Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Failure Squared: War on Drugs Meets the War on Terror

Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, Majikthise at 8:52 AM on July 31, 2009.


Something to celebrate?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get DrugReporter in your
mailbox!

 

U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke is congratulating himself for ending the Bush administration's expensive and ineffective opium poppy eradication program. Trouble is, he's decided to replace eradication with interdiction.

He's only switching to the same failed strategy that the rest of the drug war is based on. Interdiction doesn't stop the billion dollar drug trade right here in the U.S., where the government actually controls all the territory. What makes Holbrooke think that interdiction will work in Afghanistan when the coalition doesn't even have a presence in, let alone control of, most of the territory.

Here's how Holbrooke described a successful interdiction at a press briefing yesterday:

On this trip, we saw the first indications that it might work. And those indications came from the British and American forces in Helmand, where they targeted interdiction and made interdiction their goal and they went after drug dealers. And using modern technologies, they located what they called drug bazaars, marketplaces which sold drug paraphernalia, precursor chemicals, laboratory equipment, poppy seeds and there were vast amounts of opium, nice fluffy poppy, to buy and sell, and they destroyed them. [The Cable]

He says they used "modern technology" to find drug bazaars. Does he really mean drone strikes on drug markets? If so, that's going to work until the narcos give up on their farmer's markets and go underground like normal traffickers. Of course, that will be an impetus for defense contractors and private security firms to sell the U.S. another costly round of "modern technology" to detect slightly better-hidden dope.

And how long before a drone or an satellite image analyst mistakes a real farmer's market for a drug market?

Digg!

Tagged as: drugs, afghanistan, holbrooke

Lindsay Beyerstein a New York writer blogging at Majikthise.


Inspiring, Kickass Drug Activist to Take on Chuck Schumer -- Meet Randy Credico
"My campaign slogan is going to be, 'Which candidate would you rather smoke a joint with? Credico or Schumer?’"
Post by Jan Frel. November 18, 2009.
Why Are All the L.A. Times Columnists Using Medical Marijuana?
Is the Times really this hard up for story ideas that they need multiple columnists writing about their adventures getting pot?
Post by Sara Libby. October 29, 2009.
Bong Water Counts as an Illegal Drug?
Oh vey. What was the Minnesota Supreme Court thinking?
Post by Jan Frel. October 26, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Now we're just being killers, not "huminitarian"
Posted by: joebanana on Jul 31, 2009 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When are these countries going to tell the US to get the hell out, and quit killing their people, for our warped sense of "saving the people"? Our government is a terrorist regime, they do what they want in other countries, like they own them.
They spray herbicide in Colombia on people, on food, in water wells. The CIA shoots down planes in Peru, EVEN IF THEY'RE ONLY MISSIONARY'S. They send military into Mexico,to kill whoever. They are out of control, and a danger to the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They are deliberately letting the black market flourish
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jul 31, 2009 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government is probably getting a cut of the profits of some of the suppliers of the opium and in turn lets it get out to the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Idiotology
Posted by: talkville on Jul 31, 2009 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the '70's this has been, in Madeline Albright's quintessentially condensed and precise language, a "battle of ideas" in short engaging in mortal combat with words, which as any Jesuit or Anglican Scholastic could readily tell you, are infinitely divisible as to sense, reference and authority. It sure does ensure lots of economic, political and cultural activity and the exchange of immense amounts of money and other commodities. It's great guaranteed "busy-work" and gets jobs, research, development and all kinds of "career" opportunities. that's the Idea!

Historical, material reality seems to interject itself at every turn. Perhaps we ought to attend to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War On Drugs Policy is "aid & comfort" For Our Enemies
Posted by: aahpat on Jul 31, 2009 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America can WIN the war in Afghanistan, resolve the conflict in Mexico and on our border, lower the impact of radical groups in the Middle East conflict, reduce crime in America and around the world and start to reduce the healthcare cost sinkhole and public health disaster of drug addiction. We can do all of these things and more by ending the war on drugs policy that today acts to empower, provide "aid and comfort", for each and every one of these problems.

"...an estimated 70 percent of the Taliban’s income now comes from protection money and the sale of opium." OPIUM AND AFGHANISTAN:
REASSESSING U.s. COUNTERNARCOTICS STRATEGY, John A. Glaze, Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, October 2007

Ending the war on drugs and getting addicts into clinics would deprive the Taliban of as much as 70% of their funding. How much easier would it be for America to succeed in Afghanistan if our forces were confronting a Taliban only a third of their current size?

End the war on drugs to WIN the war in Afghanistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are just some warring fools
Posted by: joebanana on Jul 31, 2009 4:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like the US just can't get into enough wars, makes one wonder, is it the whole world is f*cked up,or the USA that can't get along with anyone? Who aren't the US at war with? The war on drugs, GET THE F*CK OVER IT. My god, stupid is one thing, ignorant is another, but to be both for so long is ridiculous. I'm getting pissed that they keep wasting my tax dollars on this stupid, destructive idea. They don't have the power to make these retarded "laws" anyway, I have the right to pursue happiness, they don't have the right to prevent it. Or worse, to kill people, to prevent it. It's a medical problem, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but it takes a criminal to deprive someone of their liberty based on personal opinion. And the only relationship drugs have to crime are manifested in the law, not reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

casual observer
Posted by: sopomike on Jul 31, 2009 6:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
its about time drug warriors .picked a fight with real warriors instead of a bunch of pot smokin kids .odds are were going to have a whole bunch of so called heros to bury .oh well live by the sword die by the sword.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because war is the most profitable enterprise there is or ever was
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Aug 3, 2009 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should they worry - the "elites" in charge, I mean? Remember that Henry Kissinger said that the American military are “...dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for enforcing foreign policy”, Henry Kissinger. Just expendable animals. The CIA, and so parts of the Pentagon (black projects) through them, get much of their funding through opium and cocaine sales, then profit again for busting dealers and even petty users through investments in private prisons - oh there's no end to it. Unless you happen to be one of those "dumb, stupid brute" who gets crippled or killed. No downside to them.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How The War On Drugs Takes Horticultural Hostages
Posted by: fredibach on Aug 27, 2009 12:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a safe bet that diabetics outnumber crackheads in the U.S. by a big fat margin, but the corn cartel's got carte blanche to fill us (and our gas tanks) with their Beltway-blessed by-products investment property. So U.S. drug policies focus more on coke addicts than Coke addicts, despite the fact that soda's the more abused substance.

We've got a knack for waging the wrong wars, lately, and we can't even keep our conflicts from conflicting. Just look at how the War on Terror has undermined the War on Drugs; last year, according to the Globe and Mail, Afghanistan's poppy crops hit a historic high, if you will insurance, providing more than 92 percent of the world's opium and heroin. U.S. officials estimate that the Taliban derives anywhere from 20 to 40 percent of its income from opiate exports.

Poppy production skyrocketed after we invaded Afghanistan in 2001; at a time when shortages of rice and wheat are shaking things up all over the world, the Globe and Mail reports that this year's poppy crop "will produce 40 per cent more than the world demand -- which means that huge quantities will be stockpiled somewhere."

Afghanistan's farmers would actually prefer to grow onions than opiates, but the warlords and the Taliban have pretty much hijacked their fields credit report, forcing them to grow poppies. Talk about a Catch 22--we can't root out the poppies till we uproot the warlords, whose power is fueled by those fields of fuzzy pods.

And our proposed solution to this problem is to carpet-bomb Afghanistan with an herbicide called glyphosate, aka Roundup, a Monsanto-manufactured weed killer. Ah, the military-industrial complex-is there any world crisis that Monsanto can't solve?

John McCain's all in favor of using Roundup to rein in the poppy posse, but the locals look darkly on the prospect of being under a cloud of chemicals. American officials insist that glyphosate is "one of the world's safest herbicides," according to the New York Times, which cites a State Department fact sheet claiming that glyphosate is "less toxic than common salt, aspirin, caffeine, nicotine and even vitamin A."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]