digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at nytimes.com —

Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?

nytimes.com — The Taliban are not the only ones benefiting from the opium trade. Drug-related corruption pervades the Afghan government. A former Bush administration counternarcotics official explains the war within the war.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MacBookForMe, on 07/24/2008, -0/+12It was and it still is...nothing has really changed, there
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3Ya damn right it is.
  • Hellman109, on 07/25/2008, -2/+34Actually its changed, business is now booming.

    Ironically enough if Americans stopped buying the drugs, or they were allowed to be made legally, the industry there would be destroyed and therfore allot of money into the militias/terrorists/whatever you want to call them will disappear. Then people will have to find a new way to support themselves, if the Agfani government provided something else, EG funding to grow other crops, then the insurgency is killed.

    Notice a gun isnt involved in that? Funny that hey...

    If no one is offering money but those who say they will buy what you grow (even if they make drugs, like they care anyhow), or to fight these Americans and such, what do you expect people to do?

    Same in Iraq, I believe the insurgency could have been far reduced if the Iraqi military was never disbanded. They should have used them as the labourers and re-builders of the nation. Nope, kick them out on their ass with no pay, what, someone will pay me to fight these guys who put me out on my ass? sounds like a deal to someone with no other future.

    Ill give you a big hint: America needs no 'wars' on anything. Wars = you've already lost because your looking at it all wrong. Your trying to stop something with a possibly infinate source. Drugs come from so many plants in so many areas that you cant take out all the supply, insurgents are created when no other hope is apparent to them.
    • woohhaa, on 07/25/2008, -1/+9I wish I could dig that more than once.
    • Sicarius, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5It's only "booming" because in 2000 the Taliban banned the production of opium. Mainly because hedonistic drugs didn't fit with their backward interpretation of Islam. Historically opium has always been a big export for Afghanistan and things are returning to the norm. So it is a little ironic to see hand wringing about terrorist drug profits. Those filthy hypocrites!

      On a local level who really cares about the locals growing plants? If it makes them some cash then they'll improve their lot. And that is good because Taliban-esq religious craziness tends not to go down well with the rich and educated.

      If Americans stopped using / buying drugs then they would be the first civilization in history to do so. Clearly not going to fly. So why even mention it?. Solution: end the war on drugs. Then you don't have to worry about what some Afghan peasant chooses to grow.

    • IKORKYI, on 07/25/2008, -2/+2so they should go after the kids at college campus's who are downloading illegally instead of finding and shutting down the servers

      you're proposing doing the exact same thing the MPAA is

      • Mrstupid7, on 07/25/2008, -2/+1What?
      • Gerz1219, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2I see no way a reasonable person could read hellman's post and draw that analogy.

        The main point that jumped out at me while reading the article is the fact that the Taliban is only making money from heroin because it is illegal. If we made heroin legal in the United States and European Union, then the price would decrease precipitously, thus robbing the Taliban of their only income stream. The war would be over within months.

        If you need to drag clumsy RI/MPAA analogies into this, such a drug policy would be analogous to the old media companies offering legal digital downloads at prices that college kids can afford.
      • IKORKYI, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1let me simplify

        i think attacking the source instead of the symptoms is a better way to get to your goal, especially when the source is addicting.
    • nick1971, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4I agree. If you look at the Netherlands as an experiment the following model seems to work.
      Legalize it
      Tax it
      Educate that its bad for you
      Offer free treatment.

      Ask yourself what does "drug enforcement cost". What does the "war on drugs cost"? What does it cost to incarcerate dealers? What is the cost of disease through dirty needles or overdose and drug toxicity due to unknown drug quality.

      America is a country which believes in the free market system. Prohibition did not work and fighting the supply of drugs does not either.

      The quality of drugs in the US has gone up in the last 10 years, the price has gone down and the quality has gone up.

      Why does the US stick with their antiquated drug policy? My answer would be that "just say no" fits on a bumper sticker and everything else is too complicated for the average voter to understand. I'd also say that the role of politicians is to help educate the voters and this does not seem to be in anyones agenda. Perhaps that is too much to hope.
    • wishninja, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1if they were not growing there they would be growing it somewhere else. Its crazy how the drug war is going great except this one thing. Its all just a smoke screen western Asia is now seeing poppy plantations disappearing and the drug war people cheer that they have a victory but we see it spring up elsewhere. why? supply follows demand.
    • obliviousfool, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1A lot of people believe that all that opium money gets laundered through Wall Street, and it is one of the things our economy now depends on.
  • naberator, on 07/25/2008, -2/+3And to think the middle-east used to be the wheat capital of the world a few thousand years ago.
    • nick1971, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1And to think that the USA was a country that Europe looked up to 8 years ago.
  • johndi, on 07/25/2008, -1/+17The War on Drugs is the biggest failure in American history. Thanks to it we have the highest percentage of incarcerated citizens. With less than 5% of the world's population we have almost 25% of the world's prison population. You'd think with all the people we lock up crime would go away, but it hasn't. Just how bad is this failure? We can't even keep drugs out of prison. The world would do well to ignore the American government when they speak about drugs, crime, and prison.
    • cheesehead, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5"War on Drugs is the biggest failure in American history". Depends on your perspective, the CIA, judges and lawyers, police forces, and the government which steals druggies property are all rolling in dough.
      I understand that the privatized prison system in California is one of it's biggest employers. I'm not saying this is right, in fact it's heinous. But those influential groups are not about to give up all that gravy.
    • nick1971, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I agree it is the biggest failure - although the 8 years of GWB comes a close 2nd.
      My view is leagalise
      tax
      educate against usage
      treat users.
      Look at Europe our drug policy works.
      Who gives a ***** if you have coke or crack in your pocket if its not enough to deliver to 500 then we take it and through it away.
      Problem is in the USA is that its not sellable.
      All political messages have to fit on a bumper sticker.
      Were I to try to be elected I would be described as being "soft on drugs" and the argument why I think what I think would not even be heard.
      Maybe we need to work on the electorate that they need to listen to an argument which does not fit into a 10 second CNN sound-bite
  • chillypacman, on 07/25/2008, -5/+14The taliban has never profited from the opium trade and probably still don't, neither does al-qaeda. These guys are religious fanatics, as far as they're concerned dealing drugs is worthy of the death sentenance. People who deal with drugs in Afghanistan nodoubt exist, but they are not the taliban, probably some random warlords and farmers here and there.

    When Bin Laden was running around as head honcho in afghanistan there was no opium industry, now it's thriving, Afghanistan is the largest producer of opium in the world.

    Look, Bin Laden and his cronies are many bad things, but drug dealers they aint.
    • hwy9nightkid, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3I think the higher ups preach Islam, but do you think all of the Taliban people adhere to such strict life guidelines? I don't, and they are all over the Taliban. Your logic is like thinking a Politician is always telling the truth. People will use religion to get what they can, but behind closed doors/bathroom stalls/poppy fields...its nothing like what they preach. Im suprised you hold the taliban in such high regard.
      • chillypacman, on 07/25/2008, -4/+3When the taliban was in charge of afghanistan there was no opium trade, now there is, I don'tknow, maybe it's just coincedence but it seems unlikely.
      • Mrstupid7, on 07/25/2008, -2/+1People were allowed to grow enough opium as a certain percentage of their income and the Taliban taxed the ***** out of it. There was an opium trade, but it was no where near as massive as it is now.
    • XtheXlanternX, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4I know that on NPR I have heard multiple reports on how local farmers are forced to plant opium instead of any other crop by armed militias. I agree with you that I don't think the Islam-based groups would force people to grow drugs (which are wrong to their religion I believe) but I do believe that there are people forcing them to grow drugs who are skimming some of the profits. I also would not doubt that there are some government officials involved.
    • nick1971, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Its possible to be a religious zealot and still commit crimes against what you believe.
      As example I offer up the European Inquisition and the command from the bible thou shall not kill and let thee who is without sin cast the 1st stone.
      Lots of dead, lots of tortured but still good christians.
  • dungar, on 07/25/2008, -1/+8Hamid Karzai's brother Izzatullah may be the world's biggest heroin supplier, with an annual income of about a trillion US dollars.

    http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/article_detail.php?id ...

    • sheasie, on 07/25/2008, -1/+3A trillion dollars?? How does that much Afghan Opium get to the US? Seriously. Because that is a LOT of opium to "sneak" through. How is that done? Is that stat right ??
      • Violent, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Europe and Asia are markets too - and the CIA has been a drug running operation since Vietnam and before. Read Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert, google CIA drug running, or just read http://www.csun.edu/coms/ben/news/cia/970504.hist. ... for a synopsis of CIA drug involvement. The money is used to prop up the stock market, and is therefore a national security issue. Prelude to Terror by Joseph Trento is great about the rogue elements in the CIA as well. They learned that by funding operations through front companies and narcotics they didn't need to worry so much about Congressional approval anymore.
  • Medicamusic, on 10/28/2008, -2/+1Lil Wayne wouldnt have any of this.
  • duckyinc, on 07/25/2008, -4/+2Buy Binladen Opium now! It's guaranteed awesome by one of the world's biggest religions!
  • waydee, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5Wish they'd get rid of the opium and focus on the hashish again - not enough Afghan anymore!
  • gasoline, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8http://graphics.cursor.org/esimage4.jpg
    Afghanistan opium production 1980-2004. Look at years 2001 and 2002. Pay attention to "Controlled /occupied by".
    • vmass20, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5heh.. that graph makes it seem as if they stopped producing heroin in 2001. Then we invade and get the business back on track...
  • kinneas666, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7So effectively by page three I have learned that by combined efforts of the DEA, and the State Department, the United States has
    1. Largely eradicated opium poppy growth in the northern provinces.
    2. Limited growth to southern provinces were the new opium poppy growth is so virulent that it accounts for an overall 17% increase for all of Afghanistan.
    The author then goes on to mention that his superior had predicted a "Narco-Insurgency" like this.

    NOW, what he doesn't point out is that his efforts in Afghanistan have
    1. Dramatically driven UP the price of opium poppy, by localizing overall supply.
    2. Made the Taliban pretty much the sole beneficiaries of this new opium poppy cartel, (The Taliban is rooted in southern Afghanistan, and is using this money to fund its insurgency, FTA) as almost all opium poppy production is concentrated in regions controlled by them, not to mention the amount of poppy has balooned in those regions since we started our WAR ON DRUGS in Afghanistan.

    So the author and his superior were right, the Taliban would use the narcotics to fund their insurgency. What the author also tells us, but somehow because of his typical drug warrior mentality doesn't realize himeself, is that this situation is a DIRECT result of AMERICAN DRUG POLICY at worst or made it VASTLY worse at best. The United States has vastly driven up the value of Opium Poppy, (the article mentions that farmers of southern Afghanistan are rich, and if the bottom of the barrel "peasants" are rich, you have to assume a hell of a lot of money is being made) and placed control of that Opium Poppy into the hands of our enemies...

    HOORAY FOR ANOTHER EPIC FAIL OF THE WAR ON DRUGS
    • nick1971, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1The chief benefit of the US war on drugs is the summarizing of all US drug policy into bumper stickers. What did we do in the world without "just say no" and "soft on drugs".
      Actually what we did was try and work up a practical drug policy.
      Is it ideal that 16 year old kids do ecstasy before they go clubbing. No. However if they do it I want that they do it in a group, I want that its tested for purity, I want them to be educated that they should not drink alcohol and I want them to be honest with me when I ask so that we can discuss it.
      The world is imperfect. However it is our job to work within this imperfection and not to say that all people need to leave reality and move to a higher moral plane.
      As parent you should be willing to accept that the kids say yes because of pier pressure and were you live. however I want to talk to my child about what they have taken and why. I want to have it discussed with me as easily as I talk about sex, alcohol and smoking. Talking is good and offers a parent the chance to explain why behavior should be different. What I'm not willing to do is to have my kid go behind my back because its some type of rebellion. Its not productive.
    • mvlazysusan, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1let's (boxer war) them into taking are opium like we did to china
      no. no wait Let's make (nature) illiegle
  • AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -1/+14The Taleban was eradicating Opium folks, not endorsing it.
    • Mrstupid7, on 07/25/2008, -5/+1Not in the beginning.
      • AbdullahAbuDawu, on 09/12/2008, -1/+1Even the Prophet(saw) took many many years to completely outlaw alcohol. They did it in steps and so did He(saw)
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Bush is setting that straight. Opium grows on the ground so McCain will be happy too.
  • ibookfast, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5The Anglo-Americans are the top drug dealers, recall that Blair called for opiate legalization apparently for medicinal purposes. The US gave the Taliban 42 million dollars for their successful eradication of the poppy crop in the spring of 2001, I suspect it really was designed to sweeten the deal regarding Unocal's(now defunct) gas pipeline, which eventually was built for a south american company.
  • floorman56, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Most of the Opium grown in Afghanistan ends up in Europe ( The U.S. gets theres from South America) . And because Europe has a more "enlightened attitude" to drugs I don't see where the problem is. Europe wants drugs, Afghanistan is happy to supply it.
    • nick1971, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I think its more that Europe does not ignore the problem and pursuit a fruitless policy of locking small fruit up for life for dealing but rather offers treatment and educates. If you want to start arguing which policy works I would refer you to the relative incarceration figures, deaths through aids and hepatitis and number of addicts treated.
      I'd also refer you as someone who almost certainly believes in the free market that the relative price is lower and quality is higher in the US for almost all drugs that here in Europe.
  • randumbusername, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3want to bring the value of drugs down then end the war against it. the same parts of the government that understand the supply and demand issue with oil don't understand the same holds true with drugs.

    all the war does is drive up the price and makes moving the product more profitable.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Wars, you just can beat them for fun and excitement.
  • vermax, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3"The effort became even more complicated later in 2006, when Benjamin Freakley, the two-star U.S. general who ran the eastern front, shut down all operations by the D.E.A. and Afghan counternarcotics police in Nangarhar — a key heroin-trafficking province. The general said that antidrug operations were an unnecessary obstacle to his military operations."

    in other words, the US is a narco-state
  • xchrisxsays, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1My Brother in law went to Afghanistan in 2006 and told me that there are fields of opium everywhere. However there is nothing they could do about it because if they destroy the opium they have to find another, just as profitable "crop". Good luck with that...
  • mrshare, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3If drugs were not illegal, this would not be an issue. We're supposed to be mad at dirt-poor Afghan farmers because American and European junkies are shooting heroin??

    The whole "Drug war" is a ***** joke.
  • mbondr, on 07/25/2008, -0/+3It all seems to make more sense to me when I think of it in these terms: Did the CIA ever get out of the cocaine business? Are they in the heroine business now? Is the war on drugs really just the suppression of the competition?

    It certainly makes more sense when you think about our efforts in Bolivia and Columbia.
  • h0ser, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Afghanistan could be a well off nation if marijuana and poppy plants were legal. Afghanistan used to be known worldwide for its amazing hash. Not only that but the marijuana plant can be used for 100's of other uses. The poppy plant is also very profitable when it comes to legal means. People always think about heroin, but one of the biggest pain killers used in hospitals today is made from poppy plants, Morphine. It's too bad that many of the laws put forth by man actually do more harm then good.
  • wishninja, on 07/26/2008, -0/+2End the prohibition and regulate the use of opiates.
  • elalelfh, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0Well known fact is that the multibillion dollar tax-exempt industry which is the prosperous drug industry funds terrorism.

    Since the War on Drugs hasn't exactly been a successful policy, perhaps it's time to reconsider. legalize everything, regulate everything. Treat drug addiction as a social, or health issue rather than a criminal one, and divert money form the prison-industrial complex and drug enforcement to counterterrorism and social benefit.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.