity in question?
Yeah. Legal opiate production earns a lot of money, but it's a very closed market. Which suits everyone in that market and our governments can justify by citing the need to avoid encouraging poppy production that could, eventually, find its way into drugs.
Legalize it.
Good to see a President finally dealing with the parties directly responsible for 9/11 and their protectors.
Only took over 7 years.
Burn it to the ground.
Good strategic move. Finally.
Fuck the farmers. They're doing an evil thing. We should burn them with their fields.